Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
The dealer considered it a misdeal under any circumstances. A few of us were more used to it only being a misdeal if it were the first couple cards dealt, and otherwise the exposed card became the burn. The floor ruled the latter, and that was that.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are almost procedural issues and are certainly not what I am discussing. I am talking about (as an example) the guy that wants to know how far he can put chips out before he had to leave them out there. He is either looking to force someone to leave chips in when they don't want to or is planning a move where he make a motion at the pot and wants to be able to pull his chips back. This guy gets told that it would be improper to speculate on what a ruling might be as each situation is unique and we must look at the entirety of a situation before making a decision.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

that's why I tell people I dont make "what if" floor calls

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RR seems to feel that the only reason players want to learn the rules is to shoot angles. Do you feel the same way?

Should players be kept ignorant, or should the poker community try to educate everybody?

[/ QUOTE ]

I spend a lot of time here and in person educating people, but I have never have someone in a casino ask for rules that wasn't up to no good. The two circumstances I have had someone come up and ask me for a set of rules was someone looking to shoot an angle or someone wanting to argue about a floor decision that someone made. Normally the second type is looking for a rule they know is in there so they can argue while ignoring the relevant rule (ie verbal action in turn is binding vs if a player has a gross misunderstanding of the action he faces he may retract his action if no harm is done).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny. I travel around to new rooms all the time, and as such I ask about their rules all the time. And never once in my life have I intentionally shot an angle. However, I am always trying to be aware of all the angles that might be shot, so as to defend myself. Haven't you ever been asked about the rules by somebody like me?

Also, I disagree with your position about verbal action not being binding when somebody is unaware of the true nature of the bet they are facing. I agree that if the player or dealer mis-states an amount, and the hero verbally says call or raise, but is then informed of the true (and much larger) amount, they should be given a chance to change their mind. But this rests upon the mistake made by the dealer or by the player who made that bet, not upon the self-caused ignorance of the hero. If, however, a player pushes out some chips, and the hero says call, and is then told it is 50,000, he shouldn't be allowed to take back his call because he thought it was a stack of five 1K chips, rather than a stack of five 10K chips. He never asked the dealer for an amount, and the bettor didn't mis-state the amount. The mistake is his own.

Similarly, if a player such as Bill announces raise and the Hero did not hear it, then unless the circumstances lead me to believe the mistake was totally innocent, and not caused or aided by lack of attentiveness on his part, I'm not going to try to make a ruling that preserves what the action would have been if he had been paying full attention. I believe he gets punished for his mistake, rather than making a ruling that saves him from his mistake, and thus even possibly punishes the other guy who did nothing wrong.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
That's funny. I travel around to new rooms all the time, and as such I ask about their rules all the time. And never once in my life have I intentionally shot an angle. However, I am always trying to be aware of all the angles that might be shot, so as to defend myself. Haven't you ever been asked about the rules by somebody like me?


[/ QUOTE ]

Greg,
I have and I am generally asked. I should have been clearer I was referring to people that want the rules in writing. I am also pretty sure you ask about rules in a general sense rather than trying to figure out how to trick someone. Also when a "traveling player" is new to room I am familiar with enough different areas I can point out things quickly that might be different here (wherever here is, I have worked in quite a few different markets).

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I disagree with your position about verbal action not being binding when somebody is unaware of the true nature of the bet they are facing.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people do. Here is the best version of the rule I have seen and includes some examples.

[ QUOTE ]
12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300 into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot.

Example: On the end, a player puts a $500 chip into the pot and says softly, “Four hundred.” The opponent puts a $100 chip into the pot and says, “Call.” The bettor immediately shows the hand. The dealer says, “He bet four hundred.” The caller says, “Oh, I thought he bet a hundred.” In this case, the recommended ruling normally is that the bettor had an obligation to not show the hand when the amount put into the pot was obviously short, and the “call” can be retracted. Note that the character of each player can be a factor. (Unfortunately, situations can arise at big-bet poker that are not so clear-cut as this.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I disagree with your position about verbal action not being binding when somebody is unaware of the true nature of the bet they are facing.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people do. Here is the best version of the rule I have seen and includes some examples.

[ QUOTE ]
12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300 into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot.

Example: On the end, a player puts a $500 chip into the pot and says softly, “Four hundred.” The opponent puts a $100 chip into the pot and says, “Call.” The bettor immediately shows the hand. The dealer says, “He bet four hundred.” The caller says, “Oh, I thought he bet a hundred.” In this case, the recommended ruling normally is that the bettor had an obligation to not show the hand when the amount put into the pot was obviously short, and the “call” can be retracted. Note that the character of each player can be a factor. (Unfortunately, situations can arise at big-bet poker that are not so clear-cut as this.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you are saying, but the rule version you quote is at odds with the way I have seen this type of situation handled almost everywhere. So, I could not say that your favorite version is the most accepted version. I have seen it ruled almost every time a situation such as the above happens that when the person puts 100 into the pot, thinking they are calling, but they were actually facing a bet of 400, they are permitted to fold and forfeit 100, or to call 300 more. I have never seen the TD rule that they can take back all of the 100 and reconsider now that they know the true bet. I have only seen this latter option being offered when they were actively misinformed about the size of the bet they were facing.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen it ruled almost every time a situation such as the above happens that when the person puts 100 into the pot, thinking they are calling, but they were actually facing a bet of 400, they are permitted to fold and forfeit 100, or to call 300 more. I have never seen the TD rule that they can take back all of the 100 and reconsider now that they know the true bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen this quite a bit recently and I don't like it one bit. I have always held the position that if it is ruled that it is a call they need to put in the whole amount or if they haven't called they can take their money out. When I first started seeing this ruling (around 2002 or 2003) I considered it a weak compromise by a floor that was unwilling to rule one way or the other (that the guy called or didn't call).

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have seen it ruled almost every time a situation such as the above happens that when the person puts 100 into the pot, thinking they are calling, but they were actually facing a bet of 400, they are permitted to fold and forfeit 100, or to call 300 more. I have never seen the TD rule that they can take back all of the 100 and reconsider now that they know the true bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen this quite a bit recently and I don't like it one bit. I have always held the position that if it is ruled that it is a call they need to put in the whole amount or if they haven't called they can take their money out. When I first started seeing this ruling (around 2002 or 2003) I considered it a weak compromise by a floor that was unwilling to rule one way or the other (that the guy called or didn't call).

[/ QUOTE ]

RR, I think the version that Greg quoted is the most fair way to handle it, and to insure as well, that the person in question will in the future pay attention to the action, without penalizing him unfairly.

I've been caught by this rule myself, including where I've said raise thinking I was the first raiser.

I was then forced to raise it to twice what the other raiser raised.

If I wasn't paying attention, and just plopped say the normal blind in, like 100 bucks, and there had been a raise I had not been aware of (or if I acted out of turn, and said call, but the raiser didn't say the amount of his/her raise yet), my 100 bucks had to stay when the action truely came to me. I could fold, but that 100 bucks had to stay.

If I verbalized a call, and the raiser had said an amount, however, then the whole amount of the raise that the last raiser said, I would have to put that in.

I wouldn't like it, but it's a fair way to handle things.

It's the responsbility of EACH player to pay attention to the action at the table.

If they don't they have to pay the price, and IMO, this is the fair way to handle it.

[TobyG]

[ QUOTE ]
I should have been clearer I was referring to people that want the rules in writing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for clarifying. This makes much more sense.

[barryg1]

In my opinion, the correct decision is clear:

Bill should have no choice but to make a minimum raise. The next player must raise, and can raise any amount he wants.

This allows Bill to get out as cheaply as possible if he wants to. Tom would have been faced with two raises anyway, so there was not much play left in his situation. And, of course, Tom should have been stifled when he started telling Bill what might happen.

Johnny is a good tournament director because he tries to come up with fair rulings rather than force the rulebook to fit. At a big event earlier this year, they were often too inflexible if they could make a rule fit. In one case, a player was forced to go busted in this situation:

Player on the button and player in the small blind have massive stacks. The big blind has a short stack. Small blind starts counting out chips, which the player on the button notices. Player on the button doesn't act, waiting to see what will happen. Small blind says, "Raise", thinking he is only playing against the big blind.

The floor is called and it is ruled that the small blind must raise when it is his turn. Button asks, "If I put in more than half my stack, does the small blind still have to raise?" He is told "Yes," and he puts his chips in. Small blind is forced to go all in.

Button has Aces. The small blind had garbage and got knocked out of a big event.

Barry

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]

Bill should have no choice but to make a minimum raise.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't been following the thread too closely, but how would this be fair? Shouldn't Bill still be entitled to raise any amount he wants?