How would you rule?: Accepted Action issue...

[EbroTim]

The blinds are 3,000/12,000/24,000.  Player A bets 80,000, and Player B pushes all his chips forward.

Player A:  What's the total amount?

Dealer:  339,000.

Player A:  Can you pull in the 80,000 please?

Dealer complies.

Player A:  How much more is it to call?

Dealer:  259,000.

Player A:  Okay, I call.

Dealer deals the turn and river cards.  Player B has the best hand.  The dealer now realizes that Player B actually has 400,000 more -- not 259,000 more as she had stated earlier.  When the dealer asks for the remaining amount, Player A refuses, saying that he should only be responsible for the amount stated by the dealer earlier.  Player A also says that giving up the remaining amount would leave him with nearly no chips.

You, the tournament director, are called over.  How do you rule?

[ew2484]

Rule 41 states that in the event of a dealer miscount, the player is responsible for the entire correct amount. However, the rule ends with "Rule #1 may be applied at TD's discretion." The way I interpret that is that unless it is a gross indiscretion on the dealers part, they are responsible for the call. I would definately classify this as an EXTREME miscount. Coupled with the fact that PLayer B never tried to correct the dealers obvious miscount, I would rule that Player A is responsible for only the 259.

There is an alternate arguement however. It could be stated that since it is such a huge difference, that player A should have easily been able to eyeball the stack and know it was not only 259,000. And as such, should be forced to pay it off. The reason being, lets say he saw that it was way over 259. In theory he could keep his mouth closed, scoop the entire pot if he wins, and if he loses, argue that he should only pay the 259, essentially giving himself a 141,000 freeroll. An interesting spot to say the least. On balance however, im inclined to only pay off the 259.

[EbroTim]

Very nice response, ew2484.  You struck the heart of the matter that I'd like to discuss, which is:  for what reasons should it be valid to apply rule #1?  (Maybe some guidance on this could be created at next year's TDA summit.)

First, let's review the rule.  Here it is verbatim.

41:   Accepted Action
Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent's bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by the dealer or players. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or players, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount. As with all tournament situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD's discretion.

Secondly, for our purposes, let's define applying rule #1 as making the caller be responsible for only the dealer's stated amount (rather than for the full all-in amount).

Next, let's break down each reason.  I'll list my thoughts for and against it being a valid reason to apply rule #1.

Reason 1:  Extreme miscount.

This should be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because players rely on dealers to give a fairly accurate count, and players will sometimes decide whether or not to call based on the dealer's count.  And when the dealer errs so egregiously, the remedy must be to make the player responsible for only the amount stated by the dealer.

This should not be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because poker is a visual game, and "poker is a game of alert, continuous observation."  And had the player been alertly observing, he would have seen for himself that the count was significantly off.

This should not be a valid reason to apply rule #1 also because rule 41 itself explicitly states, "It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent's bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by the dealer or players. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or players, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount."

This also should not be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because it eliminates the possibility of the caller angleshooting a freeroll, as ew2484 described.

Reason 2:  The all-in player did not correct the dealer's miscount.

This should be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because players have a duty speak up if they see the dealer about to commit an error.

This should not be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because the bettor himself might not know how many chips he has, and per rule 41, the onus falls on the caller to know, not the bettor.

Reason 3:  Enforcing the rule would result in the caller being eliminated from the tournament, or close to it.

This should be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because eliminating the player from the tournament is too severe a consequence for this scenario.

This should not be a valid reason to apply rule #1 because the consequence of the ruling should have no bearing on whether or not to apply rule #1.  Instead, the decision should be made solely on the validity of the reasons.

What do you think?  Are any of the above reasons valid?  If so, which ones?  Please take the poll.

[K-Lo]

Hi ET:

Nice way to break it down. 

Personally, I would like to see the rule changed to exempt a miscount made by the dealer, as it is natural for players to trust the dealer to count the pot correctly.  I offered some suggested wording and reasons in a previous post:  http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=610.0

As the Accepted Action rule stands now, it is unlikely that I would invoke Rule #1 unless it was impossible for B to visually verify the amount of the wager, despite taking all reasonable steps (including asking the dealer to stack the chips in an easily countable fashion) to visually verify the wager.  For better or for worse, it is apparent to me that the current rule places the entire burden of getting the count right solely on the caller, and therefore, as long as it is possible for the potential caller to verify the count, he's on the hook regardless.

K

[Nick C]

Nice breakdown from everyone. As K-Lo has stated, I've been against TDA #41 since it was added last year. Asking the amount of an unclear bet is common. Confirming the amount by asking the dealer or the bettor or both should protect a player considering calling the bet. I see no reason for deception from any player making a bet. Make your intentions clear is stated in multiple TDA rules. What's it gonna be? If you abide by the strict TDA rules, IMO, you're making the wrong call. In fact, I've seen very little support for Accepted Action.

[diz475]

Something else that can go along with this is a situation were high value chips are hidden behind or under other chips
I've always know that these chips do not have to be paid off; it seems that rule 41 goes against that.

And I agree if I am a player and I ask the dealer for a count I should be assured that it is correct and not less then half

[EbroTim]

Everyone please vote.  I'd like to get a large sample size as I can.  Thank you.

[Nick C]

Embro,

I don't know how to answer your question. Any of the three example's could allow for rule # 1 to be used. I'm against Accepted Action so I guess #'s 1,2 and 3 would be good enough to pay only the 259,000.

[JasperToo]

Nice break down Ebro..

I think #41's intention is to put the responsibility of paying attention on the caller.  On the face of it, that's fine.  However, most all of us agree that we should, within reason, rely on the dealer for a correct count.  The rule clearly takes that away from us. Or does it?  I think we should be able to rely on the dealer to physical handle the chips and count them out and set them up in a countable fashion so that any player at the table can see what the count is.  Surely that would show up any discrepancy of almost a third of a players stack, yes?

So, in this scenario, as TD, if I came to the table I would ask the players if the dealer broke down the stacks or if she simply looked at the stack and gave a number.  If the caller did not ask for the stacks to be broken down then it is all on him.. too bad so sad.  If the stacks were broken down and there was that big of a mistake (hidden chips, dirty stacks, whatever) then I would invoke rule #1 and only make him pay the 259. 

I think I am still stuck with picking some random percentage of the stack that a caller would still be responsible for and I really don't know how to come up with it. But the bottom line is if all reasonable effort was made by the caller and the dealer to get the count right then that is the number of chips the caller should be responsible for.

I think there is still the smallest potential for the caller to angle shoot if he sees some big chip in a dirty stack, but the bettor now has the opportunity to see the same dirty stack and correct the amount of the wager if the dealer is breaking down the stacks.

So I guess my answer is Reason #1 only, Extreme miscount (assuming dealer and caller performed the task)..

[Nick C]

Ebro,

There was a question directed at me that has since been erased. I would like to answer as best I can. Your question was: Is there ever a time when I would use TDA rule #41 or would I always execute my right to evoke Rule #1? My short answer is; yes, I would use TDA rule #41, but not when the calling player was given the wrong information after asking the dealer how much the bet was.

I did not join the TDA with the intent of supporting any rule that I don't agree with. I was hoping that the experience, and expertise that I've acquired through my life might add some suggestions that would make the rules better, and easier to understand, and enforce.

I will always voice my opinion, especially when I don't agree with a rule. Right now, TDA rule #41 Accepted Action is at the top of my list of those I do not agree with. The rule was not on the books when I became a member of the TDA. I guarantee that since it's introduction, this rule has caused more controversy than any other rule in the history of the TDA. I said it before, and I'll say it again; I favor it's elimination, or a change that would offer more protection for any calling player that requests confirmation of a correct amount of a bet. The current rule, puts all responsibility on the calling player. This does not comply with other TDA rules that state; players must make their intentions clear.

One more point of interest. TDA Rule #41 Accepted Action is the only TDA rule that reminds us; As with all tournament situations, Rule #1 may apply at TD's discretion.

[K-Lo]

I'm not sure how accurate the polling results are going to be... I could be wrong, but from the comments I've read, it does not seem to be absolutely clear whether people are voting for how they would like to rule, and how they would feel obliged to rule applying the Accepted Action rule as it currently stands.

[Nick C]

Embro,

I think your poll is a little confusing. It is difficult for me to understand. Perhaps you can rewrite it so we can find out who is in favor of Accepted Action, and who opposes it.

[MikeB]

There's some very important history behind the debate on Accepted Action in 2011. I find the poll and comments in this thread very similar to the sentiment on both sides of this issue at the Summit. As this poll shows, there is a camp that is liberal by design on AA whereas there is a camp that leans towards stringent enforcement with the occasional exception based on Rule 1.

These two camps were well represented and vocal at the '11 Summit. By the second day of the meeting it was clear that a compromise would need to occur if any language was going to be adopted. The TDs at one very prominent casino brought a copy of exception language they have on hand for AA rulings in their popular daily and weekly tournament series (one of the largest in the country). The language basically read that if the caller had made significant reasonable effort in the TD's discretion to obtain an accurate count of the bettor's stack, that the venue may adjust the amount of the required call towards the favor of the caller. Note in this case the Member Associate not only invoked Rule 1 as a matter of course in such cases, they also had precise language written up specifically for AA disputes. Several other Members said they felt a strict AA rule might cause them problems with their state gaming authority and for that reason in addition to fairness they needed wide latitude for rulings related to the effort of the caller to determine the full amount bet.

When the floor debated proposed language that would satisfy both camps, the strict interpreter camp balked at what seemed to them to be a watered-down rule that might create more confusion than it solved; they were not going to support language that did not have AA in the centerpiece and in their view might set every ruling up for a challenge. The stalemate was broken when it was proposed to take the strict AA language and merely spell out in an innocuous / lightly visible tag line that Rule 1 may be invoked in certain situations. This was what was needed to satisfy the liberal interpreter camp that they would have the latitude to link the call to the effort, and even have their house remedy printed as an adjunct to the basic TDA rule, to clarify the bases on which they might invoke Rule 1. The strict interpreters didn't necessarily like the additive language; some thought it would embolden a player to insist on (or worse expect) a Rule 1 treatment. Others thought the language was irrelevant because "rule 1 always applies anyway".  The supporters of the liberal camp felt that while it's technically true that Rule 1 always applies, adapting only strict language would make the beneficiary of that strict language resistant to any such ruling that might be invoked in favor of their opponent. This problem is addressed, said the compromise camp, by including the language referencing Rule 1 b/c now the "liberal" TD who adjusts a call based on caller effort can specifically point to the rule and say: "there's my authority to make an adjustment, (and in some cases to have separate house rule language) right there as a clarification in the rule itself".

One trend that may be at play is that venues that have a large percentage of the same clientele week by week may tend to be more customer-retention focused, and tend to be in the liberal camp. Venues that are less frequent, larger attendance, and larger prize money may tend to be more strict, because tight management of variation is a virtue in such events.

And as I read the comments in this thread, it's very representative of both camps on this issue, and the spectrum in between them.  

[Nick C]

Mike,

I was at the Summit. The Venetian was the Casino that had the best rule for accepted action. Shortly after it was read out loud the request to hear it again was never answered. The complete Summit can still be seen on youtube. I have addressed this on numerous occasions. My main question has always been; why was this rule needed? and who can take credit for it's introduction?

For those that wonder why I would have an interest in joining the TDA, if I am against such a rule.  Consider that when I joined, Accepted Action was not a rule. I traveled over 4,000 miles last year to attend the Summit. I voiced my opinion on many of the rules that were discussed and I will continue to comment, good and bad, as long as I'm able.

Accepted Action (as written) will do little to attract new poker rooms to accept the TDA Rules as their own. That's how I see it.

[MikeB]

In full disclosure, the Venetian team along with a super-majority of both the liberal and strict camps voted to accept the compromise language in the current rules. This rule is another example of how the TDA is a large tent organization.... this thread reflects that range of opinion.