PLO - Betting more than the pot

[K-Lo]

Just putting something out there.  With Pot Limit games (e.g. PLO, PLO8) gaining somewhat in popularity over the years, I was thinking about the rules for these games. 

You may recall the Player's Championships situation at the WSOP - we talked about it at the beginning of this thread:  http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=678.0
In that case, it was actually an all-in situation, where it turned out the all-in amount was more than pot.  The bet was called (a lot of other things also happened to confuse things), and only after the hand was played out did the bet sizes become an issue.  The floor ultimately ruled that both players had accepted the all-in action (which I agree with).

I came across the pot-limit rules in RROP (primarily cash games) the other day, and noticed that although RROP does not use the phrase "accepting the action", there does seem to be some basis for a similar ruling.

POT-LIMIT RULES
A bet may not exceed the pot size. The maximum amount a player can raise is the amount in the pot after the call is made. Therefore, if a pot is $100, and someone makes a $50 bet, the next player can call $50 and raise the pot $200, for a total wager of $250.
1.   If a wager is made that exceeds the pot size, the surplus will be given back to the bettor as soon as possible, and the amount will be reduced to the maximum allowable.
2.   The dealer or any player in the game can and should call attention to a wager that appears to exceed the pot size (this also applies to heads-up pots). The oversize wager may be corrected at any point until all players have acted on it.
3.   If an oversize wager has stood for a length of time with someone considering what action to take, that person has had to act on a wager that was thought to be a certain size. If the player then decides to call or raise, and attention is called at this late point to whether this is an allowable amount, the floorperson may rule that the oversize amount must stand (especially if the person now trying to reduce the amount is the person that made the wager).
(From RROP)

What I'm thinking about is that if we're moving towards a trend of putting the responsibility on players to get everything right, why can't we make it easier for players to simply overbet the pot, or even go all-in for more than a pot-sized raise, if all players accept the action?  For example, what about an addendum to Rule 42 (Pot Size & Pot-Limit Bets):

In Pot Limit games, a bet or raise should not exceed the pot size.  However, any player yet to act who wishes to dispute the legality of the size of a wager must do so before substantial action has occurred. If a player makes an oversize wager (including an all-in), and it is not corrected before substantial action has occurred or the betting for that street has completed, the oversize wager shall stand.

And maybe, perhaps controversially, the dealer should take a back seat rule to correcting bet sizes:

The Dealer will not correct the amount of any oversize wager unless requested to do so by a player in the hand.

I know that die-hard Pot Limit traditionalists might take issue, and insist that "Pot Limit is pot limit", and that all pots should be checked and corrected.  It may be argued that if we allow players to simply choose any bet size if no players in the hand object, the game might as well be No Limit, and not Pot Limit.  It might also be argued that it opens up the possibility for an angle for players to simply go all-in, and get a read if a player requests that the wager be made right based on the pot.  On the other hand, if a player overbets the pot when going all-in, the caller actually has an advantage in that he now has an option as to whether to accept the overbet (and potentially close the action) or to force the bet to the correct amount -- if the caller is not at fault, why shouldn't he have the freedom to choose?

[Tristan]

And maybe, perhaps controversially, the dealer should take a back seat rule to correcting bet sizes:

The Dealer will not correct the amount of any oversize wager unless requested to do so by a player in the hand.

I know that die-hard Pot Limit traditionalists might take issue, and insist that "Pot Limit is pot limit", and that all pots should be checked and corrected.  It may be argued that if we allow players to simply choose any bet size if no players in the hand object, the game might as well be No Limit, and not Pot Limit.  It might also be argued that it opens up the possibility for an angle for players to simply go all-in, and get a read if a player requests that the wager be made right based on the pot.  On the other hand, if a player overbets the pot when going all-in, the caller actually has an advantage in that he now has an option as to whether to accept the overbet (and potentially close the action) or to force the bet to the correct amount -- if the caller is not at fault, why shouldn't he have the freedom to choose?

I like this!  At our place, in cash games, we do not have the dealers call string bets.  If a player objects, prior to action, we enforce the valid bet...but only then.  It is very similar to the situation you are referring to.

[Nick C]

Tristan,

Not allowing dealers to call string bets is not in compliance with TDA tournament rules, do you only make exception for cash games? And if so, why?

I don't know... I think we're getting close to taking too many duties away from dealers. We would all be better off if the dealers were properly trained, and we let them run the game.

[Tristan]

Tristan,

Not allowing dealers to call string bets is not in compliance with TDA tournament rules, do you only make exception for cash games? And if so, why?

At our place, in cash games, we do not have the dealers call string bets.

Yep, only cash games.  I didn't make the rule, but I do kind of like it.  It is not really less responsibility for the dealers because they still need to know if it is a string bet or not, they just don't call it.

[Nick C]

Ken,
I agree with most of what you've written but, suggesting that the dealer should not correct the amount of any oversize wager unless requested to do so by a player in the hand...well, that's too much for me to accept. Likewise, allowing more than the pot size bet changes the game...in my opinion, it defeats the purpose of "pot limit" and should never be allowed, at least not intentionally.

You knew this was coming,

[K-Lo]

Like I said, just throwing it out there   

OK... what about at a minimum -

If a player makes an oversize wager (including an all-in), and it is not corrected before substantial action has occurred or the betting for that street has completed, the oversize wager shall stand.

[chet]

K-Lo:

Same thing, in my opinion, with a few less words;

An oversize wager (including an all-in), not corrected before substantial action has occurred or the betting for that street is complete, shall stand.

Chet

[K-Lo]

Chet... Sounds good to me!

[Tristan]

An oversize wager (including an all-in), not corrected before substantial action has occurred or the betting for that street is complete, shall stand.
Chet

+1 

[Nick C]

Wait a minute. How do you correct the bet if you want the dealer to sit there and say nothing? Plus the fact that regular pot limit players know what the "pot bet" should be, so when a player in front of them bets "pot" are you saying the caller should be held to the illegal oversize bet? Don't we have enough problems with no limit? Why don't we save pot limit omaha 8 for 2015 After all, the Summit is only a few short months away.

[K-Lo]

Nick - it's ok for the dealer to say something and count the wager to confirm it is less than pot.  Players should say something too (immediately) if there is doubt.  But if for whatever reason no one says anything and lets an oversized bet sit there uncorrected, it should stand if there has been substantial action or betting on the street is complete. 

[K-Lo]

And how do we feel about extending this principle to other situations, such as undersized bets and raises.

For example, the minimum bet for a particular round is 1k, but on the flop, someone (not all-in) bets 800, forgetting that the blinds have gone up.  Of course, all the dealers and players should speak up if they notice the minimum is 1k... But suppose no one catches it and substantial occurs or the next street is dealt.  Are we comfortable that the underbet should stand?

[Nick C]

Ken,

I'm okay with it because it's not much different than a player going all-in for less. I've always objected to players being forced to put more into the pot than they wanted. I'm not sure I can properly defend the difference but, that's how I see it. What you speak of is a more common occurrence in limit (for example) when a player bets 5 on a 10 betting round. I believe the proper adjustment should be made but, I'm not sure if we can force the increase after substantial action. I'm sure we'll find an old ruling somewhere, I'll see what I can find.

[chet]

All:

I find it hard to believe, especially with a full or almost full table of players,who are supposed to be paying attention to what is going on, that a "short bet" would not be brought to the dealers attention.  I will agree that it can happen, especially in this day of headphones and texting and on and on, but shouldn't there be some repercussions for the players that fail to ensure the integrity of the game?  With 6 and 7 figure payouts being common and the "thrill" of the TV camera, it is easy for any given player to make an honest mistake and in good faith fail to put the correct number of chips in the pot. 

I don't see a whole lot of difference whether the mistake is too few or too many chips, the pot is not right and each player has as much responsibility as the other players, including the dealer, to ensure everything is right.  But the question becomes, what can be done?  Is it practical to assess each player a penalty?  If not, what other remedy do we have?

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet,

I agree with all you say about multiple players, and the dealer all missing the incorrect amount being wagered.  I also agree with the following questions you wrote: " But the question becomes, what can be done?  Is it practical to assess each player a penalty?  If not, what other remedy do we have?"

I do not agree with; " I don't see a whole lot of difference whether the mistake is too few or too many chips...."

Somehow exceeding the limit, in a limit game, just doesn't seem right.