NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago Rant)
 

Well, I know that everyone is going to say...it depends on your casino, but what I'm trying to find out is what other casinos do in these siuations. We've been having a big issue in the Chicago NL game at Resorts where different floor will ADAMANTLY rule one way or the other even on the same day. We even had one dealer who thought that she would arbitrarily decide based on her feel for the number of chips (not any strict guidelines, but her feeling on if that was enough money to constitute a raise depending on the bet size and not necessarily the intention of the player). Help me out with this so I can understand the reasoning of why or why not each is a raise (including intention, spirit of the game, etc).

1) First player bets out $100. Second player throws in $145 with multiple chips without saying anything. Is the second player forced to complete a minimum raise? Why or why not?

2) First player bets out $100. Second player throws in $150 with multiple chips without saying anything. Is the second player forced to complete a minimum raise? Why or why not?

3) First player bets out $100. Second player throws in $195 with multiple chips without saying anything. Is the second player forced to complete a minimum raise? Why or why not?

In all situations, assume that both players have a significant amount of money behind. Also, this is a NO-LIMIT game, not a LIMIT game.

Thanks everyone.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago Rant)
 

It's amazing how many problems would be cleared up if people would just say "raise to" or "make it".

I always do in part b/c it speeds up the game too, I can say "raise" and the next guy can do whatever he wants to do (in limit) while I'm still putting chips out.

I'm not a floor, but I think that these are all standard "unless you put out a full raise, it's a call' situations.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

[ QUOTE ]
We've been having a big issue in the Chicago NL game at Resorts where different floor will ADAMANTLY rule one way or the other even on the same day. We even had one dealer who thought that she would arbitrarily decide based on her feel ....

[/ QUOTE ]

You have more problems than just this specific ruling.
Get some other players together and talk with the Poker Room manager and tell him that you want consistent rulings (even if you do not agree with the "house rule").

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

I'm no expert but the rules I'm used to that case 1 is a call, case 3 is a minimum raise to $200. Case 2 the player has the choice of calling $100 or minimum raising to $200. I'm not a big fan of case 2 being that way because it can work as a sort of angle shot to see the reaction before deciding to raise or call, but that's the way I've seen it called.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no expert but the rules I'm used to that case 1 is a call, case 3 is a minimum raise to $200. Case 2 the player has the choice of calling $100 or minimum raising to $200. I'm not a big fan of case 2 being that way because it can work as a sort of angle shot to see the reaction before deciding to raise or call, but that's the way I've seen it called.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen it ruled the same.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

1) Take back your $45 Sir... thats a call. Betting is closed.

2) You are $50 short there Sir... thats a raise. Betting is open, next to act can CRF.

3) You are $5 short there Sir... thats a raise. Betting is open, next to act can CRF.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I know that everyone is going to say...it depends on your casino, but what I'm trying to find out is what other casinos do in these siuations. We've been having a big issue in the Chicago NL game at Resorts where different floor will ADAMANTLY rule one way or the other even on the same day. We even had one dealer who thought that she would arbitrarily decide based on her feel for the number of chips (not any strict guidelines, but her feeling on if that was enough money to constitute a raise depending on the bet size and not necessarily the intention of the player). Help me out with this so I can understand the reasoning of why or why not each is a raise (including intention, spirit of the game, etc).

1) First player bets out $100. Second player throws in $145 with multiple chips without saying anything. Is the second player forced to complete a minimum raise? Why or why not?

2) First player bets out $100. Second player throws in $150 with multiple chips without saying anything. Is the second player forced to complete a minimum raise? Why or why not?

3) First player bets out $100. Second player throws in $195 with multiple chips without saying anything. Is the second player forced to complete a minimum raise? Why or why not?

In all situations, assume that both players have a significant amount of money behind. Also, this is a NO-LIMIT game, not a LIMIT game.

Thanks everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

The third one is clearly a raise. The first two it depends on if the intent of the player can be determined (by the floor). Half a bet has no significance in NL, if there is not a finding that the player's clear intention was to raise it is a call.

edit to add: Yes I know we need better rules, better floormen, or both.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

Alot of these things depend on the chips in play.

All of those examples really look like a raise. I can see going 20 over a bet but when you go into 30-40 dollar range it's hard to just say it was a mistake.

It really is a judgement call for the dealers. You can make up tons of scenarios where something is a call in one spot but a raise in every other spot.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

Have a talk with management away from the table. Explain the problems and nicely ask them to formulate a policy and disseminate that information to all employees. If you do this in a nice friendly manor, when you are not involved in a hand, then hopefully they will take some kind of positive action. Too often a heated discussion that takes place during a hand will lead to bad feelings all around.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

As others said. With no verbal declaration - Case 1 is a call, 2 and 3 are min-raises.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

thanks for the input guys. my intention was to speak with management about a more consistent ruling system but for this specific instance, I wanted to make sure I had a specific stance on it and good points to back up why it is the case. I want to be sure that I am informed and knowlegeable about this so they take me seriously when I use this as an example for why the room needs a more strict consistent set of rulings.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

I know how this would be ruled at the local casino's around where I live.

Any chip over the amount of the bet brough across the line is considered a raise , unless you verbally anounce a call. This is with a betting line and most of the time a player will be warned of this the first time, but depending on the mood of dealer and your attitude (if you are abusing the dealer, expect no mercy on any rulings. Ever.) it is very likely that you will be forced to raise. The rule is very clear that this is a raise, but fairness (if you are new to the place and you bring chips over the line to check, etc.) will mean that a first "offense" will likely just be a warning.

There is one exception to this rule. In a NL game, when it is preflop and hasn't been raised, a single chip brough over the line (ex. A $5 chip in 1/2 NL) is always considered a call, if there was no verbal statement otherwise. This is to speed things up as the dealer will often be able to make change out of the pot, instead of having to go to the rack, which speeds things up.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago Rant)
 

Every time I've seen this ruled it goes like this. If a player tosses in half or more of the amount($150 or more in this case), then they are forced to make it $200 to go and no more, betting is still open. If he tosses in $149 or less, he takes back anything more than $100 and it's a call.

That's my experience.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

Robert's Rules under "Betting and Raising".
[ QUOTE ]

14. String raises are not allowed. To protect your right to raise , you should either declare your intention verbally or place the proper amount of chips into the pot. Putting a full bet plus a half-bet or more into the pot is considered to be the same as announcing a raise , and the raise must be completed. (This does not apply in the use of a single chip of greater value.)

[/ QUOTE ]
The only point I disagree with is "the raise must be completed." I think the player gets the option to fold rather than finish the raise, but the chips ain't coming back out if he folds.

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) First player bets out $100. Second player throws in $145 with multiple chips without saying anything. Is the second player forced to complete a minimum raise? Why or why not?

2) First player bets out $100. Second player throws in $150 with multiple chips without saying anything. Is the second player forced to complete a minimum raise? Why or why not?

3) First player bets out $100. Second player throws in $195 with multiple chips without saying anything. Is the second player forced to complete a minimum raise? Why or why not?

In all situations, assume that both players have a significant amount of money behind. Also, this is a NO-LIMIT game, not a LIMIT game.

Thanks everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I worked at the Bike I drafted a memo that was signed into practice for the correction of inadequately sized bets in NL. It was based on some research regarding what appeared to be in common practice.

Essentially it said that any raise that is half or more than the required minimum will be corrected to the minimum raise. Any raise that is less than half will be corrected to a call.

Using this practice 1) above would be corrected to a call, and the latter two would be corrected to a raise.

If I had to do this again, I'd go for "more than half" rather than "half or more"; I think this works better for bets of two chips when three chips are thrown in (and two of the three chips are stuck together, the player intended to call).

It appears a similar practice is used at the Commerce and Hollywood Park.

A few miles away Hawaiian Gardens (the first club in LA to spread the small fixed buy NL games, something they started a couple years before WPT and Chris Moneymaker helped start the poker boom) uses a policy that says any raise short of a full raise is corrected to a call. This may seem overly harsh but it discourages mini raises, which sometimes can look collusive when they are used in series in a multi-way pot. Here, all three cases would be corrected to a call.

Note that for all above a floor would usually be called, often players accept action that is incorrect. I believe a case can be made that in a multi-way pot dealer should correct the bets per the applicable ruling.

~ Rick

Re: NL: tossing in less than a full raise...binding or not? (Chicago R
 

thanks Rick. that was helpful. I think I'll try to talk to the floor boss this weekend about it. if anyone has any more input, I'd still appreciate it.