Error in Cryptologic (Betfair, William Hill) software

[Sheriff Fatman]

I played in a WPT Paris Sit n Go on Betfair the other day and was at the table when the following hand occurred:

Game #770109573: Texas Hold'em No Limit (200/400) - 2005/07/10 -
13:12:11 (GMT)
Table "WPT_PARIS 785827 - 1" Seat 8 is the button.
Seat 2: wazz (3668 in chips)
Seat 5: ETCartman (4066 in chips)
Seat 8: sufc (6809 in chips)
Seat 9: rockyread (299 in chips)
Seat 10: smartmike sits out
rockyread: posts small blind 200
smartmike: is all-in 158
smartmike: folds
----- HOLE CARDS -----
dealt to ETCartman [ ]
wazz: calls 200
ETCartman: folds
sufc: folds
----- FLOP ----- [ As ]
rockyread: bets 99 and is all-in
wazz: calls 99
----- TURN ----- [ As ][]
----- RIVER ----- [ As ][]
----- SHOW DOWN -----
rockyread: shows [ ] (Two Pairs, Jacks and Eights, Ace high)
wazz: shows [ ] (A Pair of Eights, Ace high)
rockyread collected 756 from Main pot
----- SUMMARY -----
Total pot 756 Main pot 756 Rake 0
Board [ As ]
Seat 2: wazz lost
Seat 5: ETCartman folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: sufc (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: rockyread (small blind) showed [ ] and won (756) with
Two Pairs, Jacks and Eights, Ace high

Clearly there is an error in the software here as player 'wazz' was allowed to limp into the pot for only the amount of the small blind.

After finishing the tournament I sent an email to Betfair pointing this out as attached below:

I have just been involved in the hand for which the history has been included below.

Please be advised that, in a situation such as this where the big blind
does not have enough chips to for the full amount, any player
subsequently calling still has to pay the full amount of the big blind
(in this case 400 chips).  In this hand, player wazz was allowed to
limp in for 200 chips, which is the amount of the small blind.

Please pass on this information to your software providers so that
the appropriate corrections can be made.

I have just received the following response from Betfair, which is a little disappointing to say the least:

Dear Curtis

Thank you for your e-mail, because the second player was the big
blind (who only had 158 chips and it automatically puts them all in),
only up to the limit of the first bet - the small blind has to be
called. Hence why user wazz only had to put in 200 chips.


Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further
enquiries.

Kind regards

Lee Puddephatt

I have sent a second email pointing out that this interpretation is incorrect.  However, perhaps it would be helpful if others would also speak up to re-inforce the point.  Also, given this site's links with William Hill, perhaps someone with a more influential voice than me could point this out at an opportune moment.  Ultimately, its a Cryptologic issue to sort out but they have little chance if I can't get past the individual site's Customer service in the first place.

Sheriff

NB:  The error didn't have much bearing on the actual hand in question.  However, in other circumstances (especially late in a bigger money tournament or satellite) giving players a half-price opportunity to limp in and potentially knock out a short stack could potentially cause problems.

[Bongo]

Ladbrokes do the same. Let me see if I can find a HH.

[londonpokergirl]

There is also a problem if somebody underraises, can't remember the full situation but
I know it still hasn't been sorted out

[Ironside]

prima had a problem with underraises allowing people to reraise horrid horris horrid espically if you dont know there is a problem and you think you can call for 50 and you get reraised 5000

[TightEnd]

Sheriff, belated happy birthday you old git!

[Jimmy B]

Seems to me most online sites use the following rules:

(i) if the BB is all-in by calling then others can limp for the same amount as his all-in or the small blind - whichever is the larger
(ii) any raise can be re-raised, even if its a 1 chip raise

The rules don't change so I can't see a problem - just have to bear it in mind. (ii) in particular can lead to some interesting plays. I quite like it

[Sheriff Fatman]

Seems to me most online sites use the following rules:

(i) if the BB is all-in by calling then others can limp for the same amount as his all-in or the small blind - whichever is the larger
(ii) any raise can be re-raised, even if its a 1 chip raise

The rules don't change so I can't see a problem - just have to bear it in mind. (ii) in particular can lead to some interesting plays. I quite like it 

I'd be very surprised if a site such as Stars had this rule - although I don't know for definite.  The problem is its a clear error and, as such, should be eliminated from the software (surely it can't be that hard to do!)  If you were the short stack in question in a live tournament and saw someone limp in for the amount of the small blind would you let it slide or would you call the floor over, given that the chances of you being knocked out have just increased.  Why should it be any different online?

However, of more concern to me now is the fact the site in question won't even acknowledge that there's an error here, after its been (politely) pointed out to them.  Consequently, they're just allowing the situation to perpetuate and at some point down the line it'll affect a much bigger tournament than the one I was playing in.  This brings the professionalism of the site into question in my view.  If they can't deal with a small problem effectively how the hell can we have confidence that they'll handle a bigger problem any better?  As an example, given what you've seen from the customer service response here, would you be confident in how they'd deal with a potential collusion issue or a deliberate disconnect, based on a hand history submitted to them? 

If I'm leaving money in an online site there are a number of basic things that I'd expect from that site.  One of them would be knowledge of the rules of the games they offer and a willingness to fix any bugs that are discovered in the software.  Unfortunately (and rather surprisingly) this seems to be a minority view.

Sheriff

[Sheriff Fatman]

I've just received the following response from Betfair in relation to this issue.

Dear Curtis

Thank you for your e-mail, I understand you do not agree with my
analysis of this hand.The hand  that was played would be accepted
anywhere in the world within the rules of Texas hold 'em. This rule
is worldly accepted that the following players do not have to call
anything except the small blind if the all in is less than it.

If you wish to post up my original reply in forums, please do. This
will only increase the awareness of the knowledge level of the
Betfair  Poker team.

If you are confused about any other poker matter, please contact us
again.



Kind regards

Lee Puddephatt

I've invited the rep concerned to post in this thread with regard to this matter, as I'm naturally a little annoyed about being described as 'confused' having made the effort to point out an error to them.  Clearly, I'll have no joy with Betfair unless I can reach someone who understands the rules and is willing to listen.

I accept that this is not a common situation and the rule is open to misinterpretation until someone actually comes across it.  However, I'm not prepared to accept the "I'm right, so I won't bother with it any further" attitude of Customer Service in this case.  Again, if I can't rely on a site to deal with a simple issue in a reasonable manner, how can I expect them to handle a major issue competently.

Sheriff

[redsimon]

PokerStars definitely do not allow you to call the allin big blind amount or small blind etc. They always create a side pot for the excess even if its you and the allin bb.

I haven't noticed it on Party but it used to be the case that if the bb wa alls in for say 400 and the blinds were 500 and 1000 it still allowed the sb to fold and give 800 to the bb. This happened a few times with unobservant sbs not seeing that they were getting a free ride if it was folded to them. They might have fixed it.

I guess your experience with Crypto is another reason to not bother with their sites, plenty more fish in the sea.

[ifm]

what i don't understand is how you can fold QJ? 
On a more serious note, you have done exceptionally well to get a response from betfair, i tried (unsuccessfully) 12 times!!
You are of course correct, the big blind must be called regardless of whether the previous players can match it (if the blinds are 200/400 then if you have the chips it's 400 to see a flop, you get change if nobody else calls).
Ian

[snoopy1239]

I e-mailed Ladbrokes about this issue, but they fobbed me off too.