Author Topic: Retrieval of prior bet chips: allowable? commits to action or can still fold?  (Read 6003 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
From recent offline discussion:

Situation:

Blinds 200-400.

Player A announces a bet of 1200 and puts out three 500's.

Player B declares raise to 3000 and puts out three 1000's

Player A thinks a bit then pulls back one of the 500's (from his prior bet), leaving two 500's undisturbed, as if he is intending to either call or raise. He thinks a bit longer then tosses the 500 back onto his prior bet and mucks his cards.

A valid fold, or should A be required to at least call here?  If a valid fold, should pulling back chips then folding be discouraged?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Mike:
 If I'm understanding you correctly, he has no right to pull back 500. He raised to 1200 so he has 300 change coming. The change should come from the dealer if Player A decides to fold. Maybe I'm missing something.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
As described in the OP, he's pulling back a chip or chips with the implied intention of adding additional chips to at least call the 3000 if not raise...

... then after some tanking, with the chip pulled back, he then tosses it back onto the other two 500's, and mucks his cards...

Legit move, not legit... ? Should be held to at least a call, or the fold is acceptable?  Want to discourage this or consider it part of the game?  The pullback is an angle, isn't one, is one, but is legit....

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2015, 07:57:09 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Mike: I still say he has no right to pull back anything. He needs to keep his hands out of the pot, and that includes his chips placed into the betting area. The exception to that rule is; removing a smaller denomination chip to complete a bet or raise, or completing a blind bet. Removing a 500 SB with a 1000 to match the BB is the best example. Besides, why would we think that the player intended to raise because he removed one of his three 500 value chips? He would still owe 200 to complete his verbal raise to 1200...correct?

 If you're looking for an answer, to this improbable situation, he is obligated to his 1200 verbal bet...so he has to return the 500 he removed and wait for 300 change, after he releases his folded hand to the muck. Until his intent is clear, he has all options open. This includes a call, or even a raise. The action taken is not logical, and should not be allowed. Keep your hands out of the pot! Let the dealers do their job.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 07:42:58 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Let's take your example.... blinds are 500 /1000.  SB has posted 500. When action returns to him he reaches to pull back the 500 and put out 1000 (or more) to call the BB (or whatever the bet is at this point if it's been raised)... and after tanking a bit he throws the 500 back and mucks his cards....

Legit move?

Whether it's exactly kosher or not, players do put out new chips, and manipulate prior bet chips to get their current bet right. In the OP the guy with three 500's in front (from the prior 1200 bet), might ask the dealer "how much to me", to which dealer responds "3000 to call", to which the player pulls back a 500, tosses out two 1000's and now has an even 3000 call.... EXCEPT, (the subject of the thread), what if he decides to toss the 500 back out (or 200 to make it an even 1200) and muck?

The central question for this thread is whether it's legit for the player to decide to fold after pulling back a chip from a prior bet as if he was initially going to call or raise.  We need to get to that issue rather than just saying, strictly speaking, it's the dealer's job to manipulate all bets, in reality as per your example, players do from time to time manipulate old and new chips to make their bets.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2015, 02:00:37 PM by MikeB »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Wonder of wonders, I agree w/Nick!!!

IMHO, once the chips have been placed and action has started, NO player has any "right" to remove chips w/o the dealers permission.  In the example, I would only allow the player to remove the 500 chip if a raise or call a prior raise action had been announced, by that player.  Lacking a verbal statement, the player should get a warning and if it happens again, that day or any time thereafter, a penalty.

Chet

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Wonder of wonders, I agree w/Nick!!!
...
Chet

I've scrolled back through 5 years of responses between you two and I think that's a first, Chet.

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Mike, I'll try to give you the best response I can, as I do understand what you're asking here:

I want to begin with this - Many times on this board we lose sight of the question.  The question isn't whether or not players should do this, or should be allowed to do this, or how a dealer should have prevented this; the question is: "Now that we, as the Tournament Director, have been called to the table, what is our call?"

My answer in this case however is... complicated, but I'll try to work it out as I type.  In the original example, the player shouldn't have touched that chip, then folded.  The action is misleading, confusing, and could influence the following player's action.  The question is whether his removing the chip binds him to at least a call.  I would say the most likely inference one would make when he pulls the single 500 chip back is that he plans on putting more out, and most dealers and other players would leap to that same conclusion.  The issue is further complicated by the time taken after pulling the 500 chip back.  I have seen and at the time took no issue with a player doing something along the lines of pulling the 500 back and throwing 200 back in and folding; based on the quickness of the maneuver I didn't judge any ill intent.  Could the tanking after the chip manipulation be the defining fault?  Would we have issue with the action if he tanked then put out a raise?  Finally, if we want this to be a rule, can we word it in a way that leads to positive results without adding to the confusion.

My opinion is that the assumption of at least a call is reasonable enough that it should bind that player to continue, and that allowing the chip manipulation could open up for angling as the player could elicit a response or strong tell when he pulls the chips back in and the other player rightfully assumes he is being called.  Ultimately, I may have to end this whole thing with "should be discouraged" but I'll try to work out an actual rule proposal while I'm here.  Looking through our rule set, I believe this could fit in as a fairly simple addition to rule #44.

44. Previously Bet Chips Not Pulled In
If a player faces a raise and has chips in front of him not yet pulled in from a prior bet, those chips (and any change due) may affect whether his betting response to the raise is a call or re-raise.  Because several possibilities exist, players are encouraged to verbally declare their bet before putting out new chips on top of chips from a prior bet not yet pulled in.  Furthermore, if a player who is facing a raise takes previously bet chips out of the pot without comment, the player will be bound to at least a call but retains the right to raise

Should be a fun summit :)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Brian: You're definitely getting to the issue of the question, or issues for that matter.

There continue to be quite alot of questions, as we've seen in one or more threads about how to treat new chips added to a prior bet not yet pulled in... this is a twist on that, as you correctly connect it to Rule 44.

Further, I'd bring attention to your point: I have seen and at the time took no issue with a player doing something along the lines of pulling the 500 back and throwing 200 back in and folding; based on the quickness of the maneuver I didn't judge any ill intent. .  So that, yes, whether it's exactly kosher or not, players will from time to time straighten out their bets, whether calling or folding, and "based on the obvious intent and quickness", we often don't make a big point about it. For example, in the OP, the player might drop a couple 1000's while pulling back the 500, to leave a 3000 smooth call, obvious what he's doing and it speeds the game up.

But what happens when it's not such a smooth, obvious maneuver? Which is exactly what you picked up on....

You offer one solution for discussion: that silently retrieving a prior bet chip not yet pulled in should be ruled an intent to act (either calling or raising, but not folding).

...As a twist on that language, we could also look at:  Players are discouraged from disturbing prior bet chips as this can be disruptive and raise questions as to the player's intent. In TD's sole discretion this may be interpreted as an intent to act, and may be subject to warning or penalty.  Reason being that 1) we may not want an automatic trigger requiring a call or raise in every case, and 2) to make it clear that the TD can rule this as intent to act.

BIG ISSUE: Let's say the player pulls back a chip or chips, and tanks... and you decide to declare he must act... what happens if he verbally declares fold at that point??  Is that string action... same as saying "I call, I fold"... you accept the call but not the fold (until the call is made of course).... or ?

Many thanks for the ideas!
« Last Edit: April 12, 2015, 11:17:44 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Brian: I do like your change to #42. However, I would like to see ""not yet pulled in" also removed from the first sentence.

Through all of our replies, I think Chet gave us the most simple, logical answer. "I would only allow the player to remove the 500 chip if a raise, or call, or a prior raise action had been announced, by that player.

How about TDA #3 for a fix: OFFICIAL TERMINOLOGY OF TOURNAMENT POKER:  "Official betting terms are simple, unmistakable, time-honored declarations...." "It is the responsibility of players to make their intentions clear."

I know it's difficult for some of our players...but, saying  "call", or "fold", or "raise" MUST precede any exchange of chips already wagered.

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager

...As a twist on that language, we could also look at:  Players are discouraged from disturbing prior bet chips as this can be disruptive and raise questions as to the player's intent. In TD's sole discretion this may be interpreted as an intent to act, and may be subject to warning or penalty.  Reason being that 1) we may not want an automatic trigger requiring a call or raise in every case, and 2) to make it clear that the TD can rule this as intent to act.


I think we're getting closer with that.  I had originally worded my addendum similarly to this but then decided to go with the stronger decision to stir up the debate.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Any of the suggested changes would be a step in the right direction. I still like my short version: A  verbal declaration, clear and exact, must precede any exchange of any individuals chips, already wagered.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 04:53:59 PM by Nick C »

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
    • The R.O.P.E.
Sorry boys but I wholeheartedly disagree. I disagree mainly do to the alternate procedures we've indoctrinated in the recent past where we don't allow the dealers to make the pot correct when there's been a bet and a raise. This procedure was adopted at the behest of players requests. Don't touch "OUR" chips.

So your responses that a players bet of chips that are "Not pulled in" (God I hate that phrase too) are part of the pot and should not be manipulated by the player lack some merit. First you have ask yourself some questions and probe further.

Do the chips belong to pot? Yes.

Are the chips in the pot? No.

Did the player reach into the pot? No.

Did the player manipulate his bet? Yes.

Does this action relieve him from his duty to bet 1200? No.

Does this action bind him to Calling or Raising? No. Of course not, that's silly. Anyone facing a bet has all their options.

IT'S GAMESMANSHIP. Give him his 300 change and let him fold. I'm sure Player B will be happy to take the pot without a showdown.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Thomas:

 I agree with your conclusion but, I don't agree with how you got there. A wager placed into the "betting area" is part of the pot. It is included as part of the pot for rake calculations, it is included as part of the pot for pot size in every pot limit game, and it should only be touched by a player if he is adjusting his chips to the correct amount necessary to call or raise. It is "in the pot" until the betting for that street is complete.

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
    • The R.O.P.E.
It is included as part of the pot for rake calculations
This is not a live game.
Quote
It is included as part of the pot for pot size in every pot limit game

I agree

Quote
"Its in the pot"

I disagree.

It's not in the pot. The bet is in front of the player. I agree that it is "part of the pot", but it's not in the pot.

I know this may seem simplistic and idealist, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Just because they are both fruits and part of the fruit group, does not make them the same.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter