Question on raising/"one chip rule"

[mikech]

this was you earlier in the thread: "That may be a stretch... but that's why I play a lawyer in real life."

now: "The fact is, if the last significant chip is necessary for a call and is also sufficient to constitute a raise, it is considered a call."

when the hell did this become "fact"?

you are "that person" that develops an interpretation of a rule and thinks your interpretation is gospel when in FACT it's just, like, your opinion, man.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]

this was you earlier in the thread: "That may be a stretch... but that's why I play a lawyer in real life."

now: "The fact is, if the last significant chip is necessary for a call and is also sufficient to constitute a raise, it is considered a call."

when the hell did this become "fact"?

you are "that person" that develops an interpretation of a rule and thinks your interpretation is gospel when in FACT it's just, like, your opinion, man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know what a non sequitur is? If not, you should. It is your talent.

To make it clear: "my stretch" was trying to read the correct results (as most B&M players and personnel understand it) into the rule as quoted. The "fact" (maybe a little strong, but very close to correct) is the way the rule is universally interpreted (or at least as universally as I can confirm): A bet that is made ambiguous (i.e., a call or a raise) because an oversized chip is used is considered a call. Nothing inconsistent there.

To quote what the wise king of non sequitur's once said: [ QUOTE ]
do we all agree on the above? so what's the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

man.

[mikech]

wtf are you talking about? your "stretch" was interpreting why the "one chip" rule should apply to multiple chips. then you claim this interpretation as "fact" and that it is how the rule is "universally interpreted" when rick nebiolo had already said:

[ QUOTE ]
I recall this question being debated by various LA floor several times with equally experienced floor taking either side.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, there's your universal interpretation for you, man.

[kerr]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a minraise. Everyone that says it is a call is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
I respectfully disagree with you 100%. It's a raise if and only if you say "Raise" or "Make it 10".

[AngusThermopyle]

Fact:
In most public cardrooms/casinos it would be a call.

You can argue that you think it should be a raise, but the current situation is that it is a call. Period.

Private games, underground games, and Indian casinos in Bum Truck, Iowa may be different.

[kerr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sigh...just say what you are going to do. Look at the dealer and say two words...either "I call" or "I raise". It's not *that* hard [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you are mute and can't speak?

If someone throws out 10.00 in two red chips or 50.00 in two green chips and the bet before it is $5.00 it should be counted as a raise. What are all poker players fvckking retarded or something? You need everything spelled out for you? Anyone with half a brain would realize that person is raising.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are a sad person, do you even know how to converse properly? Let's say Mr Mute, playing 1/2, is faced with a raise to $6. He has no $1 chips, and he puts out two $5 chips. You are adamant that is a raise, but what if his intention was to call? How do you know when he puts out two $5 chips whether he's calling or raising? Maybe one way to differentiate would be 1 or 2 motions, 1 motion is a raise, 2 motions, a string-call so to speak, is a call.

But I would logically assume, as I'm sure most would, that it is a call unless he motions to the dealer it is a raise. Without being able to speak, surely the obvious signal is eye contact with the dealer and an upward-pointing finger. Thus, whether you can speak or not, your bet must be unambiguous, otherwise one way or another, you must make your intentions clear to the dealer.

[Gabbbbyyyy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sigh...just say what you are going to do. Look at the dealer and say two words...either "I call" or "I raise". It's not *that* hard [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you are mute and can't speak?

If someone throws out 10.00 in two red chips or 50.00 in two green chips and the bet before it is $5.00 it should be counted as a raise. What are all poker players fvckking retarded or something? You need everything spelled out for you? Anyone with half a brain would realize that person is raising.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are a sad person, do you even know how to converse properly? Let's say Mr Mute, playing 1/2, is faced with a raise to $6. He has no $1 chips, and he puts out two $5 chips. You are adamant that is a raise, but what if his intention was to call? How do you know when he puts out two $5 chips whether he's calling or raising? Maybe one way to differentiate would be 1 or 2 motions, 1 motion is a raise, 2 motions, a string-call so to speak, is a call.

But I would logically assume, as I'm sure most would, that it is a call unless he motions to the dealer it is a raise. Without being able to speak, surely the obvious signal is eye contact with the dealer and an upward-pointing finger. Thus, whether you can speak or not, your bet must be unambiguous, otherwise one way or another, you must make your intentions clear to the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bet is FIVE! Not SIX FIVE. Got that FIVE DOLLA!. Two red chip into 6.00 bet is obviously a call, since the minimum to raise is 12.00 not 10.00.

FIVE FIVE FIVE!!! FEVER FIVE

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]

wtf are you talking about? your "stretch" was interpreting why the "one chip" rule should apply to multiple chips. then you claim this interpretation as "fact" and that it is how the rule is "universally interpreted" when rick nebiolo had already said:

[ QUOTE ]
I recall this question being debated by various LA floor several times with equally experienced floor taking either side.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, there's your universal interpretation for you, man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez. You can't admit your wrong, can you?

You pull two lines from two different posts I made 24 hours apart and reach a nonsensical conclusion. I don't know what else to say.

And I can't vouch for Rick's observation. I know how the rule has been interpreted every time it has arisen in games I have played in.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's take a slightly more complicated example. The game is 6/12 Limit Holdem. A player says "raise" and throws in 6 x $2 chips. The next player to act throws in 3 x $5 chips without saying anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does your house have a half-the-bet-is-a-raise rule? Even if it did, I think the relevant principle is that any bet which can be interpreted as both a raise and a call should be interpreted as a call.

Another case: The game is $4-8, on the turn. Someone bets $8. The next player puts in three $5 chips. Is this a raise? In most cardrooms I play in, this would indeed be a raise, because the player has put in at least half the bet without comment.

Note that limit is different than no-limit. In no-limit, the usual rule is that such a bet would be considered a call.

Here's an annoying edge case, though: Game is still 4-8, on the flop. Someone bets $4. Next player raises to $8. Next player raises to $11 and is all-in. (A full raise because it is more than half a bet.) Next player throws three red chips. Is this a raise or a call?

I do like your explanation, because you would regard this as a call. I am unsure that many other cardrooms would rule consistently in this case, though. I think I would rule it a call, because once again the bet is ambiguous, therefore it is a call.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
The bet is FIVE! Not SIX FIVE. Got that FIVE DOLLA!. Two red chip into 6.00 bet is obviously a call, since the minimum to raise is 12.00 not 10.00.

FIVE FIVE FIVE!!! FEVER FIVE

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Where did Gabbbbyyyy come from? And can we send him back?