U Make the Call: “What Was That?”
 

Good NL game with a $5 BB somewhere in LA a while back. The button is in seat 1 in this 9-handed game. Before the flop Seat 4 folds, Seat 5 and Seat 6 limp, I limp in Seat 7 followed by Seat 8 and 9. The button now spoils the limping party by raising to $35. The SB and BB fold along with Seat 5. Seat 6 releases several chips and appears to have called so I fold my one chip trash.

The action is now on Seat 8 and he suddenly says, ”What was that?” He’s looking at Seat 6 so I look and observe he is without cards and there is only one chip in the pot where his bets are. Seat 8 asks me “Didn’t he call the raise?” and I simply respond, “I thought so.”

Now the action is stalled and Seat 8 doesn’t know what to do. He asks me what the rule is more or less and I tell him I’m out of the hand now and it’s up to him whether or not he wants a ruling. So he calls the floor for a ruling.

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?

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

Tell 6 to pay attention and he won't find himself causing floor calls. Tell 8 to hurry up and call or fold, we'd like to see another hand sometime tonight.

You folded not to 6's call, but 1's raise. 8 and 9 haven't acted. The retracted call isn't especially cool, but it's a stretch to say it's caused any action behind him, so I don't really see holding him to a call.

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

To call the raise, he needed to put in $30. He put in $20. Not like $300 and he put in $20. It is close enough that I wouldn't let him use the "I didn't know the size of the raise" excuse.
There was action behind him (whether your fold was due to the initial raise or his call is not material...think of the "burn and turn too soon" situation where the player who didn't call the last bet folds anyway). Even if there wasn't, can a player say "call", put in the chips, and then take them out? The "Emily Litella Rule"?
So I think he owes the pot. Question is, the $20 he put in, or the $30 to call the raise? I would have him put in the $20.

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

if u folded before he took back, the chips stay. since seat 6's cards are gone those 20 are in the pot. Expensive lesson learned.. if he's a complete noob, I might let him take the bet back with a warning but if this isnt the guys first day at the rodeo... chips stay...

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

Somebody needs to wake up the dealer too.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Somebody needs to wake up the dealer too.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way?

Everything happened very fast. She couldn't immediately see that only five chips total went into the pot. Eventually she of course would have had it corrected; things like this happen all the time. The bullet muck couldn't be stopped except maybe by Superman.

The LA games are also played very loose. A dealer will generally leave it up to the players as to whether or not to call the floor in this sort of situation.

~ Rick

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

Depends on casino - some have a haRd and fast rule about "the line" - That is, any chip that crosses the betting line is part of the pot, period, unless a verbal declaration states the about of a bet or raise.

Others are based on "action behind". In this case, it would appear that either rule would apply to force the player to leave the chips in the pot, though if the "line" is not a specific rule, I think it would be the players that would have to object here though - but if the players object, I believe the money has to stay in the pot.


AB

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

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be the players that would have to object here though - but if the players object, I believe the money has to stay in the pot. - AB

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, a lot has to do with the players reactions in this sort of case. I also believe a floor might and perhaps should rule it differently in the same cardroom depending on the size of game.

~ Rick

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

out of curiosity, where was this and what was the ruling?

AB

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

Seat 6 puts his additional 4 redbirds in the pot, Seat 8 now can CRF and so on.

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.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


It was only $30 (6 chips) to him.
He put in $20 (4 chips).
He put in 2/3 of the raise, not half.
I don't think that is a big enough of a difference to give him a pass.

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

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

8. The same action...

[/ QUOTE ]

I know my rulebooks start with 8. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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

I think that, wherever possible, the player's intent should be considered. For example, in assessing whether a raise is a string raise or not, if it was clearly the player's intent to raise, it should be allowed. I know this is sometimes not an easy ascertainment.

Here are two actual incident that I was involved in where the other player's response was key. Both were limit games:

A) Pot is raised in front of me but I don't see it. I say "raise" and only put in enough for two bets. All others fold around to the original raiser when another player says, "Hey, Andy said raise." I now notice the prior raise and say, "He's right," and put in the third bet. The original raiser, a great guy, looks upset. I say to him, "I'll do whatever you say." He says, "Take it back," and I do it and we play for just two bets. No other player objected, largely because they realized it was an honest mistake on my part. (I had pocket aces.)

B) I have the small blind in seat 1. Pot is raised somewhere and, I thought, cold-called by seat 9. I call 1.5 bets and the big blind folds. Now the dealer tells me it was 3-bet by seat 9. I say, "Oh," and take out my 1.5 bets and muck. Seat 9 objects that there was action behind. She is correct, according to the letter of the law at Commerce. I ask for the floor who explains to me that the action behind by the big blind meant I had to put the chips back in. Which I did. Crappy thing for seat 9 to do (she's a crappy person), IMO, because I was clearly intending to call a 2-bet. Unfortunately, she won the hand, because if the original raiser had won, he would have given me back my chips. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

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

[ QUOTE ]
I think that, wherever possible, the player's intent should be considered. For example, in assessing whether a raise is a string raise or not, if it was clearly the player's intent to raise, it should be allowed. I know this is sometimes not an easy ascertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. You're the floor. Imagine situation in OP but your friend I__s is in Seat 8 and your buddy A____e is in Seat 6 (or visa versa if it makes the answer more fun). You need the job because without it you are otherwise even more broke and desperate.

Your decision?

~ Rick