WSOP Rule #89: Accepted Action
I think this is probably a bad rule.
Accepted Action: Poker is a game of observation. It's the players responsibility to ensure the accuracy of another player's bet and/or all-in wager regardless of what is stated by the dealer and/or other players at the table. If a player requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or another player at the table, then places said amount into the pot, it is assumed he/she is accepting the action and will be subject to the correct wager and/or all-in amount.
A couple points. Firstly, I think that a good rule to follow with respect to rules in poker is that you should make rules to minimize the incentive to angle-shoot those rules. This fails that test in one important way. If I go all-in for my stack of 350,000 and the dealer announces that my stack is 250,000, and I have the nuts, I am incentivized to angle-shoot by not correcting the dealer, and speaking up only once I get called. If some third-party (dealer or otherwise) points out that I actually have 350,000, I can simply go, "oh, he's right", and the person contemplating the call has no idea whether I knew that to begin with, or am now faking it. The rule also potentially awards angle-shooters who hide large-denomination chips (and yes, I'm aware there's already a rule against this, but still, why give another reason to do it).
More importantly though, is that in order for a poker game to run with order, players have to be able to trust the dealer. Now, I don't want this to be misinterpreted. Dealers make mistakes all the time; they say "straight" when there's no straight, or mis-call low hands at the showdown, miss actions, etc. They're human. I'm not saying you don't have to pay attention. But for something like when a player specifically asks for a count from the dealer and the dealer goes to the opponent and counts down his stack, the player *has* to assume that this is the correct count. I mean, what is the meticulous player supposed to do, walk across the table and start cutting the other guy's chips himself? If the dealer makes the mistake of overlooking a 100k chip because it is hiding in a player's dirty stack (for example), I don't see how you can make this the responsibility of the player who has been misinformed by the dealer and tell him, "sorry, tough shit; you owe another 100k."
Another way to think of this is to reduce it to a more common and less dramatic situation. Suppose we are on the flop, someone tosses out a 5k chip and says "eighteen hundred". The dealer mis-hears this and declares to the other players, "eight hundred". Now, if some time goes by, and no one corrects the dealer (including the bettor), and there is a bunch of action behind, no reasonable person can argue "well, actually, the bet was 1800, the dealer just called it wrong." The bettor had ample time to correct the dealer's mistake, and didn't. To me, you can't penalize the players who acted on the dealer's declaration when it is specifically part of the dealer's job description to make sure that the action is clear to all players.
I am not 100% convinced of my position on this, and I am open to having my mind changed, but at the moment I don't see how this can be a good rule change.
Poll WSOP Rule 89
Accepted Action: Poker is a game of observation. It's the players responsibility to ensure the accuracy of another player's bet and/or all-in wager regardless of what is stated by the dealer and/or other players at the table. If a player requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or another player at the table, then places said amount into the pot, it is assumed he/she is accepting the action and will be subject to the correct wager and/or all-in amount.
A couple points. Firstly, I think that a good rule to follow with respect to rules in poker is that you should make rules to minimize the incentive to angle-shoot those rules. This fails that test in one important way. If I go all-in for my stack of 350,000 and the dealer announces that my stack is 250,000, and I have the nuts, I am incentivized to angle-shoot by not correcting the dealer, and speaking up only once I get called. If some third-party (dealer or otherwise) points out that I actually have 350,000, I can simply go, "oh, he's right", and the person contemplating the call has no idea whether I knew that to begin with, or am now faking it. The rule also potentially awards angle-shooters who hide large-denomination chips (and yes, I'm aware there's already a rule against this, but still, why give another reason to do it).
More importantly though, is that in order for a poker game to run with order, players have to be able to trust the dealer. Now, I don't want this to be misinterpreted. Dealers make mistakes all the time; they say "straight" when there's no straight, or mis-call low hands at the showdown, miss actions, etc. They're human. I'm not saying you don't have to pay attention. But for something like when a player specifically asks for a count from the dealer and the dealer goes to the opponent and counts down his stack, the player *has* to assume that this is the correct count. I mean, what is the meticulous player supposed to do, walk across the table and start cutting the other guy's chips himself? If the dealer makes the mistake of overlooking a 100k chip because it is hiding in a player's dirty stack (for example), I don't see how you can make this the responsibility of the player who has been misinformed by the dealer and tell him, "sorry, tough shit; you owe another 100k."
Another way to think of this is to reduce it to a more common and less dramatic situation. Suppose we are on the flop, someone tosses out a 5k chip and says "eighteen hundred". The dealer mis-hears this and declares to the other players, "eight hundred". Now, if some time goes by, and no one corrects the dealer (including the bettor), and there is a bunch of action behind, no reasonable person can argue "well, actually, the bet was 1800, the dealer just called it wrong." The bettor had ample time to correct the dealer's mistake, and didn't. To me, you can't penalize the players who acted on the dealer's declaration when it is specifically part of the dealer's job description to make sure that the action is clear to all players.
I am not 100% convinced of my position on this, and I am open to having my mind changed, but at the moment I don't see how this can be a good rule change.
Poll WSOP Rule 89