I Think I Made A Mistake...

[Poker Jack]

Hi there,

this situation happened in a local tourney when I was in charge:

Blinds 700/1400
w/ Betting Line

When the action comes to Player A, who is in the small blind, he takes a single $5,000 chip and adds it to the three chips (1x$500, 2x$500) in front of him without verbal declaration.

Player B argues that it's just a call, but Player A says he wanted to raise.

Since Player A did not take back the three chips already there, I ruled it to stand as a raise to $5,700 because it was a multible chip bet (kind of...  ), but a few moments later realized that I probably made a mistake there.

You could argue that the three chips ($700) in front of him are not really "in front of" him but are rather part of the pot already. So, Player A really just bet one single, oversized chip without verbal declaration, which is always a call.

What do you think?

Also, consider the following, similar situation:

Player A bets $2,000 (2x$1,000)
Player B raises to $5,000
Player A adds a single $10,000 chip to the two $1,000 chips already there without verbal declaration.

Again, is that a raise? Or is it a call because the two $1,000 chips are not really "in front of" the player, but are really part of the pot already...

What's the ruling in these kind of situations?

[William]

If the player puts out an oversized chip in addition to the blinds, and doesn't take the blinds back, that's a clear raise.

There are "Multiple chip" rules out there which state that if it doesn't constitute a call amount if you take away one chip, then it's a call, else it's a raise.

So say the blinds of 200/400 have been raised to 1,200, and you put out 2x 1,000 chips, that would be considered a legal raise to 2,000. However, taking one of these chips away would leave you short, so it's a call unless otherwise stated.

If, however, you put out 4x 500, then taking away 1 of those chips means you still would have put out enough to call, so that's a raise to 2,000.

It's a complicated rule, but now a standard part of the TDA and WSOP rule sets.

[Martini]

Interesting. As much as I hate the one chip rule and the two chip rule that it spawned I would have, short of a house rule to the contrary, said that the single oversized chip would have been a call. I would not consider the SB and a subsequent chip addition to be part of the same betting intent. The SB can clearly be separate from any other chips if the SB chooses to fold so I would consider the single oversized chip as a distinct betting action and since it is single chip being added to an amount less than a call I would say that it is a call if there is no verbal declaration to say otherwise.

@Poker Jack
I assume that in the OP when you said "(1x$500, 2x$500)" that you meant a single T500 and two T100 chips instead of the three T500 chips you described.

In your other scenario I would rule that the addition of a single chip would be considered a call as well for the same reason as described above. Though I disagree with the rationale behind the one chip rule if you're going to use it I don't see how that same rationale doesn't apply to the situations described.

[Poker Jack]

Interesting. As much as I hate the one chip rule and the two chip rule that it spawned I would have, short of a house rule to the contrary, said that the single oversized chip would have been a call. I would not consider the SB and a subsequent chip addition to be part of the same betting intent. The SB can clearly be separate from any other chips if the SB chooses to fold so I would consider the single oversized chip as a distinct betting action and since it is single chip being added to an amount less than a call I would say that it is a call if there is no verbal declaration to say otherwise.

Yeah, that's what I meant. So, would you suggest to rule similar situations as a call the next time?

@Poker Jack
I assume that in the OP when you said "(1x$500, 2x$500)" that you meant a single T500 and two T100 chips instead of the three T500 chips you described.

Yeah sorry, that was a typal. I meant 1xT500 and 2xT100 of course.

[nutN2Lewz]

It's a call. One Chip Rule ... "If you put a single chip in the pot that is larger than the bet, but do not announce a raise, you are assumed to have only called. "

Hire a better dealer. All it takes is one word from the dealer ... "Call" and all your problems are solved. The player will immediately say "No, that was a raise" at which point the dealer can explain the one-chip rule and offer the player the option of calling or raising BEFORE the next player acts.

Good luck, nutn

[72]

It's a call. One Chip Rule ... "If you put a single chip in the pot that is larger than the bet, but do not announce a raise, you are assumed to have only called. "

Hire a better dealer. All it takes is one word from the dealer ... "Call" and all your problems are solved. The player will immediately say "No, that was a raise" at which point the dealer can explain the one-chip rule and offer the player the option of calling or raising BEFORE the next player acts.

Good luck, nutn

well said Nutn.

[Martini]

If you're going to play with the one chip rule then I wouldn't also offer the player the option to clarify his intent even if the next player had not yet acted.

[nutN2Lewz]

If you're going to play with the one chip rule then I wouldn't also offer the player the option to clarify his intent even if the next player had not yet acted.

It might not be allowed in a casino, but should be allowed in a friendly home game especially if you have inexperienced players.

Good luck, nutn

[Gobbs]

After I got past the 1400 BB and playing with a betting line, I got to the issue.  Don't worry about it.  Everybody gets it wrong on occasion.  Next time, you'll know.

KC

[aa889d]

If you're going to play with the one chip rule then I wouldn't also offer the player the option to clarify his intent even if the next player had not yet acted.

It might not be allowed in a casino, but should be allowed in a friendly home game especially if you have inexperienced players.

Good luck, nutn

Not only is it allowed in a friendly home game, but in MOST card rooms around SoCal and most I've visited in LV - so long as its a one time (oooops) and not an action that is taken multiple times by the same player (i.e. angle shooting).  I've seen many a pro dealer call it exactly as Nutn explained, halting action until the original bettor made their intent known and then following it with a warning to said bettor to refrain from such action in the future.

There's a big difference between a new player making an honest mistake and someone who has been at the table all night, betting the 'one-chip' rule correctly, but then in a unique situation chooses to be it an alternate way or fein ignorance.  That's why the dealer controls the game and why you have a floor person (or a TD in a home game) to make a ruling should the need arise.

Dean

[Gobbs]

If you're going to play with the one chip rule then I wouldn't also offer the player the option to clarify his intent even if the next player had not yet acted.

It might not be allowed in a casino, but should be allowed in a friendly home game especially if you have inexperienced players.

Good luck, nutn

Not only is it allowed in a friendly home game, but in MOST card rooms around SoCal and most I've visited in LV - so long as its a one time (oooops) and not an action that is taken multiple times by the same player (i.e. angle shooting).  I've seen many a pro dealer call it exactly as Nutn explained, halting action until the original bettor made their intent known and then following it with a warning to said bettor to refrain from such action in the future.

There's a big difference between a new player making an honest mistake and someone who has been at the table all night, betting the 'one-chip' rule correctly, but then in a unique situation chooses to be it an alternate way or fein ignorance.  That's why the dealer controls the game and why you have a floor person (or a TD in a home game) to make a ruling should the need arise.

Dean

I'd rather play by the rules.

KC

[LabRat]

Those are the rules.

1.Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.

[Gobbs]

...and using that rule in this situation would be a horrible abuse.

KC

[LabRat]

So that rule only applies when you say it should.
Got it.


Bottom line is arguing over a book of rules over any game with that clause in it is like arguing religion.

[Dr. Neau]

So that rule only applies when you say it should.
Got it.


Bottom line is arguing over a book of rules over any game with that clause in it is like arguing religion.

I think there are times when the overruling fits and times when you'd be a complete moron to use it.

For instance, you wouldn't make a ruling that a novice's 2-pair beats a more experienced player's flush because he thought the 2-pair was better, would you?

So, the TD needs to use judgement as to when this rule applies...and it isn't black or white when to apply it.

Whipping it out as the general answer to every situation is not the right answer.

[Gobbs]

So that rule only applies when you say it should.
Got it.


Bottom line is arguing over a book of rules over any game with that clause in it is like arguing religion.

I think the good doctor said it pretty well.  In all my years as a TD and host, I recall using that rule once.  The rule is not meant to be used for common situations already covered by the rules.  It's to correct injustices caused by circumstances unforeseen when the rules were created.  Obviously, this situation did not create an injustice.  The guy called by throwing out a single chip.  Mistake?  Maybe.  Injustice?  No.  He made an intentional action of throwing out one chip without announcing raise.  That's no different than making a call in any of a variety of ways - he just wasn't aware of the rule, apparently.  That's his fault, not an injustice.  Would you use the rule to let him raise if he said "call ... er ... I mean raise.". It would be the exact same thing and equally ridiculous.  He made a poker action but the rule would allow him to take it back.

So, the rule should be applied when appropriate, not when you think somebody needs to be bailed out from his own ignorance.  In fact, using the rule here would cause injustice to those who knew it was a call and were prepared to act accordingly, but now are facing a raise that was never made properly.  Using the rule here would be stupid.

KC

[Muley05]

I am still not following why the situation in the OP is a call and not a raise.

I am picturing the SB players with three chips in front of him, two 100s and a 500.  He then adds a 5000 chip to that stack (four chips total) and pushes that stack across the betting line.  In my games, I would rule that a raise and never think twice about it.

Also, I would assume that there would also be chips worth 1000 in play.  Would the ruling be any different if the player put a 5000 chip on his SB when he had t1000 chips available.

I do understand the one chip rule.  But I guess I am confused how it applies here IF the player is putting a high valued chip on top of his SB bet.  If the SB was already pushed into the pot it would make more sense to rule it a call.

[Dr. Neau]

Muley,

I think your "and then pushed across the betting line" doesn't apply.  The SB is already out there as a forced bet.

Basically, the way the rule is being interpreted is this:

Anytime action is on you and your options are fold, call or raise and you throw out a single chip (regardless of how many chips you have already bet on this round), you have just called.

So, let's say you opened with T100 by pulling out 4 T25s from your stack which contains 300 of them, then someone else raises to T300.  Action is back on you.  You throw out a T1,000,000,000 chip.  You have just called.

[Muley05]

Muley,

I think your "and then pushed across the betting line" doesn't apply.  The SB is already out there as a forced bet.

Basically, the way the rule is being interpreted is this:

Anytime action is on you and your options are fold, call or raise and you throw out a single chip (regardless of how many chips you have already bet on this round), you have just called.

So, let's say you opened with T100 by pulling out 4 T25s from your stack which contains 300 of them, then someone else raises to T300.  Action is back on you.  You throw out a T1,000,000,000 chip.  You have just called.

I understand your scenario.

Maybe I am doing it wrong from the start with the blinds, because in most of the games I play the blinds remain in front of the player who posted them until it's their turn to act.  And I don't play with a betting line, either.

So if the player's SB was across the betting line but not fully in the pot yet, and he places the one large chip on top, I guess I understand why that is a call.

But if the SB is in front of the player (forget the betting line for now), and he then places a large chip on top of the SB, I would have ruled raise in the past and not thought twice about it.

Bottom line, players should verbalize their actions and none of this would be an issue.

[LabRat]

So that rule only applies when you say it should.
Got it.


Bottom line is arguing over a book of rules over any game with that clause in it is like arguing religion.

 Using the rule here would be stupid.

KC

Stupid in your opinion.  Yet totally appropriate if the TD decides to use it.

[LabRat]

So that rule only applies when you say it should.
Got it.


Bottom line is arguing over a book of rules over any game with that clause in it is like arguing religion.

I think there are times when the overruling fits and times when you'd be a complete moron to use it.

For instance, you wouldn't make a ruling that a novice's 2-pair beats a more experienced player's flush because he thought the 2-pair was better, would you?

So, the TD needs to use judgement as to when this rule applies...and it isn't black or white when to apply it.

Whipping it out as the general answer to every situation is not the right answer.

You're seriously going to offer up that rule as over-riding the "cards speak" rule to try to make that point?

I'd suggest you try again.

If the guy honestly made a one time mistake in the opinion of the TD he is WELL-WITHIN his right -- as detailed by the rules -- to allow the player to verbalize his intent.  To try to compare that to over-ruling the cards-speak rule with that rule is ridiculous and not even worthy of discussion.

[Martini]

Muley,

I think your "and then pushed across the betting line" doesn't apply.  The SB is already out there as a forced bet.

Basically, the way the rule is being interpreted is this:

Anytime action is on you and your options are fold, call or raise and you throw out a single chip (regardless of how many chips you have already bet on this round), you have just called.

So, let's say you opened with T100 by pulling out 4 T25s from your stack which contains 300 of them, then someone else raises to T300.  Action is back on you.  You throw out a T1,000,000,000 chip.  You have just called.

I understand your scenario.

Maybe I am doing it wrong from the start with the blinds, because in most of the games I play the blinds remain in front of the player who posted them until it's their turn to act.  And I don't play with a betting line, either.

So if the player's SB was across the betting line but not fully in the pot yet, and he places the one large chip on top, I guess I understand why that is a call.

But if the SB is in front of the player (forget the betting line for now), and he then places a large chip on top of the SB, I would have ruled raise in the past and not thought twice about it.

Bottom line, players should verbalize their actions and none of this would be an issue.

As soon as the blinds are posted they are part of the pot. The player can use his contribution as part of his bet pre-flop but those chips technically are not his anymore (just try to take them back and put them in your stack again). They may be in front of the player but that does not mean they are his. Any subsequent putting of chips in the pot should be considered a different betting action.

[72]

As soon as the blinds are posted they are part of the pot. The player can use his contribution as part of his bet pre-flop but those chips technically are not his anymore (just try to take them back and put them in your stack again). They may be in front of the player but that does not mean they are his. Any subsequent putting of chips in the pot should be considered a different betting action.

great way of explaining it. i like it.

[Dr. Neau]

So that rule only applies when you say it should.
Got it.


Bottom line is arguing over a book of rules over any game with that clause in it is like arguing religion.

I think there are times when the overruling fits and times when you'd be a complete moron to use it.

For instance, you wouldn't make a ruling that a novice's 2-pair beats a more experienced player's flush because he thought the 2-pair was better, would you?

So, the TD needs to use judgement as to when this rule applies...and it isn't black or white when to apply it.

Whipping it out as the general answer to every situation is not the right answer.

You're seriously going to offer up that rule as over-riding the "cards speak" rule to try to make that point?

I'd suggest you try again.

If the guy honestly made a one time mistake in the opinion of the TD he is WELL-WITHIN his right -- as detailed by the rules -- to allow the player to verbalize his intent.  To try to compare that to over-ruling the cards-speak rule with that rule is ridiculous and not even worthy of discussion.

You're the one discussing it...

[Muley05]

As soon as the blinds are posted they are part of the pot. The player can use his contribution as part of his bet pre-flop but those chips technically are not his anymore (just try to take them back and put them in your stack again). They may be in front of the player but that does not mean they are his. Any subsequent putting of chips in the pot should be considered a different betting action.

I understand that the SB is part of the pot once it is made, but should the chips be pushed into the middle?  Perhaps this is my issue, because we generally leave the blinds in front of the player who posted them until all action has ceased for that round.

Also, if the blinds are 250/500, and I am the SB with two 25s and two 100s in front of me for my bet, I would take back the 250 and put out a single 500 chip if I was intending to call.

And if the blinds are taken by the dealer once they are posted and put into the middle of the table to start the pot, then most of what I have been saying becomes moot.

[Martini]

As soon as the blinds are posted they are part of the pot. The player can use his contribution as part of his bet pre-flop but those chips technically are not his anymore (just try to take them back and put them in your stack again). They may be in front of the player but that does not mean they are his. Any subsequent putting of chips in the pot should be considered a different betting action.

I understand that the SB is part of the pot once it is made, but should the chips be pushed into the middle?  Perhaps this is my issue, because we generally leave the blinds in front of the player who posted them until all action has ceased for that round.

Also, if the blinds are 250/500, and I am the SB with two 25s and two 100s in front of me for my bet, I would take back the 250 and put out a single 500 chip if I was intending to call.

And if the blinds are taken by the dealer once they are posted and put into the middle of the table to start the pot, then most of what I have been saying becomes moot.

Semantics. The blinds belong to the pot. Players can call that being "in the middle" regardless of the actual physical location. I would leave the blinds in front of the player so it is clear who is the blinds and how much a person has already put into the pot for that round.

If you would take back your SB and put out a T500 to call then there is no ambiguity of your action. However, sometimes people don't have exact change and use an oversized chip or they might just use an oversized chip even if they have the exact change (possibly as an angle shoot). As I've mentioned before I hate the one chip rule because it introduces ambiguity to what the intent of the wager is.

[R-Ho]

I don't think its right to remove chips from the pot prior to placing a bet.  This is akin to taking chips from the pot and putting them back on your stack.

[Dr. Neau]

As soon as the blinds are posted they are part of the pot. The player can use his contribution as part of his bet pre-flop but those chips technically are not his anymore (just try to take them back and put them in your stack again). They may be in front of the player but that does not mean they are his. Any subsequent putting of chips in the pot should be considered a different betting action.

I understand that the SB is part of the pot once it is made, but should the chips be pushed into the middle?  Perhaps this is my issue, because we generally leave the blinds in front of the player who posted them until all action has ceased for that round.

Also, if the blinds are 250/500, and I am the SB with two 25s and two 100s in front of me for my bet, I would take back the 250 and put out a single 500 chip if I was intending to call.

And if the blinds are taken by the dealer once they are posted and put into the middle of the table to start the pot, then most of what I have been saying becomes moot.

You know that they aren't scooped into the middle because you need to know what someone has bet.  That doesn't mean they aren't part of the pot, however.

Case in point: When someone says "POT!" in PL, they match the pot, which includes all bets that have not yet been raked into the middle.

Close the thread.

[Wedge Rock]

I don't think its right to remove chips from the pot prior to placing a bet.  This is akin to taking chips from the pot and putting them back on your stack.

Happens all the time, though.  Someone has a bet (could be a small blind, could be a bet) out and there is a raise behind them.  It comes back to them and they scoop in their chips (or even some of them) before putting out the proper quantity to call the bet on them.

Perhaps the chips are considered "in the pot" in the above-described scenario (no one could pull them back and fold), but taking them back as part of completing a bet (or raise).  But taking back your bet (or a portion of it) to complete your bet is not akin to taking chips out of the main pot by the dealer.  The former is accepted (even by the pros), the latter would not be tolerated by anyone.

[R-Ho]

I see it happen too. I don't see the need, for if changemaking is allowed, the scooping can be done  in equal time after the player puts in his larger chip(s).

[Wedge Rock]

Agreed.

[Poker Jack]

So, to wrap this up, what happens when it's not just a single chip, but multiple ones:

Blinds 1500/3000

Player in the small blind puts 7,000 (1xT5,000, 2xT1,000) out there without verbal declaration. He leaves the 1500 out there, but the small blind and the bet are apart from each other.

Is that a raise to T8,500, or a raise to T7,000?

[Kicres]

Without verbal declaration it's a raise to 8500.

[figjam]

Without verbal declaration it's a raise to 8500.

Agreed.  Unless he pulls the SB back in the same motion, then it would be a raise to 7000.

[R-Ho]

Without verbal declaration it's a raise to 8500.

Agreed.  Unless he pulls the SB back in the same motion, then it would be a raise to 7000.

Figjam, I don't mind if SB, when facing a raise to 10,000, silently puts in two 5,000 chips and drags back his 1500 SB. Nor do I mind if SB decides to raise to 20,000 by putting in four 5,000 chips and drags back the same blind. In these cases he is not dragging back chips of the same denomination that he is putting in, nor any combination of chips that equals the size of a chip in his additional bet.

Your reply suggests to me that you would allow players to put in chips of a certain denomination, and then take out chips that are the same denomination, or which add up to the same value as said denomination. There is no valid reason for the player to do that; he cannot even argue that it is convenient. He's just abusing the betting conventions.  I would not allow it.

R-Ho

[figjam]

Without verbal declaration it's a raise to 8500.

Agreed.  Unless he pulls the SB back in the same motion, then it would be a raise to 7000.

Figjam, I don't mind if SB, when facing a raise to 10,000, silently puts in two 5,000 chips and drags back his 1500 SB. Nor do I mind if SB decides to raise to 20,000 by putting in four 5,000 chips and drags back the same blind. In these cases he is not dragging back chips of the same denomination that he is putting in, nor any combination of chips that equals the size of a chip in his additional bet.

Your reply suggests to me that you would allow players to put in chips of a certain denomination, and then take out chips that are the same denomination, or which add up to the same value as said denomination. There is no valid reason for the player to do that; he cannot even argue that it is convenient. He's just abusing the betting conventions.  I would not allow it.

R-Ho

There isn't really a "good" reason, but some times I see people count out the full amount of the bet in front of them and then put that out there and pull back their SB.  Not sure why they don't just count out the difference though.  Maybe their math skills are not that good (then why are they playing poker).  Who knows.

I agree with you that there is not really a good reason, but if they do it they are not angle shooting or anything, so I let it slide.

[Gobbs]

So that rule only applies when you say it should.
Got it.


Bottom line is arguing over a book of rules over any game with that clause in it is like arguing religion.

 Using the rule here would be stupid.

KC

Stupid in your opinion.  Yet totally appropriate if the TD decides to use it.

You're going to have to show me how it is appropriate for the TD to use it to bail out a player from his own mistake, stupidity, or ignorance.  I'm relatively certain that caveat is nowhere to be found.

KC