Question on raising/"one chip rule"

[kerr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, while I accept this to be the rule, I am not sure that this is standard across most cardrooms. Robert's Rule 14-11 states: If a player tries to bet or raise less than the legal minimum and has more chips, the wager must be increased to the proper size. The wager is brought up to the sufficient amount only, no greater size. Does this not imply that if P3 put in a 5 and two 1s that this should be deemed a raise to $10, at odds with Brettski's 50% rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only comment I would make about Robert's Rules in this matter is that this is not what we do at Crown (yes, it appears that what he's saying conflicts with our 50% rule). I guess that if, under those rules, I bet $1,000 and my opponent makes the bet $1,001, he would have to make the bet up to $2,000. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I knew I'd regret not posting the entire Rule 14-11 from Robert's Rules:

If a player tries to bet or raise less than the legal minimum and has more chips, the wager must be increased to the proper size. (This does not apply to a player who has unintentionally (?????) put too much in to call.) The wager is brought up to the sufficient amount only, no greater size

I had left out the part in bold. Personally I can't agree with this part of the rule, or in fact, any part of the rule. Who determines what the player's intention was? How can we be sure that a player won't angleshoot, such that when the dealer asks the player what his intention was with an ambiguous bet (if such a thing exists), given he's had a few seconds to sum up the situation, he might say "Yeah I'm raising" or "Oops it's just a call". This ambiguity is unacceptable.

If a bet is $500 and I mean to call but accidentally throw out 6x$100 because two chips are stuck together, I shouldn't need to be asked what my intention was. There is no room for trust at the poker table, only rules. And I don't believe I should be forced to raise to $1000 either. I like Brett's 50% rule, it's the rule I play by, it makes sense to me, but I'd be interested to hear others' opinions.

[pfapfap]

Cripes, I hope I never get all the "it's a raise!" people all at my table at once. You probably take forever to act and say things like "re-cap ahhahahahahaha". [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Most of those saying "raise" seem to be creating rather convoluted examples and disregarding some common sense when arguing letter of rules. There have been several rather clear explanations of why it's a call and not a raise in unambiguous terms. You don't need to argue, you need to go back and read.

Here's how I handle it, either at work or in a home game. "Time. Is that a call?" The vast majority of the time, it was intended as a call.

So the rules say it's a call and the vast majority of those who do it intend a call. I say it's a call.

And now that I've finished this post, the word "call" looks weird and has lost all meaning to me.

[El Diablo]

QoQ,

"The action, as posed, is a clear raise."

You need to read this thread and understand the rules correctly. Especially since you're a dealer.

Asking for clarification is fine.

Incorrectly ruling it a raise is not.

If you correctly rule it a call, there is no angle shot possibility. IF THE PLAYER DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING IN THIS SITUATION, IT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. IT IS A CALL, PERIOD.

[QuadsOverQuads]

Ok, this will be my last post to this thread.

First: I'm not going to post my employer's name, my work history, or any other personally identifying information. That is just common sense on any internet forum, and I trust that readers here will appreciate why it is inappropriate to ask for such information.

Second: I have read the arguments in this thread, and I guess I must be a weak dealer or a rookie or whatever, because this is a very simple and clear situation to me. Full raise amount, multiple chips, no verbal declaration. That's a raise. That's how I'm going to call it, so I guess just be forewarned that the best practice is to clearly verbalize your intent to avoid any misunderstandings.

Again: state your intent clearly, and please try to appreciate that your dealer is doing their best to keep the action clean and clear, even if they can't please everyone. This isn't for the house's interest or my interest as a dealer -- it's for the players and the overall integrity of the game.

That's my two cents, take it as you will.


q/q

[Gonso]

If you were referring to me, I only asked if you worked in multiple houses or if you were in Vegas, not where you work in particular. I'm just curious if there was a major house doing this somewhere, because it's so unusual.

[ QUOTE ]
because this is a very simple and clear situation to me. Full raise amount, multiple chips, no verbal declaration. That's a raise. That's how I'm going to call it,

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, but again, this is wrong and should be overruled virtually everywhere you go, so if you ever work in another poker room.

I mean, in all the time you've been dealing no one ever brought this up?

[El Diablo]

QoQ,

You are a dealer. You should learn the rules.

[KipBond]

Here's a question I haven't seen yet:

Tournament 150/300 blinds. Player announces "raise". Then throws in a single 1000 chip. Pause. Then throws in 4 more 1000 chips. Is this allowed? Is the 1st chip just the call?

I just saw this on the PPT 2nd Quarter show -- Elezra was the one raising. Layne Flack (also at the table) said that he could do it -- single chip rule makes the 1st chip just a call. Mark Seif (announcing) said that the 1st chip was a raise, and he should not have been able to make it more.

[pfapfap]

Y'know, it's crap like this that's going to have us all playing on eTables whether we want to or not.

Don't be a-holes. Nobody cares about your posturing. State your intent clearly. PROTECT YOUR HAND.

[Javanewt]

[ QUOTE ]
QoQ,

You are a dealer. You should learn the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT