$1/$2 NL Cash River Call Ruling?

[TexBigSlick]

$1/$2 NL Cash "Home" game.

We'll join the hand on the turn:

<ul type="square">[*]Player A: "Check"[*]Player B: Says "$30" and puts $30 in the middle[*]Player A: Says nothing and puts $30 in the middle[/list]Action moves to the river:

<ul type="square">[*]Player A: "Check"[*]Player B: Says nothing and places $45 -- three stacks of $15 each -- in the middle[*]Player A: Says says nothing, but places $30 in the middle[*]Dealer: Says to Player A "You need $15 more, the bet was $45"[*]Player A: Pulls his chips back and says "I thought he said $30, I fold"[*]Player B: Objects[*]Host/House: Rules that a fold is allowed. Host's reasoning was: Preflop, when players call $2 when a $5 straddle is out they are allowed to fold instead. This is the same thing.[/list]
How would you rule?

[Annorax]

Has he grossly misunderstood the bet amount? This is meant to allow people who think they're calling $10 to reconsider instead of being stuck when they put $10 instead of $1000 into the pot. I'd say that 30 vs 45 isn't a "gross understanding", and rule that he calls the 45.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Has he grossly misunderstood the bet amount? This is meant to allow people who think they're calling $10 to reconsider instead of being stuck when they put $10 instead of $1000 into the pot. I'd say that 30 vs 45 isn't a "gross understanding", and rule that he calls the 45.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a call, he has to put in the 45 for the reason stated above.

here are the rules:

13. A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action and must make the amount of the wager correct. (This also applies right before the showdown when putting chips into the pot causes the opponent to show the winning hand before the full amount needed to call has been put into the pot.) However, if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you. At pot-limit or no-limit betting, if there is a gross misunderstanding concerning the amount of the wager, see Section 14, Rule [12].

12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300 into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot.

[Small Fry]

PLayer A thought he heard when player B said nothing..interesting. My ruling, if this is a first time error, either complete the bet or leave the $30 out there and fold. If not the first time then he's completeing the bet.

Also, I would apply something similiar on the straddles. IT's players reponsibilities to know what the action is when it gets to them, or ascertain the action before they act. So if somebody puts out a $5 straddle and another player just calls the $2 bb, if they are really new it's a warning and he can take back bet and fold. After that he can forfeit the $2 and fold or complete the bet. Do it again and he's calling the full $5.

[EasilyFound]

In my house, I'd let the player withdraw the $30 call.

If you use the 80% rule listed above, the call would not be binding.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
If you use the 80% rule listed above, the call would not be binding.

[/ QUOTE ]

"80% rule quoted"..... where?

50% rule is a better yardstick, same as it would be for completing a raise.

In the scenario stated, I might rule that it had to be a call even if it were under 50%, but there would have to be a reason to do so.

As stated in OP, villan must complete the call, or fold the $30 away.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Host/House: Rules that a fold is allowed. Host's reasoning was: Preflop, when players call $2 when a $5 straddle is out they are allowed to fold instead. This is the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not the same thing. Calling when you think you are limping pf but there is actually a raise in front of (whether it's a straddle or a UTG raise) is a misunderstanding and the call can be taken back.

However, the general rule of thumb is that if the caller put in at least 80% of the bet, he is obliged to complete the bet. In this case, he put in 66% of the amount so I would say he should be allowed to take it back and fold.

The house made a good decision even though the reasoning comparing it to the straddle was innacurate.

[Small Fry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you use the 80% rule listed above, the call would not be binding.

[/ QUOTE ]

"80% rule quoted"..... where?



[/ QUOTE ]

Last line in section 12 of Zetacks post. It is suggested as a "rule of thumb' guideline. I don't mind this guideline but I don't think I would apply it universally. I would be more inclined to consider that actual $$'s of the wagers / calls. So in this instance , bet was $45 but he thought it was $30, I would rule as I stated previosly but I might rule differently had the original bet been $200 and the player called thinking the bet was only $150. Notice the percentage of the second example is actually higher, 75% vs 67%, but the actual dollar amount is greater. In my opinion this is more significant. I'm not totally sold on my own opinion though....lol

It would also be interesting to know how the player bet on the turn. OP says he bet $30, but doesn't describe it like he does the river bet (3 stacks of $15). If the turn bet was 3 stacks of $10 then I think the scenario becomes a little more interesting. But if the turn bet was 2 stacks of $15.....But maybe this shouldn't matter????

[Rottersod]

It's a call at any home game I play at unless I'm with a bunch of friends and we're just goofing around. Percentages on the river shouldn't matter. One guy pushes out a bet and the next guy pushes out a call. His intention was to call and you can't ask him afterwards to decide if he wanted to call $45 or $30.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Last line in section 12 of Zetacks post.

[/ QUOTE ] My bad- my lazy butt was looking for the number.

[ QUOTE ]
but I don't think I would apply it universally. I would be more inclined to consider that actual $$'s of the wagers / calls. So in this instance , bet was $45 but he thought it was $30, I would rule as I stated previosly but I might rule differently had the original bet been $200 and the player called thinking the bet was only $150. Notice the percentage of the second example is actually higher, 75% vs 67%, but the actual dollar amount is greater. In my opinion this is more significant. I'm not totally sold on my own opinion though....lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh... and ugh so more. Seems pretty arbitrary then, unless you're going to make a rule that says "if you'd have to call $50 or more than you THOUGHT you'd have to call, you can pull back... otherwise, you must complete"

Ugly, no?



And the turn bet does NOT matter. In fact, in reconsidering, I'd be more likely to rule that a river call UNDER 50% would have to completed. making a single-stack bet is one thing (easy to underestimate).

But when a bettor makes a point of multiple stacks, then the caller has the responsibility for verifying the amount before blindly pushing out chips and then hoping for a do-over.