Question on raising/"one chip rule"

[rageotones]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guys,

It's a call. As usual, in such situations, if you're confused just read RR's explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. It took me til last year in the WSOP to understand the rule. Limit event, 300/600 level, on the turn player A bets 600 with a 500 and a 100 chip, player B raises with two 500 chips and two 100 chips. Player C throws out two 1k chips, many at the table understand he intended to raise based on flop action. Player A folds, player B tries to 4 bet when it is pointed out by someone not in the hand that player C only called the bet. Players B, and C protest, floor is called, its ruled a call. Player A is now livid, as he would have called for one more bet knowing player B could not reraise. Player A gets a nice 20 minute time out for swearing at the floorman, player C is close to the same, player B is mad too. The guy who said the rule and asked for the floor is an experienced tournament pro (who's name I don't know sadly) and was clearly correct but pissed everyone off. Good times.

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmm....so everyone in the hand(everyone that matters at this point) think it's a raise, and some guy not in the hand challenges it?

sounds like everyone saying this is CLEARLY a call is wrong regardless of if this is actually the correct ruling.

[El Diablo]

QoQ,

"As a dealer, I will call this a binding raise 100% of the time"

Bad.

"halt the action and ask the player to clarify. "Sir, are you calling or raising?""

Good.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
hmmmm....so everyone in the hand(everyone that matters at this point) think it's a raise, and some guy not in the hand challenges it?

sounds like everyone saying this is CLEARLY a call is wrong regardless of if this is actually the correct ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]
In a cash game, STFU would be correct for anyone not in the hand in this situation. In a tourney, if you think a rule being broken is bad for you, whether you're in the hand or not you can speak up. Doing so may make you pretty unpopular, though, so I'd think pretty hard about it.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
QoQ,

"As a dealer, I will call this a binding raise 100% of the time"

Bad.

"halt the action and ask the player to clarify. "Sir, are you calling or raising?""

Good.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have players who will use this angle at almost every opportunity if given the chance. Part of my job as a dealer is to make sure my game doesn't provide them that opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
If an action is truly ambiguous, the dealer can simply halt the action and ask the player to clarify. "Sir, are you calling or raising?" Simple, effective, and encourages clarity in future actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was meaning to get around to saying something about these two contradictory statements. This is such a fuzzy topic people are even arguing with themselves in this thread. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[kerr]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't understand how silently throwing out enough money to raise is not a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

But from OP's example, if the player does not have chips to exactly call, why would 2 x $5 constitute a raise? Do you think it should always be a raise? It makes sense that if there appears to be any ambiguity, calls are silent, raises are verbal.

[Brettski]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't understand how silently throwing out enough money to raise is not a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The wording of the rule we use at Crown is as follows (this is the simple version):

If a player throws out a single oversized chip without indication of intent it is a call.

The key words here are <u>indication of intent.</u> An indication of intent is typically a verbal declaration (eg. "I raise" or "raise to $12").

Having a rule like this eliminates some of the subjective elements of making a ruling, making a grey area into a black and white one. In my view letting a player make a bet that, once made, could be interpreted one way or another, leaves room for arguments, demands that dealers should be able to "read minds", requests for clarification and angle shooting.

Let me give a couple of examples of this rule at work.

* The game is 2/5 No Limit Holdem. Player A calls by throwing out a $5 chip. Player B throws out a $25 chip without saying anything. It is ruled a call.

* The game is 2/5 No Limit Holdem. Player A calls by throwing out a $5 chip. Player B announces "raise to $20" and throws out a $25 chip. It is ruled a raise to $20.

Now, since I know this issue is going to come up sooner or later, let's try another example: [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

* The game is 2/5 No Limit Holdem. Player A calls by throwing out a $5 chip. Player B announces "raise" and throws out a $25 chip.

Raise to what? 10, 15, 20, 25? Under the single oversized chip rule we have, it would be ruled a raise to $25. The rule states:

If a player states "raise" and throws out a single oversized chip, it will be a raise to the maximum possible within the betting limits up to the size of the chip.

In plain English: if you just say "raise" and throw out a single oversized chip, it's taken as a raise to the max.

[Brettski]

I think also that there should be one important caveat here, and that is, the debate stops with whatever the house rules are.

There will always be debate on what the rules should be, but the reality is that the rules from one house may differ from the rules of another. The lesson is, make sure you make yourself familiar with the house rules so you don't get caught making an assumption about a ruling (rightly or wrongly) and ending up with egg on your face.

[kerr]

[ QUOTE ]
If the chips you put into the pot in one motion are of such a mix that you cannot remove a single one and have enough left to cover a call, you called, even if the sum of the chips you put out is also enough to legally raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good. I have changed it slightly:

If you silently put chips into a pot in a single motion, and they are of such a mix that you cannot remove one and have enough left to cover a call, it's a call, even if the sum of the chips you put out is also enough to legally raise.

Another example. 1/2 NL. UTG raises to 15 (3x$5), MP1 re-raises to 30 (6x$5), CO throws out 2x$25. Without a verbal declaration, this is always a call. It is irrelevant whether CO had $5 chips in his stack and could have thrown in 6x$5 to call, the 2x$25 is still a call (without a verbal declaration otherwise). For those saying it is a raise, is it a min-raise to $45, or a raise to $46, $47, $48, $49 or $50? Surely the onus is on the player to make his intentions clear if he wishes to raise.

[Brettski]

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

We do have a half-bet rule. We call it the "50% rule". The important thing to note here is that this will always be overridden by the single oversized chip rule.

Let's look first at the 50% rule.

* Scenario 1. It is a No Limit Holdem tournament, and the blinds are 300/600. UTG puts out 8 x $100 chips without saying anything. Because the extra amount ($200) he has put out on top of the called portion is less than 50% of the structured amount ($600) is is deemed to be a call.

* Scenario 2. It is a No Limit Holdem tournament, and the blinds are 300/600. UTG puts out 10 x $100 chips without saying anything. Since the extra amount ($400) on top of the called portion of the bet is 50% or more of the structured amount, it is deemed to be a raise. The player must now make the bet up to $1,200.

Okay, now let's throw the single oversized chip curveball into the situation.

* Scenario 3. It is a No Limit Holdem tournament, and the blinds are 300/600. UTG puts out 2 x $500 chips without saying anything. Because the first chip isn't enough to call, but the second chip is, the single oversized chip rule applies. The bet is deemed to be a call.

In terms of the "annoying" 4/8 example mentioned above, if a player goes all-in for $11 and the next player throws in 3 x $5 chips without saying anything, it would be a call. Assuming (of couse) that this is limit holdem, an $8 bet on the flop would constitute the first raise and the all-in bet of $11 (being 50% or more) would constitute the second raise. The next player is acting with respect to the previous action ($11). So if we follow the logical steps ...
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] If I throw in 1 x $5 chip is that enough to call? No.
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] If I throw in another $5 chip is that now enough to call? No.
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] If I throw in a third $5 chip is that now enough to call? Yes.

Therefore, I would rule this a call. I agree that the situation you describe is pretty hairy, but for the sake of consistency this is the way I would rule.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
By standard poker rules, placing $10 into the pot when facing a $6 bet and a minimum reraise size of $4 is a clear raise. The full amount of the raise has been placed into the pot, using multiple chips (hence, no recourse to the oversized chip rule).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
As a dealer, I will call this a binding raise 100% of the time (and I deal a low-limit spread game where situations like this are not uncommon).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I can't speak to what every other location is doing since I'm on the east coast, and I don't know where Q/Q is, but this is not at all standard practice here. Here this would be a clear dealer error/rookie mistake, because you enounter this fairly routinely, especially at limit games.

Also, I think too much is being made over the multiple chips issue, because in the cases we're talking about only one chip is oversize - the last one. If you use three red to call $11, there aren't three oversize chips.