Invalid verbal raise amount

[Desi]

Blinds are 4k-8k, folded to the button who announces "Raise, 27 hundred" and starts putting stacks of 1k chips forward.
Action is stopped on him and floor is called. Player said he simply made a mistake when saying 27 hundred, but meant 27 thousand.

a)Do you allow him to make it it 27k? This was clearly his intention when he started putting the stacks of 1k chips forward.
b)Is this a minimum raise as 2700 is not a valid raise amount, yet the word "raise" was said.

[Nick C]

Desi, that's a good question. I would say, by strict definition the raise is a min raise to 16K.

[MikeB]

Definitely a min raise to 16k. No way you let this guy morph to 27,000 after saying 2700

[Nick C]

Mike, Desi's question got me thinking about a similar situation, with a slight twist. Let's say the player says "raise, 27"...without being followed by hundred.

The part of Desi's question: a)Do you allow him to make it it 27k? This was clearly his intention when he started putting the stacks of 1k chips forward.

You would have to recognize the raise to 27K, would you agree? Just trying to sort out some of the "complexities" of some of these situations.

[Desi]

I ruled at the time it was a min raise to 16k.

But then I was thinking, 2700 isn't anywhere near close to a valid bet. So if hes gonna raise 27 anything, it must be at least 27 thousand.
Also, would it be like saying 'I bet a million' another invalid bet, would he be held to here?

I was also thinking as this seems a simple mistake, can't see how he could be angling here, and no further action has taken place, do we allow him to correct his bet to 27k?

[Nick C]

Desi,

 This is why I posted my second reply. There really does come a time when we have to consider, and differentiate, between a mistake and an intentional misleading act.

[MikeB]

I ruled at the time it was a min raise to 16k.

But then I was thinking, 2700 isn't anywhere near close to a valid bet. So if hes gonna raise 27 anything, it must be at least 27 thousand.
Also, would it be like saying 'I bet a million' another invalid bet, would he be held to here?

I was also thinking as this seems a simple mistake, can't see how he could be angling here, and no further action has taken place, do we allow him to correct his bet to 27k?

All of that is within your discretion as TD.

Personally I look at it like this: I want to treat "Raise twenty seven hundred" the same way I would treat "Raise" followed by pushing out 2700 in chips. If the guy Says raise and pushes out 2700 in chips, that's a min raise. I generally want to treat a verbal undercall the same.

In both cases, "twenty seven hundred" is a nonsense bet... but "Raise" is a very clear action. Let's say he declared any other under-bet that is to use your description "closer to a valid bet" such as "Raise fourteen thousand" or "Raise" and pushed out 14000 in chips.  The 14000 is still a nonsense bet here, but Raise again is clear action. In all these cases I prefer to roll the guy up to a min raise rather than giving him a pass. It comes back to keeping reasonable discipline in betting action.

Now to "Raise 27". That's quite different. TDA Rule 49 says "... whenever the bet can reasonably have multiple meanings it will be the lesser value".  Merely saying "Raise 27" can reasonably only have one meaning here, IMO, which would be 27000.  But that's not what he declared and betting discipline is too central to the game for me personally to allow anything but a min-raise here.

It's not a question at all of whether he's angling (though in rarer cases he could be), he's made a mistake and it's not TDs job to clean up player mistakes. Further, if I'm the player to his left, and he just pushed out 2700 or clearly stated 2700 I would be on tilt if he's given the chance to increase his bet to me to 27000. He'll be more careful next time.

And if he did say "I bet a million"... by coincidence that was the subject of a recent thread... unless he has over 1MM in chips, he would be held to it, and he just put himself all in.

Very interesting case, btw.

[Spence]

I would rule 27,000.  It was never his intention to raise 2700.  He clearly was pushing out a  stack of 1k chips.  Haven't we all misspoken at some point. 
I can't agree with Mike on this one that sating 2700 is the same as pushing out 2700.  He was pushing out 20,000.  I think this is clear enough.  There shouldn't even have to be a TD call.  this is somehting the dealer could work out simply enough.

[MikeB]

I would rule 27,000.  It was never his intention to raise 2700.  He clearly was pushing out a  stack of 1k chips.  Haven't we all misspoken at some point.  
I can't agree with Mike on this one that sating 2700 is the same as pushing out 2700.  He was pushing out 20,000.  I think this is clear enough.  There shouldn't even have to be a TD call.  this is somehting the dealer could work out simply enough.

But the sequence here is important. The original post says the player made the declaration of Raise > "Twenty seven hundred".... THEN he starts stacking up his chips. If I'm making the ruling, the chipstacking that comes after the declaration has no meaning in determining the size of the bet. If the guy had pushed out 20k+ then said "Raise, twenty seven hundred", I would bind him to whatever he pushed out. If it's 20k, that's his bet, if 27k, that's his bet etc. because those are all valid raises.

But as I read the OP, the sequence is verbal declaration clearly before any chips were cut out.

Another question on this case: Let's say the guy didn't push out any chips after making his declaration. Let's say he just said "Raise, twenty seven hundred". Based on that alone, would you require him to make a bet of 27,000 ?

[BillM16]

I think timing is more important than sequence as seldom do things happen exactly simultaneously.  If the timing between the declaration and the forward movement of chips was quick then I would not suspect that the Button was angle-shooting with an intentional misstatement.  In the interest of fairness I would rule it 27K.  However, I would have to take into consideration the opinions of those sitting at the table as to the timing and any suspicious behavior.  Who asked to call the floor?  Was it the SB or the BB still yet to act or another player who had folded or the dealer who is asking for a ruling on TDA #37.  Obviously, a min-raise to 16k would be the minimum ruling here.  But, I would find it extremely hard to believe that the Button could gain any unfair information from stating 2700 and then pushing 27000.  My guess is that either one or both of the blinds wanted to see the flop a little cheaper based upon strict interpretation of the second sentence of TDA #37A while ignoring the third sentence.  I would issue a warning to the Button and make it 27K.

[MikeB]

Re: Intent > alternative view.

Different people can look at these mistakes differently. Intention really isn't the issue here from my pov, I'm 99% confident the guy made an unintentional mistake, but I don't see my job as correcting player's mistakes.

My concern is that he did make a valid declaration "Raise" followed by an amount less than a min-raise. Therefore he has to make the min-raise because he first declared Raise.

From this point of view, intention is not an issue because : Rule 3: "The use of non-standard language is at player's risk because it may result in a ruling other than what he intended. It is player's responsibility to make his intentions clear. See also Rules 40 and 49".

[Nick C]

Mike,

 How can you say: "Intention really isn't the issue here from my pov, I'm 99% confident the guy made an unintentional mistake, but I don't see my job as correcting player's mistakes." That's surprising to me. I think the "intent" of the player is what we're there for. "Raise, 27 hundred is an impossible bet, in this situation...make the bet 27K and tell him to be careful and don't let it happen again.

[MikeB]

Nick: So you would force the guy to bet 27k here, just based on his statement, correct?

Keep in mind TDA Rules on this issue are based on a player stating an ambiguous "prefix" number. Rule 49: "If it's unclear whether 'I bet 5' means 500 or 5000 it will be the lesser amount".  The guy didn't bet "27" here, an ambiguous prefix number... instead he bet "twenty seven hundred", a very specific number that cannot have two meanings.

Based on an underbet of a specific unambiguous amount I can't justify anything but a min raise. To use Rule 49, let's say blinds are 1k-2k and the guy says "Bet 500", are you going to roll him up to 5000 or 2000? I'd make it 2000, the min bet, not 5000 just because 5000 happens to have a 5 in it.

Yes, he made a mistake. Let's say he intended to bet and instead rapped the table, well he made a mistake. He intended to do x but instead did y, well he made a mistake. Mistakes are part of the game IMO, I just quoted in the prior post that players non-standard action is at their risk, it's not the TDs job to go cleaning up mistakes.

Lastly, if you're the player to this guy's left, and I've just changed his specific bet from 2700 to 27000 if you' don't protest I'd be shocked: "Hey, the guy bet 2700, not 27,000 to me!". You have to look at this from pov of being fair to the other players, not just this guy. It doesn't matter what the guy wanted to do (his intent) only what he did do.  Now, that's the "strict interpretation" viewpoint, I know there are those who would be more liberal. But IMO the only way logically you get to that is if you would require him to bet 27,000 even if the only thing you had was "Raise twenty seven hundred". Because if you wouldn't force him to bet 27,000, then you're saying his intent isn't that clear to you.

This is an interesting case, no doubt, and subject to TD discretion.

[Nick C]

Mike, I was the very first person to respond, and I agreed with your min raise. Perhaps I overthought some other scenarios but, this is like so many other situations we are confronted with...very few are cut-and-dry, so to speak. Like I said, perhaps I began to overthink the situation, i.e. "it should be a min raise...but wait, he said raise, and then he said 2700 hundred" He can't bet that, he must have meant 27K. Your answer is by the book, but I'm not the only one that sees this as 27K.

 Nice discussion.

[BillM16]

Mike points out that sequence is important.

But the sequence here is important. The original post says the player made the declaration of Raise > "Twenty seven hundred".... THEN he starts stacking up his chips. If I'm making the ruling, the chipstacking that comes after the declaration has no meaning in determining the size of the bet. If the guy had pushed out 20k+ then said "Raise, twenty seven hundred", I would bind him to whatever he pushed out. If it's 20k, that's his bet, if 27k, that's his bet etc. because those are all valid raises.

But as I read the OP, the sequence is verbal declaration clearly before any chips were cut out.

However, the OP did not actually say "THEN" but instead said "AND."  Which means that these two events (saying raise 2700 and pushing 27K chips forward) could have occurred concurrently.

Blinds are 4k-8k, folded to the button who announces "Raise, 27 hundred" and starts putting stacks of 1k chips forward.

Thus, my point about timing and clear intent.  I agree and it is understood that the player has a responsibility to make his intentions clear.  If the actions occurred simultaneously the question becomes does the erroneous verbal declaration of 2700 automatically overrule the legitimate 27000 chips being moved forward? Taken separately, each action is a valid form of raising.  When happening at the same time does one carry more weight than the other? As Mike points out, if the chip movement of 27k occurred first it would stand.  If the verbal declaration of 2700 occurred first then it would stand.  If they both occurred at the same time, which would stand?

If both occurred at essentially the same point in time then I would rule that the legitimate raise of 27000 would overrule the illegitimate raise of 2700, recognizing that this was CLEARLY the player's intention.