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

[Tristan]

I run 8 tournaments a week, and while I (rarely) have had situations where I needed to apply rule #41, I have never had it turn out to be a big deal.

It is a bigger deal on this forum than it has been in any tournament that I have run!   

[Nick C]

Mike,

You are basing your example on an incorrect count by the dealer, correct? What makes everyone think the dealer will get it right after the showdown? It has to be counted at some point, why not when a player considering a call asks?

In your example: Player B insta calls Player A so he's locked in to whatever the actual count is. Player C asks the dealer and he realizes he made a 5000 mistake...at this point the dealer and Player C should correct the bet to the additional 5000. If Player C complains the floor should be called to make a decision. Player D knows he is calling 101K (no problem here).

After the final tally, we discover that the count was wrong again, it is 106k..I'm called to the table.
Player A wins he gets 106k from B because Player B called without asking. Player's C and D will lose 101k each.

If Player B wins he gets all of Player A's chips and 101k from Player's C & D.  

If Player C wins, (we will assume he called the corrected additional 5K) so he gets 101K from each player A, B, and D. He will not get the extra 5k from Player A's all-in...the extra 5K will be removed from tournament play and Player A will be eliminated.

Player D will also receive the same as Player C.

We are only asking for these corrections, when and if a count is requested by a calling player. If Player A goes all-in and pushes 106K and all player's called , the way Player B did, then we can insist that all calling player's are responsible for the full amount. I will repeat: Those that oppose Accepted Action don't like being committed to an incorrect quote after asking for a count.

I would not object to a rule that forces all players to commit to the proper amount if they were misquoted but the quote was 80% of the actual count, or something to that affect.

Tristan, I just read your post, and my guess is you have some good dealers that can count. They can sort out a situation before the problems we discuss occur. If a calling player asks how much it is to call, they should get the right count from the dealer.

[MikeB]

In your example: Player B insta calls Player A so he's locked in to whatever the actual count is.
Agreed, which is 106 to win, 106 to lose

Player C asks the dealer and he realizes he made a 5000 mistake...
No, player C asks the dealer and the dealer says 96K.... if we go by the dealer count that C the caller got at the time (which seems to be what Accepted Action opponents want), C received a count of 96 and called 96, yes?

at this point the dealer and Player C should correct the bet to the additional 5000.
Player C learns that it's 5K more after Player D asks what the count is... so, do you allow Player C to change his mind and retract his bet, or stick at 96K, or do you insist he increase his call to 101 K even though he only called 96K based on a dealer quote at the time he committed to call?  If you insist he raises his call... then as far as it looks to me, you're enforcing accepted action!

If Player C complains the floor should be called to make a decision. Player D knows he is calling 101K (no problem here).

After the final tally, we discover that the count was wrong again, it is 106k..I'm called to the table.
Player A wins he gets 106k from B because Player B called without asking. Player's C and D will lose 101k each.
But, as above, C only called 96K... unless you force accepted action on him and say he has to agree to the higher count given to D.... BTW, what if the count to D was "whoops, looks like it's 121k"... if I understand, D is going to have to call the 131k (if he wants to call), but C, what happens to him? He was quoted and called 96K, now the dealer is saying the count is 121k b/c the dealer just found another 25k chip

If Player B wins he gets all of Player A's chips and 101k from Player's C & D.
Again we have the problem that C only called a dealer count of 96k

If Player C wins, (we will assume he called the corrected additional 5K) so he gets 101K from each player A, B, and D. He will not get the extra 5k from Player A's all-in...the extra 5K will be removed from tournament play and Player A will be eliminated.

Player D will also receive the same as Player C.

Keep in mind that both C and D, if they win are going to raise *&^%$ claiming that they had the entire 106K covered and they want it all. The TD will have to explain to them that they can only win or lose what the dealer quoted... then they're likely to say "the dealer said "about 96K" not "exactly 96K".... how do you handle disagreements about what the dealer said?

We are only asking for these corrections, when and if a count is requested by a calling player.
Right, but that's what the opposition to accepted action is based on yes, that each caller should only be liable for what the dealer quotes him if I understand the argument against AA.

I would not object to a rule that forces all players to commit to the proper amount if they were misquoted but the quote was 80% of the actual count, or something to that affect.
That is 100% permissible under Rule 41, last sentence. At your specific venue, you can have that language and still be TDA compliant. That's what the final discussions on Rule 41 concluded, and that's why that last sentence is in there. Personally I think a percentage is worth discussing, just not sure you can get everyone to agree to the exact number, or any number. A fair percent of members are probably going to want to leave it at Rule 1 at TDs discretion.

[Nick C]

Mike,

First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time to answer me, and also for your thought provoking response.

I guess your biggest objection was the slight confusion created about Player C. After Player C called the 96K and Player D again asked the dealer how much it was...this is when the dealer should stop the action, correct Player C to the additional 5k and continue on to Player D. I assumed that Player C would have no problem increasing his call another 5%.

Facts I'd consider:
      #1.) If the count is correct we have no problem.
      #2.) When facing an all-in bet: Any insta-call commits that player to the complete amount wagered.
      #3.)  If the calling player requests a count, why not give it? It has to be counted at some point.
       #4.) I'd really like to see a rule that would share the responsibility for an accurate amount wagered between the bettor, the calling player and the dealer.

I also feel the need for a standard rule that would force players to complete a wager if they are within a specific percent of the correct amount.

[Tristan]

Tristan, I just read your post, and my guess is you have some good dealers that can count. They can sort out a situation before the problems we discuss occur. If a calling player asks how much it is to call, they should get the right count from the dealer.

I think you missed what I was trying to say.  We do have some good dealers here, but at times situations have occurred in which I had to apply rule #41.  I have not had objections from the players when I did have to use it.

I assumed that Player C would have no problem increasing his call another 5%.

If this is true, than none of them should have a problem increasing the call to 106k. As the increase from 101k to 106k is less than 5%. 


I personally feel that a count MUST be made by the dealer when a player, in turn, asks how much it is.  This count should be done in such a way that it is clearly countable by the players as well.  After this, if there is an error in the amount stated, there is a shared responsibility.  Not by just the raiser, bettor, caller, or dealer...but by every player at the table as any player is supposed to point out an error as they see it occurring.

[Nick C]

Tristan,

How can you say you have no problems with the current rule, and then suggest we change it to a shared responsibility? The current rule does not allow the dealer to say anything.  I agree 100% with what you are suggesting for accepted action. Your suggestion changes the current rule completely, and would make it much more acceptable!

[Tristan]

How can you say you have no problems with the current rule, and then suggest we change it to a shared responsibility?

Huh?  I didn't suggest a change!  I was pointing out how the rule works well when it goes hand-in-hand with internal card room policies. 

The current rule does not allow the dealer to say anything.

It does not prevent a dealer from doing so.  Our internal policy works just fine with the way #41 is currently written.

Most places either have dealers break down all bets and state an amount, or in the case that I prefer, just break down bets or raises when asked or repeat any amount that is verbalized.  Either way works fine with AA, all AA does is give us a 'standard' ruling and shift the blame from being totally on the dealer.  It does also have the "As with all tournament situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion." just in case you feel the need to go away from the 'standard' ruling.

[Nick C]

  I do have a suggestion for those that feel Accepted Action is perfect the way it is:

  Post a warning to all patrons:

  PLAY AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!

[K-Lo]

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...

Hi all:  I'd like to jump in here, although I do feel it has been a week of rehashing old discussions from old threads - it really must have been Groundhog Day!!

First, I do feel that many TDs have just come to accept Accepted Action and its faults, so I think I'm being realistic when I say that it is unlikely that this will be changed at the Summit, even if it does go to debate.  I feel that the current trend in the industry is to take a hard line with players, putting more of the responsibility on the calling player, even in situations where he may have been helpless to prevent an error, and even in situations where the blame can partly be attributed by others, including the bettor, other opponents, the dealer, and sometimes even the TD! 

The related discussion on undercalls and the trend to now treat these as Accepted Action problems is one example -- situations where there has been a gross misunderstanding of a bet or where a player called but did not know that the call amount was for more -- even when the mistake was clearly not the player's sole fault -- is now more commonly ruled as a forced call regardless of the circumstances, under the guise of Accepted Action.  The trend is: no more retractions, no more options to top-up or fold.  It is the caller's fault, simply put.  Accepted Action.

I can sympathize with this hardline stance.  The rule is certainly much easier to enforce.  It is more "objective" if you will, as there is only one result to apply - the caller is always deemed to accept the action.  It gives a way for the TD to avoid criticism from players who disagree with rulings because the TD can always simply point to AA and say "see, the rule says so".  Now, the reference to Rule 1 is there, that is true, but there was little guidance on when this should be enforced. So let's face it, this has led to the new reality, which is fewer and fewer TDs relying on Rule 1, and more and more TDs being less inclined to even bother trying to apply Rule 1, since simply pointing to AA solves the problem quickly, and requires little judgment.

I will admit:  if everyone simply followed AA strictly, we would have much more consistent rulings across the board.  That is certainly a worthwhile objective.  I admit though, that my criticisms of AA are a bit philosophical in nature.

Perhaps we feel we have been subject to so much player abuse that we have become afraid of making difficult calls, for fear of making the "wrong" one.  Perhaps some TDs are becoming so lazy that they feel it is much easier to point to a black-and-white rule and say "my hands are tied", rather than taking time and effort to think through the specific facts of each scenario to determine what action is most appropriate from what could be a range of possible decisions.  Perhaps it is easier to enforce a one-rule-fits-all situation that even the most inexperienced TD can apply, then to make the effort to train those TDs on how to assess whether a different outcome might be appropriate.

But in all of this, I feel it is easy to forget that our main priority as TDs should always be fairness.  It is the top priority in the decision-making process, after all.  TDs should never be discouraged from trying to work out situations to determine what the fairest solution should be.  That is our job.  In my view, blindly applying a rule for the sake of administrative expedience may be the easy way out, but it may not be fair.

In this regard, I have three additional comments:

1.  I have always been in favor of providing relief to a calling player when he has relied on what has been purported to be an exact count from the dealer.  A number of other rule books contain a similar provision to this effect and there is a reason for it -- being unable to rely on a count that has been provided in good faith from someone who is supposed to be impartial, reeks of unfairness.  Other players who have an interest in seeing the count corrected, e.g. the bettor, should share in the responsibility to ensure that the count is correct. Having all parties sharing in the responsibility to prevent irregularities is in the best interests of the tournament.

2.  I appreciate the difficulties of offering the protection I speak of above in certain situations, e.g. multi-way situations as Mike so aptly described.  Mike's case is a good one -- it would be a huge mess when there are three callers, involving all three different dealer counts.  But just because that particular multi-way situation exists, shouldn't mean that it is appropriate to apply AA in all other situations.  Mike said that people thought Rule 41 was necessary because "there are relatively few large dealer miscounts, and relatively more minor miscounts (off by a chip or two)".  However, if the real reason for Rule 41 is that we needed a better way to deal with problems that occur with the highest frequency, then I would submit that the four-way example scenario provided is itself extremely rare, relatively speaking.  I submit that what are probably most common are heads-up situations, or more generally, situations in which only one count is at issue. And if that is true, why can't we provide some relief to a player who relies on the count of a dealer that stands uncorrected?  Fine, apply AA when there are multiple miscounts involved. But this doesn't mean it is fair to apply AA in situations where there is only one count in dispute.

3.  Finally, if we are indeed stuck with AA for good, then at least some guidance on when Rule 1 is applicable should be given.  In my view, the most important would be that a player should be entitled to relief under Rule 1 if for some reason the caller would have been unable to correctly visually verify the amount of a wager (e.g. if the chips were not pushed in, an all-in button was used but not pushed out, or chips were hidden, etc.).  I've said before that a "deaf person" should be able to discern the amount of a particular wager by looking at the state of the table, and if he can't, Rule 1 might well apply: Poker is a visual game - if the "picture" is not clear to the caller, he should have some relief.  I also would consider the dealer failing to make a verbal announcement (e.g. raise, all-in) as relevant, although I personally think it is secondary.

This is my 5 cents.  (we just phased out the penny)

[MikeB]

K-Lo wrote: 2. then I would submit that the four-way example scenario provided is itself extremely rare, relatively speaking.

What isn't nearly so rare is:
Player A "All-in" > pushes chips
Player B: How much is there? Dealer: 96K "Okay I call"
Player C: How much? Dealer: Whoops, looks like 101K

Add to that the occasion when the final count is further off... 106K on the final countdown.

This year's WSOP had more televised miscounts than I've seen in awhile.

K-Lo wrote: Now, the reference to Rule 1 is there, that is true, but there was little guidance on when this should be enforced.

It's very likely there will be extensive discussion of Accepted Action at the 2013 Summit. Among the suggestions I'm guessing we will see specific thresholds suggested like "count off by more than X percent" or "if the revised count puts the caller all-in", or something of that nature with pro-and-con debate on same.

[K-Lo]

K-Lo wrote: 2. then I would submit that the four-way example scenario provided is itself extremely rare, relatively speaking.

What isn't nearly so rare is:
Player A "All-in" > pushes chips
Player B: How much is there? Dealer: 96K "Okay I call"
Player C: How much? Dealer: Whoops, looks like 101K

Add to that the occasion when the final count is further off... 106K on the final countdown.

Hi Mike:  Yes I agree this is more common than the four-way example.  Even more common still:

Player A "All-in" > pushes chips
Player B: How much is there? Dealer: 96K "Okay I call"
Player C: How much? Dealer: I counted 96K "Okay I call"
... 106K on the final countdown.

But I'd say even more common still is the simple case involving two players, and dealer gives a single count which turns out to be wrong.  IMO, there is no need to throw out the possibility of providing a fairer rule in heads-up play, just because problems might arise in if the rule were to be enforced in (rarer) multi-way scenarios.

[MikeB]

First, I do feel that many TDs have just come to accept Accepted Action and its faults, so I think I'm being realistic when I say that it is unlikely that this will be changed at the Summit, even if it does go to debate.  

There's no question it will be debated, scenarios and experiences presented, etc. etc.

But in all of this, I feel it is easy to forget that our main priority as TDs should always be fairness.  It is the top priority in the decision-making process, after all.  

.... and best interest of the game..  There's a great deal of interest of the game that is served by clarity and predictability.

Not arguing against anything you're saying, just that ALL of this needs to be considered.

[K-Lo]

Not arguing against anything you're saying, just that ALL of this needs to be considered.

That explains why this year's summit will be two weeks long. 

Yikes!

[Nick C]

Hey Ken,

Great post.

I especially like your 3 added comments, IN PART:

#1  I have always been in favor of providing relief to a calling player when he has relied on what has been purported to be an exact count from the dealer. & the bettor, should share in the responsibility to ensure that the count is correct. Having all parties sharing in the responsibility to prevent irregularities is in the best interests of the tournament.

#2    why can't we provide some relief to a player who relies on the count of a dealer that stands uncorrected?
 
#3    Finally, if we are indeed stuck with AA for good....

These are good enough reasons, in my book, to insist that change is needed.

Establishing a percent on an unclear bet is a good way to start. How much is a gross misunderstanding? I have seen it written, in an obscure rule from the past, that 80% was used.

[Tristan]

First off, I would just like to say I have nothing but respect and admiration for you all.  Sometimes, when it comes to written speech, things like that are not conveyed as well.  You guys are the ones that participate the most on here and try to help the most people come to the best decisions possible.  I am actually really glad that out of the people who participate the most, there are many varying opinions.  This causes us to all see things from a different perspective.

It's kinda funny, I argue against changing AA for much of the same reason that K-Lo is for it.  I feel like the more stipulations we add, the more we tie our own hands as tournament directors.  Yes, we can always go against the written rules via rule 1, but the more defined the rule is, the more opposition we will get from players when we do go against what is written...at least that is what I have found.

I do give the benefit of the doubt to a player any time I feel they did not share responsibility.  (Breakdown not visible, hidden big chip, etc.) 

One other item of food for thought:
Consider the normal 2 player situation.  An all-in and a call.

Roughly half of all (what should be) Accepted Action situations, involving a miscount, go unnoticed.  If the calling player wins and has the all-in covered, even in the event of a miscount, they will get the all-ins stack.  Dealers do not usually re-count in those situations and the calling player is never going to point it out.  The caller then gets the benefit of accepting the action without the risk.  So the caller has an advantage over the all-in player.

The other half of the time, when the calling player loses, is when these situations are usually discovered.  If we side with the caller for counting errors, when they were clearly visible, the caller also has the advantage.  Calling players are not going to point out a visible error when they would stand to benefit from it.  Example (If we are to adapt something like 80%):  A pushes all-in. I am Player B.  When I ask the dealer for a count, the dealer states 75k, but I can clearly see that it is actually 100k.  I have 300k in my stack.  I know that I only will have to risk 75k to call the 100k.  Because if I win, the dealer is just going to push me Player A's stack as I have them covered.  But if I lose, I could then push out 75k and if the miscount is noticed, I would only be bound to the 75K still since it was less than 80%.  So now on both sides of the issue, caller winning or caller losing, the caller would have the advantage...and I do not view that as fair. 

If you look at it that way, AA does appear to share responsibility.

In the case of the call winning, the all-in, in a miscount, has no recourse.
In the case of the all-in winning, the caller, in a miscount, has no recourse.

These two things are fair, provided the miscount was clearly displayed for players to see.  And if it is not, we use rule 1 to make the most fair call possible.