Re: U Make the Call: “What Was That?”
 

[ QUOTE ]
out of curiosity, where was this and what was the ruling? - AB

[/ QUOTE ]

This was at the Bike. The table was pretty friendly and the floor after some thought ruled that the player in Seat 6 wasn't bound to the call, probably because the action behind really wasn't that substantial (I may have mentioned I wasn't going to call anyway). The table accepted this decision without much ado.

I like this floor (a new guy who tries hard and seems to know what he's doing) and decided to talk to him about the ruling a while later. We ended up agreeing that the ruling was OK for that game and those players, but might get him into trouble in a bigger game with more hard core types.

~ Rick

Re: U Make the Call: “What Was That?”
 

And what happens when one of the players at that table does the same thing two days later?

Sorry, "it's a friendly game so let's bend the rules" makes for big arguments later.

So, if Seat 6 had said "reraise" and put in $200, he could take it back if he acts before you muck?

Re: U Make the Call: “What Was That?”
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, if Seat 6 had said "reraise" and put in $200, he could take it back if he acts before you muck?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a good analogy. In OP's case, the guy who called evidently didn't understand the size of the bet. This brings in the clause about NL players who clearly don't understand the size of the action before them not being bound. In your case, no such clause applies. This isn't "I said call but changed by mind after I saw the action behind me", it's (probably) "I thought I was calling $20, not $35". Different aminal.

I think by a fairly strict interpretation of the rules, since there was some action behind the guy who tossed in chips, he's got no leg to stand on if the floor rules against him. If OP or the next player had called before the guy had gotten his chips back, there'd be no question that his chips were staying in. But there is wiggle room here in this specific example and letting the floor do what feels right isn't setting some new angles-are-accepted precedent.

Re: U Make the Call: “What Was That?”
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think by a fairly strict interpretation of the rules, since there was some action behind the guy who tossed in chips, he's got no leg to stand on if the floor rules against him. If OP or the next player had called before the guy had gotten his chips back, there'd be no question that his chips were staying in. But there is wiggle room here in this specific example and letting the floor do what feels right isn't setting some new angles-are-accepted precedent.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a tremendous recap bav. Thanks for the effort!

~ Rick

Re: U Make the Call: “What Was That?”
 

[ QUOTE ]
The floor eventually determines that Seat 6 originally limped, then released four more chips to call what he thought was a $20 raise to $25, then took the chips back and bullet mucked when he saw the raise was to $35. My fold came immediately after the initial release of chips but before the “take back and muck”.

What is your decision?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would rule he puts in the entire $35; however, if there is no objection to him not putting this chips in the floor should remeber this is the player's game.

Re: U Make the Call: “What Was That?”
 

I'm going to have to go with he should have been required to put in the entire bet. In LA we see a different scenario all the time: raise preflop and small blind puts in chips to complete what he thought was an unraised pot but when the dealer informs him that it was raised he is allowed to take his chips back and muck. This is fine but your scenario was different. He had already called the blinds so he knew that there was a raise that he was calling - he just lost track of how much it was. He did throw chips in and since they were all going to the raise he should be responsible for competing it. An expensive lesson yes, but maybe a lesson that will stick with him. IMO, the floor handled this poorly, as you alluded to the fact that at a different table it may very well have gotten him in some hot water. Consistency should be the mantra.

Thanks for the responses. and note...
 

...the floor in question is genuinely interested in improving his decision-making (which is already good IMO) and has asked me to send him links to these threads.

The quality of the responses here is very good; sometimes I wonder how many actual floorpeople actually monitor this forum.

~ Rick

Re: U Make the Call: “What Was That?”
 

[ QUOTE ]
This brings in the clause about NL players who clearly don't understand the size of the action before them not being bound. In your case, no such clause applies. This isn't "I said call but changed by mind after I saw the action behind me", it's (probably) "I thought I was calling $20, not $35". Different aminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this scenario invokes that rule at all. this is not a case of a player Clearly not understanding the size of the action. this is a scenario of a player evidently being mistaken in the amount of a bet but not to a huge degree.

I think the rule you refer is far more applicable to the case where the difference between the actual bet and the amount a player called is so significant as to make it obvious that the caller did not understand the size of the bet. Here this is not so clear, without listening to the players explanation -- just based on circumstance you could not tell whether the caller didn't know the bet size, or just failed to grab enough chips, or thought that he had already had some money in the pot that counted toward sthe bet.

Re: U Make the Call: “What Was That?”
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this scenario invokes that rule at all. this is not a case of a player Clearly not understanding the size of the action. this is a scenario of a player evidently being mistaken in the amount of a bet but not to a huge degree.

I think the rule you refer is far more applicable to the case where the difference between the actual bet and the amount a player called is so significant as to make it obvious that the caller did not understand the size of the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... I agree this is not clear cut. Mind you, I think this is a significant misunderstanding of the size of the action... guy thought he was adding $15 to call a raise to $20 when in fact the raise was $30 more. Off by x2. So the misunderstood size of the action could apply.

More important is the action behind. Typically that signs the contract. And yeah, in a real stakes game with bloodthirsty players, seat 6 likely would be SOL. Here... one guy folded behind and the action halted. Is that "significant" action?

Basically seems to come down to: was the misunderstood bet size insignificant, or was the action behind significant? If either is true, the call stands. That's the wiggle room the floor has here. I'm ok with ruling he can have it back, and I'm ok with demanding the bet stay.

Re: U Make the Call: “What Was That?”
 

Also dont' forget this little rule that is at the beginnign of a lot of rule books

8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.