all the more reason to take responsibility as a player and pay attention to bets and counts and dealers to make sure the game is fair and without angles/mistakes as possible. definitely ask the dealer to have bets counted out to you if you have poor eyesight to make sure things are correct any hand you're in

I've gotten ownd by this rule before, but I can't think of a better alternative. Is he going to give you 20k back? Now the caller can angle by keeping quiet. It doesn't seem to improve the situation at all.

Ultimately I don't care what the rule is (within reason) as long as it is applied fairly and consistently. If I ask for a count I always make a rough estimate myself (based on the big chips) to ensure the answer is in the right ball park. We all have to make estimates of other players stack sizes throughout the game (even where the other player hasn't bet yet).

If a change is required then what about these options (assume B is the original bettor and C the potential caller):

Version 1
If C asks for a count from the dealer then both players are held to that amount. However, B and C each have the right to immediately point out the dealer is incorrect (before C acts) in which case the actual stack size plays.

Version 2
If dealer is asked to count he gives his answer and asks B if he agrees. If he does agree then (unless C disputes the answer before acting) that amount stands.

Version 3
Simply require players must answer if asked their stack size and take responsibility for their answer. If they give a wrong answer (which is not a manifest error) they are held to the answer if turns out to be to their detriment (e.g. B understates his stack size and then wins the all-in) but are held to their actual stack size if that is to their detriment (e.g. B loses the all-in). I think it would be acceptable in this version (to speed up the game) that if B says 'approx X' then the actual stack size will hold if within, say, 10% of X.

Wat?

I think the EPT rule is perfect. Agreed upon wager. If player A bets 69k, dealer says it's 49k, and player A doesn't say anything, it's agreed that bet is 49k amirite? Obviously this leads to headphone issues, but anybody wearing headphones should be willing to live with the consequences.

This reminds me of a spot I saw in a WSOP NL event a few years ago. Fishcake bets 2500: three 500s and one 1k. It was a big bet. I think it was ProfessorBen who tanked, eventually called, and fishcake was bluffing. At that point the players to the left and right of the bettor say, "He said 800." They ruled with double objections that the bet was only 800. They ignored my statement of, "In that case, then Ben raised to 2500 right?"

Players to left and right should have said something immediately right? If they don't is 2500 the agreed upon wager? But they guy said 800?

Anyways, I think the TDA rule is broke and the EPT rule should be adopted.

The dealer is the house rep at the table and they're charged with the order and integiry of the game. Accountability goes with that.

If that's the case, a player shouldn't be held responsible for dealer error. If it isn't the case, it should be.

We rule it the way Matt rules it, but there is definately some merit to change this rule. A dealer that gives mis-information of an amount and is not corrected by the that player that made such wager really should be at fault when it comes right down to it. The player making the call made an agreement to call THAT AMOUNT after asking for the proper count and it seems only fair that that he would only be responsible for that amount.
Can you imagine a player asking for a count to make sure it wasnt a bet that put him in an all in situation, say, on the bubble...and then to find out that he was now out of the tournament when he loses the hand.
Good discussion, and definately a point for discussion at the TDA meetings. Until then, we will abide by the TDA rules.

I was referring specifically to SpaceyFCB's post #16 in this thread

using the EPT rule, dealer says 40k, Played immediately says call. What happens? this opens to up angles. The player calling could have known it was more, but with his flush draw, he wanted better odds, so he snap called when he reality maybe it was 45k or something.

The player that bet the 45k should speak up and correct the size of the bet before action procedes.

Erm the player that bet 45k should never have to say anything, ever, if he doesn't wish to

Tab- What if he immed says call ? What happens?

Following that rule he would only have to pay 40k

Regards,
Kenny

What if player A just pushes a large stack of chips to the middle and doesn't even know how much he bet...and dealer counts it and says 40K, but it's actually 45K... presumably the player betting can see/count how much the bet, after the dealer cuts his chips, but it is within his rights (and reasonable to expect) that he might not want to say anything for fear of giving away any tells. And this may or may not be an angle. But he is complicit in Player B's understanding that the bet is 40K...

Although both the dealer and player A are at fault to some extent, there is absolutely no way that player B should be penalized for this whatsoever. The only way we can even remotely expect player B to be penalized is if we gave him the chance to count Player A's chips, which is ridiculous and will never happen.

So, if player A does not say a word, and has no objection or correction to the dealer's count, whatever the dealer says should be the final count.

How about this rule (for when the dealer underestimates the count):

Player A bets. Player B can request a count from the dealer. Once the dealer comes up with a number, Player B has the option to verify that count with Player A. If Player B snap calls/reraises, then he's accepting the actual count of chips, not the dealer's number. But if they do request that the other player verifies the dealer's count, then the onus is on Player A to correct the count, with the dealer acknowledging the new number. If Player A opts for silence then the dealer's count will stand (unless someone else chimes in and fixes it).

Personally I don't like the idea of a bet changing within a hand no matter how the rule is written. If Player A puts 50K out, then the bet should be 50K regardless of what the dealer or anyone else says. IMO I don't think you can design a new rule that doesn't leave room for angles. In my version above, Player A might opt to keep his mouth shut if he shoves light but thinks he doesn't have enough total chips to scare off Player B, so he might as well save himself some chips and let the dealer's miscount stand. That's why I think it's important for Player B to take responsibility for getting the count right regardless of any rules.

I realize that the TDA approach will slow down the game as everyone learns that they need to check a count themselves, but I'd rather lose a little time than give someone a new way to angle. If speed is the issue, then campaign for electronic tables/robot dealers as others have suggested.

Player should never have to speak after betting/shoving. Many times have seen tells when they do, especially when giving amount or approximation of their bet before a countdown. Overstating amount when weak hoping for a fold or understating amount when strong and wanting a call. Tell not always on obv, but another piece of puzzle to consider and see it pay off more often than not against amateurs and those that are not regs.