Calling a bet question

[Cav57]

Calling a bet

This happened last week and I think I handled it right.
I got to thinking about another scenario and need your advice.

T20,000
Blinds 1000 and 2000
Someone raised to 6,000
Small blind said call then put in 1000 more (making his bet 2,000)
He was told the bet was 6,000 and he need to put in 4,000 more.
He said he just called the 2,000

What was his choices.
Made to put in 4,000 more
Fold and lose his 2,000 bet
Pull back his 1,000 and fold
Other

What we did was:
Because he said call he was made to put in the 4,000

It is the players responsibility to pay attention to the game.   

Follow up question:

What if he did not say call and just put in the 1,000.  What was his options?

Made to put in 4,000 more
Fold and lose his 2,000 bet
Pull back his 1,000 and fold
Other

Thanks.

[Martini]

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.

http://www.homepokertourney.com/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm#NO-LIMIT_RULES

IMO it's pretty clear that he was not aware of the raise in front of him but I would say it is the TD's discretion as to make it binding or not. I would always rule that he must either complete the call or he can fold and pull back his 1K. I would never rule that he needs to fold and lose the 2K.

[holdemholmes]

I think the rule Martini posted appplies, and it was covered in another thread around here somewhere. I agree that it is the players responsibility to pay attention, but he may not have heard the raiser say 6000 and may not have seen what he put out. I think this falls into the 'grossly misunderstood' category.

[NotFadeAway]

What Martini said.  It sounds obvious that he didn't see the raise and thought it was 1000 to call.  He can't 3 bet, but can either fold and take his 1000 that he called with back or call the full 6000.

[Nerre]

Wait a minute here, there was NOT a gross misunderstading of a raise amount.

The player totally missed that someone had raised. Ha just called the BB when a player before had raised. Had he paid attention he would have known that the current bet was minimum 4000 (because one player had raised).

I wouldn't allow him to retract his bet because his choices are:
a) forfeit 1 BB
b) add another 2 BB to the bet

The amounts are so low (1-2 BB) that I can not justify to let him retract his bet.

[William]

I'm with Martini and Holmes.

I disagree with NFA on not being allowed to 3-bet. He can reconsider his action, which also means he can reraise.

I disagree with Nerre on almost everything except option b).

The TD/Floor can make a different ruling if this player has a history of not paying attention.

[Dr. Neau]

Wait a minute here, there was NOT a gross misunderstading of a raise amount.

The player totally missed that someone had raised. Ha just called the BB when a player before had raised. Had he paid attention he would have known that the current bet was minimum 4000 (because one player had raised).

I wouldn't allow him to retract his bet because his choices are:
a) forfeit 1 BB
b) add another 2 BB to the bet

The amounts are so low (1-2 BB) that I can not justify to let him retract his bet.

All false.  In fact, the example cited by the rule is the exact situation posed in the OP.

[Dr. Neau]

I disagree with NFA on not being allowed to 3-bet. He can reconsider his action, which also means he can reraise.

No.  As soon as he says "call", he's lost his right to 3-bet.

[Nerre]

The rules talks about wide range of amounts. I don't consider 1-3 BB to be a wide range.

The example in rules does not mention how big the blinds are. If the blinds in the example in the rules are 150/300, then the situation is the same, but from the wording of the example (about not showing cards until the bet is corrected) makes me think the example situation is on the river.


I also think it's a big difference between misunderstanding the amount and totally missing that someone has raised.

[William]

I disagree with NFA on not being allowed to 3-bet. He can reconsider his action, which also means he can reraise.

No.  As soon as he says "call", he's lost his right to 3-bet.

The wording Bob Ciaffone uses is "should be allowed to withdraw and reconsider his wager". That to me implies that the player may reconsider if he wants to fold, call, or re-raise.

You're allowed to change your call to a fold or re-raise if you acted out of turn and the action to you has changed, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply here. Action to you is different from what you thought it was, and you may want to re-raise now that you know there has already been a raise. I wouldn't make a distinction between not noticing the pot has already been raised, or not noticing it wasn't your turn yet.

[Muley05]

I am firmly in the camp that the player is allowed to fold (forfeiting his 1000 SB) or call the raise to 6000 total.  He misunderstood the amount of the bet to him, and it does not matter at all that it was a small raise in relation to the blinds. 

The player does not have the option to raise.  Call 6000 or fold.  Period.

[Dr. Neau]

Since we're going to quote Bob, let's use the FULL quote and not just the part that supports our position...

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.)

When I read the example that Bob supplies, I take "reconsider your action" to mean:
- Do what your verbal statement would mean if you were paying attention, or
- Retract and fold.

Seriously.  Allowing the "Call.  Oops!  It was raised?!?  Oh, in that case, I raise" is really opening more room for angle shooting.

[Dr. Neau]

Loosely related rule from "PokerZone":

All wagers and calls of an improperly low amount must be brought up to proper size if the error is discovered before the betting round has been completed. This includes actions such as betting a lower amount than the minimum bring-in (other than going all-in) and betting the lower limit on an upper limit betting round. If a wager is supposed to be made in a rounded off amount, is not, and must be corrected, it shall be changed to the proper amount nearest in size. No one who has acted may change a call to a raise because the wager size has been changed.

[Dr. Neau]

Note also that the rule exists to "protect" the person who wasn't paying attention.

Giving a caller the option to raise isn't protecting them.

[William]

Since we're going to quote Bob, let's use the FULL quote and not just the part that supports our position...

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.)

When I read the example that Bob supplies, I take "reconsider your action" to mean:
- Do what your verbal statement would mean if you were paying attention, or
- Retract and fold.

Seriously.  Allowing the "Call.  Oops!  It was raised?!?  Oh, in that case, I raise" is really opening more room for angle shooting.

This full quote is focusing on the responsibility of the bettor to not show his hand until the caller has put a reasonably correct amount in the pot. It says nothing about what the caller can change his action to.

I see your point that it opens up the possibility for an angle shoot, but so is allowing someone who acted out of turn to change his action to a (re-)raise if the action to him has change by an intervening bet or raise.

Loosely related rule from "PokerZone":

All wagers and calls of an improperly low amount must be brought up to proper size if the error is discovered before the betting round has been completed. This includes actions such as betting a lower amount than the minimum bring-in (other than going all-in) and betting the lower limit on an upper limit betting round. If a wager is supposed to be made in a rounded off amount, is not, and must be corrected, it shall be changed to the proper amount nearest in size. No one who has acted may change a call to a raise because the wager size has been changed.

The underlined section refers calls made to bets that do not meet the minimum bet amount requirement and must be corrected. It says nothing about misunderstanding the bet amount.

[Dr. Neau]

The underlined section refers calls made to bets that do not meet the minimum bet amount requirement and must be corrected. It says nothing about misunderstanding the bet amount.

Well, since you elected to ignore my last update...and since I believe it's the most important, I'll repeat it.

The intention of this rule, as stated in the rule itself is to protect the person who misunderstood.

Allowing someone to raise after they first declare a call isn't protecting them.  And conversely, not allowing them to do it doesn't hurt them.  What allowing them to do it DOES do is potentially screw everyone else.

Therefore, my discretion (which Bob goes way out of his way to say plays a big part in this) is that you shall never be allowed to change your grossly mis-understood call to a raise.

[William]

As I said, I see your point for angleshooting, but I feel that part of protecting a player is to allow him to make an informed decision before he decides on his action. If a player hasn't realised the pot has been raised, and it now serves him better to re-raise I feel he should be allowed to do that (you can call it my discretion if it makes you feel better).

I'll also reiterate the point I made before that an OOT action gets the same privilege if the action changes to him. If an OOT player gets that privilege, why not a player who didn't realise the pot had been raised?

[Dr. Neau]

As I said, I see your point for angleshooting, but I feel that part of protecting a player is to allow him to make an informed decision before he decides on his action. If a player hasn't realised the pot has been raised, and it now serves him better to re-raise I feel he should be allowed to do that (you can call it my discretion if it makes you feel better).

I'll also reiterate the point I made before that an OOT action gets the same privilege if the action changes to him. If an OOT player gets that privilege, why not a player who didn't realise the pot had been raised?

Actually...

11. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. A player who has called out of turn may not change his wager to a raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn is binding unless the action to that player is subsequently changed by a bet or raise. If there is an intervening call, an action may be ruled binding.

I read this rule to say that if you call out of turn, you absolutely will not be allowed to raise.  Your call is binding unless the action changes, in which case you may change your call to a fold.

[DC4ND]

This situation happened at my game this weekend.  The player in the small blind verbally announced a call and put in another half of the blind, but the blind was raised prior to his action.  It was clear that his intention was to call the minimum to see a flop.  He was allowed to either A. call the current bet or B. fold and take back his call for less, leaving his small blnd in the pot.  He said he was a man of his word and called the current bet, only to fold to a minimum bet after the flop.  I would not have allowed him to raise since his verbal action was a call, but his understanding of the current bet was incorrect, so he was limited to his options.

My $0.02

[William]

Actually...

11. Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. A player who has called out of turn may not change his wager to a raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn is binding unless the action to that player is subsequently changed by a bet or raise. If there is an intervening call, an action may be ruled binding.

I read this rule to say that if you call out of turn, you absolutely will not be allowed to raise.  Your call is binding unless the action changes, in which case you may change your call to a fold.

That's how I read it first as well, but Doc and Martini disagreed with me, so I put the question to Bob Ciaffone.

Read all about it here: http://forums.homepokertourney.com/index.php/topic,21659.msg251237.html#msg251237

[Dr. Neau]

There's a difference, though.

When you act out of turn and say, "Call".  The player who now has a chance to act can react to your out-of-turn action by trying to force you out of the hand.  You need to have the right to change your action if the action to you is changed by an increase in the amount to go.

When you simply miss a raise that was in-turn because you weren't paying attention, that's a different story.  The action to you isn't changing...you simply missed it.

To me, the two situations are only similar in that they both involve stupid betting mistakes.

[Blaster]

 I would rule he can either pull back the extra chip & fold his small blind, (due to his mis-understanding of his bet amount), or he could complete his verbal "Call", by placing out the correct bet.
 This is not Out-of-Turn action, & that,  combined with his verbal intention of Not raising in the 1st place, would exclude a re-raise .

[Cav57]

I would like to thank all the people who responded to my question.  I looks like I made the wrong decision. Oh well, I will inform the players.

I still believe a player should pay attention to the game.   Quit playing with there chips, eating, telling long stories, or day dreaming about night things.   MHO

[Martini]

I would like to thank all the people who responded to my question.  I looks like I made the wrong decision. Oh well, I will inform the players.

I still believe a player should pay attention to the game.   Quit playing with there chips, eating, telling long stories, or day dreaming about night things.   MHO

I agree. If you're there to play poker then play poker. If you want to penalize them for not paying attention then write a house rule to cover it. But in the absence of any such rule then the player should not have to lose his call amount.

[R-Ho]

As I said, I see your point for angleshooting, but I feel that part of protecting a player is to allow him to make an informed decision before he decides on his action. If a player hasn't realised the pot has been raised, and it now serves him better to re-raise I feel he should be allowed to do that (you can call it my discretion if it makes you feel better).

The OP's example player who made the  'misinformed call' is not allowed to raise (or re-raise in this case) per RROP, BETTING AND RAISING, Rule 16 (particularly the last sentence):

16. All wagers and calls of an improperly low amount must be brought up to proper size if the error is discovered before the betting round has been completed. This includes actions such as betting a lower amount than the minimum bring-in (other than going all-in) and betting the lower limit on an upper limit betting round. If a wager is supposed to be made in a rounded off amount, is not, and must be corrected, it shall be changed to the proper amount nearest in size. No one who has acted may change a call to a raise because the wager size has been changed.  

R-Ho