U Make the Call: “What Was That?”

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ 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

[AngusThermopyle]

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?

[andyfox]

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]

[RR]

[ 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.

[Rottersod]

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.

[Rick Nebiolo]

...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