Player was not aware of raise amount. How should TD Rule?

[Tristan]

I understand that the player might have been thrown off by the dealer's statement, but I would like to know whether the all-in chips were pushed forward by seat 10, and whether the dealer announced all-in.  In my view, if the bet was in clear view, it is the player's fault for not counting it, and being "distracted".  On the other hand, if seat 10 whispered all-in to the dealer and did not push his chips forward, I may give him the option to top-up the call or fold because in fairness, there is no way to visually verify the bet -- but I know that strict accepted action proponents will not even allow this! 

I would likely give the player the benefit of the doubt if two things did not happen; if the dealer did not announce all-in (or toss out an all-in button), and if the all-in player did not push out a stack.  Because if those two things did not happen, it could be pretty hard for the player to know what the correct action is.  However, if either one of those things did happen, it has to be that the player was not paying attention to the action. 

I would always back up a TD if they made a call that they feel is justified...based on fairness and best interest of the tournament.

As a dealer, I have stopped a player when they looked to be about to put out the wrong amount and inform them of the current action just to be sure they know.

[Nick C]

Spades,

I'm a little unclear on your decision, also.

Tristan, I like what you said about how you handled similar situations, when you were dealing. Stopping an obvious under call is the action of a good dealer. There are too many, IMO, that want to enforce the strict side of the most controversial rule in the 12 year history of the TDA.

I would never force a player to call 4times the bet he thought he was facing, unless action followed.

Finally someone is breaking down the complexities that can be created by "Verbal is Binding."

Spade, if I were in your shoes, I would have allowed the player in the 1 seat to retract his bet! In compliance with TDA Rule #1.

[spades]

thanks to all...
the position 10 was clear on the statement and the chips was pushed.
my decision end to be let the player in position 1 stand 3200 in the pot and let him decide what to do.

spades

[mooredog]

I've ruled on this exact scenario more times than I can remember. I ruled as Tristan, Mike B, and Poker Magee. Raise is in plain view and verbal in turn is binding. Not much slack to inattention.

[Nick C]

mooredog,

I have a suggestion for you, and everyone that takes the no leniency approach to an incorrect call amount:

Issue a clear statement to all patrons before they are seated.

WARNING: Player's are responsible for all actions. If you are skipped on your turn to act, you must stop the next player from acting, or let the dealer know that you were skipped, because if you don't, your hand is DEAD!
               
Player's that are facing an unclear verbal bet, are liable to the full amount...whatever it is.

Player's have no redress once they have acted, unless they bet out of turn, and the proper bettor decides to bet a different amount.

Furthermore: There will be no consideration given for any "gross misunderstanding" on any call amount, even if given the wrong information from the bettor, or the
dealer.
               How am I doing so far?

[Tristan]

WARNING: Player's are responsible for all actions. If you are skipped on your turn to act, you must call time before substantial action happens, or let the dealer know that you were skipped, because if you don't, your hand is DEAD!
               
Player's that are facing a raise that was visually placed in the pot or was clearly announced by the dealer (or especially both!), are liable to the full amount if they verbalize "Call"...whatever it is.

Fixed!   

[Nick C]

Tristan,
I was joking...I hope you are too!

[chet]

Nick:

I like it and I am not joking!!

Any TD worth his/her salt can always invoke Rule 1 in the case of an inexperienced player who really needs some help instead of discipline or in case of some extremely unusual circumstance that warrants same.

I do, however, think your idea of a statement at the beginning of the event covering the items you listed, as well as others as need be, is a great idea!

Otherwise, I am in the camp of those of feel that a player whose failure to pay attention to what is going on is not going to get any benefit from me. 

Any by the way, I still don't have a problem with Rule 41, especially in large multi-table events.

Chet

[Nick C]

Hello Chet,

After 1700 posts, it's good to know you agree with one (1) of my suggestions.

I will now agree with one of yours...TDA Rule #41 is for large multi-table events....

Unfortunately, the objective of the TDA is to draft a standardized set of rules...not one that divides T.D's and forces differing opinions, every time the subject arises.

Do we really have to adopt every rule that the WSOP introduces? Let them have theirs, and let the rest of the poker world proceed as normal. By normal I mean before the 2011 TDA Summit.

[Tristan]

Tristan,
I was joking...I hope you are too!

I think we were both not joking about our viewpoints, but we were both making lighthearted remarks! 

Announcements prior to the start are always a good idea!

[Nick C]

Tristan and Chet,

Announcing any rules, that might differ from room to room, is a good idea isn't it!

Educating the players beforehand can save a lot of headaches for everyone.

How about a little flier to pass out...Player's: Are you familiar with TDA Rule # 41? If you are not, please take the time to read and understand it. The rule will be strictly enforced. Our card room will assume no liability for any financial loss incurred by any tournament player due to ignorance of our house rules!

It should be signed by every player at the buy-in.

[K-Lo]

I also like Nick's "new rules" subject to Tristan's clarifications.  Let's do it!   

[chet]

Nick:  For a variety of reasons, many, many poker rooms or events have rules that differ from the recommendations of the TDA.  Some of these are mandated by local authorities, some are mandated by "upper management", some are mandated by the Poker Room or Event Manager, etc., etc.

I can certainly see where Rule 41, Accepted Action can resolve many issues in the MT events.  Especially where you have participants of many different languages and staff of just as many different languages and/or experience.  I have adopted Rule 41 in my small events as well, especially where there a a couple of regulars who have a habit of "stretching the rules" from time to time.  Has solved issues and personally if I have an angle shooter that doesn't like it, too damn bad.

I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water when an individual event can just decide that Rule 41 doesn't "fit" their venue.

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet,
You can defend TDA #41 all you want. The rule is in need of a serious overhaul. IMO, the TDA rules should be basic, fundamental, and easy to work into house rules anywhere.

Others on this post are also in favor of TDA #41, but they are also asking for a few adjustments that would make the rule better.

A quote from Tristan:  " Player's that are facing a raise that was visually placed in the pot or was clearly announced by the dealer (or especially both!)" will be obligated to call the full amount. This would be acceptable because it offers some protection to a player given wrong information from opposing players or the dealer.

There have already been issues with Accepted Action in last years WSOP. Is there anyone out there that wants to put their name, as the proud author, of Accepted Action? Chet, it was you, wasn't it?

I'm going to ask this unanswered question from over a year ago, one more time. Is there anyone out there that can explain, what terrible event occurred that would make such a rule necessary?

[MikeB]

By now there are umpteen threads discussing Rule 41. As to what makes it necessary, there are relatively few large dealer miscounts, and relatively more minor miscounts (off by a chip or two)... Accepted action makes clear that the bet is what's pushed out, regardless of an error in dealer count (with a Rule 1 exception for really large errors, see at end below...)....

Consider this situation, which has been posted previously, 4 players...

Player A: All in, pushes stack
Player B: call
Player C: how much is it? Dealer answers" looks like 96K"......   C calls
Player D: how much did you say... dealer answers" whoops, missed a chip, it's 101K.... D calls

Player A wins, the actual chip count is 106K....   If you don't have accepted action, then B owes 106K,  what does C owe? 106, 96, or 101?  What does D owe? 106, 96, or 101?  If you go by dealer count, then C owes 96 and D owes 101.

NOW... if either C or D wins, how much will they win? The entire 106? or will C win 96 or D win 101? Since B called, will B owe 106 to C or D, or only 96 to C or 101 to D? If, say, C can't win the entire 106, but only what he had at risk (96), then what happens to the other 10 from A who's all-in? Return to treasury or...?

Accepted action gets rid of ALL of this...

NOW... if the miscount is egregious, that's what the Rule 1 exception, clearly stated, is there for. It was the addition of the Rule 1 language that broke the logjam at the 2011 Summit and led to adoption of the rule by super-majority present.

Lastly I'd point out that I haven't heard that many problems  with this rule as written...

Food for thought.