U Make the Call: “What Was That?”

[AngusThermopyle]

[ 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.

[pfapfap]

[ 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]

[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]

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ 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