Review of Accepted Action language.

[MikeB]

Are any changes needed to the current Accepted Action language? See discussion of some of the issues at the following thread:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=708.msg6171#msg6171

[chet]

Before I an make an informed decision about whether changes are needed or not, I would like to know more about the history of why this rule was adopted.  I know that the WSOP had this or a similar rule in place for a year or two prior to being adopted by the TDA.  My question has to do with why?  What are some of the reasons presented at the last Summit.  It would be nice if someone could provide a brief statement of the Pros and Cons as presented last year. 

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend in 2011.  If someone can point me to the approximate time this discussion occurred, I can replay the recording and that might prove helpful as well.

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet,

Try picking up the discussion at 4 hours and 25 minutes...*4 hours and 29 minutes takes you right there. Day 1


          Day 1                 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_-Km9TnMLk

           
            Day 2     (about 45 minutes in)            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC56txeJd5M

[chet]

Nick:  Thanks very much!!  It was very interesting.  I see there was a lot of discussion both pro and con, with a lot of time spent on whether the "loss" amount could be different than the "win" amount.  (For those members who have not seen or heard this discussion, it talks about player A who goes "all-in" and says he has 80K in chips (the dealer agrees).  The player B (who has A covered) says I call 80K.  Player A wins the hand and when they do a full count actually has 160K.  So is Player B liable for 80K or 160K?  What happens if Player B wins the hand, does A have to pay 80K or does he lose the full amount of the all-in and is busted.

However, all the discussion still does not explain to me why this rule was adopted in the first place by the WSOP.  There must have been a set of conditions that needed resolution but I have not seen or heard any discussion on that subject.  Until someone can explain to me why this rule exists, I am having a hard time deciding whether to support or oppose.

One other item, at one point someone brought up the WPT version of this rule.  I have been looking all over for it but I cannot find any reference,  do you have something?

Thanks Again,

Chet

[MikeB]

However, all the discussion still does not explain to me why this rule was adopted in the first place by the WSOP.  There must have been a set of conditions that needed resolution....

Chet, consider two conditions:
1: First condition is that everytime a bet is made by silent chip-push, or by "all-in" declaration, all of the chips bet are at risk. Whoever calls will win all of them if they have the best hand, and will pay them all off if they don't have the best hand.

2: Second condition is that everytime such a bet is made we try and determine to what extent the caller made an effort to determine the exact amount. The ideal situation is that the count was exact, but if it was off, then we have to decide how good the caller's effort was, etc. etc. and everytime we will adjust the amount of the bet based on our assessment of the caller's efforts.

Which of these two situations seems more manageable? The majority of miscounts are for "relatively modest" amounts... less than 10% and often by a percent or two. How is this best handled? By procedure 1 or procedure 2? Procedure 1 (the current AA language) says that the chips "bet themselves" so to speak. The bet is the amount of chips pushed (or all-in), the precise count we will try to get right, but the caller, if successful, will win all of them. Similarly, if the caller loses, he will pay them all off.

So, couple of examples:
A: Caller pushes all-in, count is requested "about 92K". Actual count is 98k, caller wins and caller wins the entire 98... caller loses, caller pays off 98k.
B: Caller pushes all-in, count is requested "about 92K". Caller asks the dealer to check... dealer counts "93.5K". Actual count is 98k, caller wins and caller wins the entire 98k... loses and pays off 98k.
This is the way the majority of these miscounts go. Do we want to parse everyone of these, seeing to what extent the caller tried to get the count exactly, reviewing what the bettor said, what the caller asked, what the dealer stated, how definitive was the language ("about" vs. "exactly"), etc... or do we want a blanket rule that covers them all: the caller can win all the chips, he will also have to cover all the chips if he loses. Accepted action language takes care of it all.

Now, this leaves the possible exception where there is a significant discrepancy to the point the TD determines "fairness and best interest of the game" may be impacted. That's what the Rule 1 language at the end of the rule is there for. Great summary of all of this, listen to Dave Lamb and related conversation starting around 1:17 of the Day 2 link Nick provided.... this is ultimately what the association agreed to by super majority... note at 1:20 when Linda Johnson asks for a vote, only one of the over 100 attendees dissented.  For me, Dave's summation is key, it is the best summary of the intent / purpose / application / and rare exceptions to the rule.

[chet]

Mike: Thanks and Thanks again to Nick for the links.

After listening to the discussion and Dave Lamb's summary I can support the concept of this rule.  That said, I think the third sentence, which starts, "If a caller requests a count...is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount.", can be clarified and shortened to read, "If a caller requests a count, receives incorrect information (from either a player or the dealer) and calls the incorrect bet or all-in, the caller is assumed to accept, and is responsible for, the correct bet or all-in amount."

The 1st, 2nd and 4th sentences are OK as is.

My cents worth on this subject.

Chet

[Nick C]

Mike,
At 47 minutes 16 seconds of day 2, I spoke out about Accepted Action. When I completed what I had to say, Linda Johnson agreed with me. The rule was never changed from it's original unpopular form, as promised. I was the one person that voted against the proposal of adding Rule #1 in extreme circumstances, and if the vote were taken today I would still vote against it.

There were too many discussions going in too many directions and it was obvious that a select few decided on passing this most controversial rule.

The fact that Rule #1 was necessary to appease those that oppose Accepted Action is proof that the rule needs work. Rule #1 is automatically understood, and applied in any situation where fairness takes priority over technical rules.

The biggest issue, or problem was directed at the calling player that requests a count and is given the wrong information. These players need more protection than the current rule offers. If a calling player "insta calls" he deserves no protection and must be subjected to call whatever the actual bet amounts to. However, we are not speaking about these players. All arguments against the current rule were based on incorrect, unclear information given to the caller, either by the bettor or the dealer. Is this really in the best interest of the game?  Of course it isn't.

[MikeB]

There were too many discussions going in too many directions and it was obvious that a select few decided on passing this most controversial rule.

Who are these "select few"? There was only one dissenter to the final vote, the discussion on this topic ran longer than any other topic at the Summit.. eventually a vote had to be taken... this isn't a shy group of people, if there remained a reservoir of TDs who felt "railroaded" into this language, do you think for a second they wouldn't have spoke up and/or refused to vote for the compromise language? How many proposed rules died b/c a super-majority couldn't be obtained? Quite a few...

The fact that Rule #1 was necessary to appease those that oppose Accepted Action is proof that the rule needs work. Rule #1 is automatically understood, and applied in any situation where fairness takes priority over technical rules.

Actually there are specific reasons why Rule 1 was re-stated in this rule. At least two are mentioned on the tapes: a) to meet the needs of venues which want to have their own clarifying language, the rule 1 inclusion is the tie-in to that language; b) to clarify to the player who protests a reduction in the bet amount that indeed Rule 1 applies unmistakably... and of course probably the biggest reason c) to satisfy an overwhelming super-majority of all camps on the issue.

The biggest issue, or problem was directed at the calling player that requests a count and is given the wrong information. These players need more protection than the current rule offers.

It would be helpful for you to provide a specific example of a real or hypothetical case where you don't feel the rule as written has sufficient player protection.

At the moment there are at least two answers to this concern: a) Rule 1 provides the TD full latitude to implement any decision in the interest of "fairness and best interest of the game", and b) nothing in this rule precludes a specific house from having their own detailed clarifying language as at least one associate casino presented at the Summit... of course the use of their clarifying language will be based on Rule 1, so we're back to Rule 1 which is expressly confirmed in the rule.

Again I would cite Dave's summation of the rule just before the vote, something to the effect that... "... so, accepted action will be the general rule with language allowing for exceptions in extraordinary situations". IMO that pretty much sums up the functional use of the rule.

Nick, question... you say the rule should apply (and there's 100% agreement on this) in the case of "insta-calls"... what about those two examples I provided in my last post, would you allow the caller to win the entire amount of chips bet (and also be at risk of losing the entire amount), or parse both of those to a lesser amount despite the smallish discrepancies? Or would you have one amount if he wins and a different amount if he loses? Remember most situations with this rule involve relatively small disputed amounts...

It's great that everyone is sounding off on this, all of these opinions will find their way into the backgrounder for future review of the rule. BTW: Has anyone had an actual problem with this rule that they've not been able to arrive at an equitable ruling for a given situation?

[Nick C]

Mike,

Let me first say that I feel the rule is not needed. You ask if there have been any problems with the existing rule but, no one can tell us why it was introduced.

I'll reply to your first example:  A: Caller pushes all-in, count is requested "about 92K". Actual count is 98k, caller wins and caller wins the entire 98... caller loses, caller pays off 98k. My answer: The requested count should be accurate. However, your example features an inaccurate amount, in the event the bettor who declared all-in wins the caller should only be liable for the stated amount. If the caller wins, the bettor must either; a.)  lose the stated amount to the caller, with the extra chips removed from play, or b.) If the calling player has the correct amount covered, it goes to the caller because an all-in player that loses can not play another hand with those chips.

Mike, I guess if dealers were more dependable, we wouldn't be having this discussion. My feelings are based on the fact that if a bet is made, and there is a calling player, at some point the amount must be counted, correct? So why not get a handle on the accurate amount before the problem is created?

I'm not sure what I'm about to say will directly answer your questions but I will tell you this; If I am ever in a position to make a rule on an obvious misunderstanding as explained above, if the calling player asked for a count and was given the wrong information, he will only be liable for the least damaging amount. I see nothing wrong with asking the dealer, or the betting player what he bet. If the bettor refuses, then more time might be required to break down the stacks and get as close an estimate as possible.

The only time I would ever enforce the current rule (without Rule #1), is if the caller automatically calls without requesting the amount bet.

I don't know what else to say except. If a player goes all-in, by either pushing all of his chips forward, or saying all-in before any amount is spoken, he is all-in! The only way the all-in can play another hand with any of those chips (from his all-in bet) is if the calling player calls all-in with less, or the all-in bettor wins the pot.

There is much more from the summit on this subject than we mentioned on these posts.

If the bettor says the amount before his all-in declaration, e.g.,"100 all-in" and it is discovered that he has 200, his bet is 100.

Here's another link.........http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=610.15     This link suggests changes from most of the current active "posters" on this Forum.

[K-Lo]

Here are my cents:

1: First condition is that everytime a bet is made by silent chip-push, or by "all-in" declaration, all of the chips bet are at risk. Whoever calls will win all of them if they have the best hand, and will pay them all off if they don't have the best hand.
2: Second condition is that everytime such a bet is made we try and determine to what extent the caller made an effort to determine the exact amount. The ideal situation is that the count was exact, but if it was off, then we have to decide how good the caller's effort was, etc. etc. and everytime we will adjust the amount of the bet based on our assessment of the caller's efforts.
Which of these two situations seems more manageable?

Can we have a third condition?  When a bet is made, we simply determine if the caller asked the dealer for an exact count.  If an exact count was given and neither the caller nor the bettor objected to the count, the count given would then be considered the amount of the wager.  I think that this is also easily manageable. 

Whenever the amount is slightly off, the dealer's count is deemed the new bet/call amount.  If the dealer has not given an exact count, fine, revert back to the first option (the current AA rule). 

I can understand the principle of the "chips speak" approach, so to speak, but I think it is too extreme.  There is something about not being able to rely on the honest count of a dealer -- to which both parties have a chance to correct but did not -- which reeks of unfairness.  For me, it fails the smell test.

Actually there are specific reasons why Rule 1 was re-stated in this rule. At least two are mentioned on the tapes: a) to meet the needs of venues which want to have their own clarifying language, the rule 1 inclusion is the tie-in to that language; b) to clarify to the player who protests a reduction in the bet amount that indeed Rule 1 applies unmistakably... and of course probably the biggest reason c) to satisfy an overwhelming super-majority of all camps on the issue.

I can appreciate how the Rule 1 confirmatory language was included to accommodate the various venues.  However, if there really was a wide range of opinions on how this AA rule would ultimately be enforced, then simply referring to Rule 1 to try to achieve consensus is, in my view, counterproductive.   It ignores the primary principle and goal (that was also raised at the very beginning of the meeting): to try to increase consistency in rulings everywhere that the game is played.  Unfortunately, the principles of 'maintaining flexibility' and 'increasing consistency' do not go hand-in-hand. 

I think it is important to consider that readers of any new rule (especially new TDs and players who do not have the benefit of this background) are more inclined to interpret the rule strictly literally, saving "Rule 1" decisions for obscure and blatantly "out-of-the-box" situations.  Therefore, I would much prefer aiming to get a rule, as written, as "enforceable" as possible without having to resort to additional house rules; it is important that the "default" rule be as correct and as fair as possible.  A venue is always free to set house rules that override TDA rules; at least if they tell players explicitly that they are not following TDA in terms of a particular rule, that is more transparent than trying to justify certain decisions that are bound to be inconsistent with rulings made by other TDs elsewhere under the guise of Rule 1.

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

Your "cents" makes more sense than anything I've read on this subject [Accepted Action].

Following the rule, to the strict letter of the law (without Rule #1) it does reek! Using Rule #1 reduces Accepted Action to whatever the floor decides.

Ken, your words;
"There is something about not being able to rely on the honest count of a dealer -- to which both parties have a chance to correct but did not -- which reeks of unfairness.  For me, it fails the smell test."

Confirm the wagered amount, when requested, through the dealer's count, or clear breakdown of chip-stacks.

Thanks Ken, well written, as always.

[Spence]

I've been pretty vocal on this subject lately too. For me it really boils down to the dealer. The dealer is supposed to be impartial and let's assume that they all are. Shouldn't we then be able to trust in the count? I will also admit that in my dealing days I have incorrectly counted a stack but that should be the time for either party (Bettor or Caller) to speak up about an incorrect count. The AA rule without the clause of being able to trust the dealers count is a bad rule. That's where your rule 1 needs enforcement, not when the players didn't clarify with each other. Why should they? They are competing and want to beat the crap out of each other. It's when they ask the impartial mediator of the game to get an accurate count and it is miscounted. Under those circumstances the TD could rule that the dealers count was the "Gross misunderstanding" and provide either some relief to the caller or punishment depending on circumstance.

[JasperToo]

I am very much with K-Lo and Spence on this.  I think we should be able to rely on the count of the dealer - not because they are the dealer but because they can physically handle the chips to present the chips in a countable fashion WHILE they count them.  Each competitor has the opportunity to watch and say, no, that count is wrong. 

So it should be fairly easy to administrate an insta call by saying, you are responsible.  It should be easy to administrate a "miscount" by the dealer if no player spoke up and use that count as the new bet.  And that new bet is all that is won or lost.  You wouldn't even have to have the Rule 1 clause in that case since there would truly only be two cases to adjudicate: Did the player ask for a count, if so that will be the bet.  Did he NOT ask for a count, if not, the chips speak.

my 2 cents.....err, can I have a count please!?

[MikeB]

Here are my cents:

1: First condition is that everytime a bet is made by silent chip-push, or by "all-in" declaration, all of the chips bet are at risk. Whoever calls will win all of them if they have the best hand, and will pay them all off if they don't have the best hand.
2: Second condition is that everytime such a bet is made we try and determine to what extent the caller made an effort to determine the exact amount. The ideal situation is that the count was exact, but if it was off, then we have to decide how good the caller's effort was, etc. etc. and everytime we will adjust the amount of the bet based on our assessment of the caller's efforts.
Which of these two situations seems more manageable?

Can we have a third condition?  When a bet is made, we simply determine if the caller asked the dealer for an exact count.  If an exact count was given and neither the caller nor the bettor objected to the count, the count given would then be considered the amount of the wager.  I think that this is also easily manageable.  

Whenever the amount is slightly off, the dealer's count is deemed the new bet/call amount.  If the dealer has not given an exact count, fine, revert back to the first option (the current AA rule).  

I can understand the principle of the "chips speak" approach, so to speak, but I think it is too extreme.  There is something about not being able to rely on the honest count of a dealer -- to which both parties have a chance to correct but did not -- which reeks of unfairness.  For me, it fails the smell test.

While in theory this sounds good, I can think of a dozen problems with it in practice. Probably my favorite one is the multi-way problem. Example with 4 players, #1 is the short stack... I had a situation like this recently with 3 players, I'll add a 4th to illustrate the extent of the problem:

Player 1: declares all-in then pushes out entire stack (actual count 98k)
Player 2: "I call"
Player 3: "How much is there?"  Dealer (breaks stacks down): "looks like 93.5 sir"   Player 3: "I call"
Player 4: "How much did you say exactly?" Dealer: "oops, Imissed a chip, it's 96k" Player 4: "I call".

Now, if 1 wins, he collects 98 from 2, 93.5 from 3 and 96 from 4, yes? If 2 wins he gets 98 from 1, 93.5 from 3, and 96 from 4. If 3 wins he gets 93.5 from 1, 2 and 4.  4.5k from 1 is removed from the table, 4.5 is returned to 2 and 2.5 is returned to 4. If 4 wins he gets 96 from 1 and 2 and 93.5 from 3. 2k from 1 is removed from the table, 2k is returned to 2.

I'm not saying this wouldn't work, but it obviously has it's own set of issues...

Under current language everyone pays 98K, and everyone can win 98K from each player b/c they have all accepted the action. I don't think anyone would consider any of these amounts to be so egregious as to require a Rule 1 remedy, the players have all accepted the action and we move on. There are at least 9other serious issues that need to be considered when switching from accepted action of the chips pushed vs. the amount declared by the dealer...  the multi-way problem is an interesting one to start with.

[K-Lo]

Hi Mike:  I love the multi-way example, thanks for sharing it!

I do admit that your example does raise some practical issues with enforcement, that is, if you make the decision to enforce a different count for everyone.  (And I can totally see Nick flipping out here regarding the incompetency of the dealer -  )

I'll have to think about it some more because the situation you've set up is a doozy.  My initial instinct though is this - in at least two cases, a reliance is made on the dealer's count.  Is that fact really entitled to no weight at all?  Is the balance between the potential "unfairness" that may arise and the convenience of applying the AA rule really justifiable?

If I may, let me put my own twist on the same example.  Let's put Player 1 in seat 2, and Players 2-4 in seats 8, 9 and 10, for example.  Player 1 presumably knows how many chips he has, because he is the one that was holding them and then put them out in front (or at the very least, he is closest to his own stack as in the best position to handle his chips and count them).  Say he knows, or ought to know, how many chips he has (98k).  So when the dealer gives the incorrect count to player 3, player 1 says nothing, and same when the dealer gives the incorrect count to player 4.  But meanwhile, the other players are trying to eyeball the chips from way across the table to try to visually confirm that the count by the dealer was correct.  In most cases, I think that it is natural for players to rely on the dealer's count here; but vis-a-vis Player 1 and any other player, there is an information imbalance.  If one of the players were to ask the TD "can you please push the chips to me so that I can count them myself since I will be on the hook for a wrong count" or at least "can I get out of my seat and go over to count player 1's stack", are we obliged to let them do this now?  It's not like the pot where dealers are simply not permitted to count it at all.

Your multi-way situation though definitely gives me food for thought, but if the issue is only the practical matter of working out who is on the hook for what, I may have considered the problem in a slightly different way.  In this case, an "exact" amount has been given by the dealer, AND it was relied upon by a player who called, AND all players including Player 1 had a reasonable time to object but did not.  You could apply the proposed amended rule so that the initial wager is now deemed to be a 93.5K stack, period, since it satisfies all of the criteria of the "dealer count exception".  Basically, it becomes the "opposite" of the current AA -- in current AA, everyone pays 98K; with a dealer count exception, every potential caller pays the lowest dealer-confirmed amount (93.5K) that has been relied upon.  You could argue that everyone "accepted" THAT action (the 93.5 count), and you do not have the problems associated with the different splits in the example of the previous post (it is equally "convenient" to apply, I think).

Essentially, current AA places the whole burden of getting the count right on the caller.  The amended rule would modify this so that AA places the initial burden on the caller, but the caller can satisfy this burden by asking the dealer for an exact count, which then flips the burden back onto the initial bettor (who I think is in the best position out of everyone at the table to see the chips, handle the chips, and discover a discrepancy) to advise if the dealer's count is wrong. The burden of getting the count right is thus shared, as I think it should if the dealer is permitted to get involved.

FWIW:  The European Poker Tour Rules has a somewhat similar provision (although I would not treat dealer counts the same as player counts)... I'm not sure offhand where they got these provisions from if they borrowed them from somewhere, but it's something to consider:

41. Accepted Action - If a player requests a count but receives incorrect information from the Dealer or another player at the table...
The amount of chips is smaller than the stated and accepted wager (i.e. Dealer/Player says 80,000 and the all in is 50,000) the calling player shall only be required to pay the 50,000 in physical chip value.
The amount of chips is larger than the stated and accepted wager (i.e. Dealer/Player says 100,000 and the all in is 150,000) the calling player shall only be required to pay the 100,000 as the agreed upon wager.
[...]

Anyhow, if you really think that there would be a lot of resistance to this type of change, perhaps a compromise might be a good second choice, with some modified wording to the current AA rule along the lines of: "...Rule 1 may apply in certain situations at tournament director's discretion. In particular, where a player has relied upon a count, given by the dealer, that is substantially different from the actual amount of the bet, the player may be entitled to relief from the TD".  

Good discussion.