Author Topic: one chip = all in ?  (Read 868 times)

mooredog

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
one chip = all in ?
« on: November 19, 2016, 07:42:02 AM »
Our room unfortunately doesn't use all in buttons and recently a player threw out one chip of the smallest denomination after the flop while facing no bet and when the dealer announced a min bet the player said "One chip of smallest denomination means all in." The player had said nothing while throwing the chip out. It was a $100 chip and the big blind was $400. I know some cash games have this loose rule but never tournaments to my knowledge. I told him since it was not even 1/2 of the minimum bet I could easily rule no bet but I allowed the dealers minimum bet statement to stand. No player protested other than the player who tossed out the chip.
Anyone else out there honor the one chip of smallest denomination as an all in?

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: one chip = all in ?
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2016, 09:59:54 AM »
Tossing in a single undersized chip is NEVER an all-in (unless it is their last chip).  This should be ruled a min-bet and should be discouraged and subject to penalty if repeated. 

This tiny chip bet is similar to the more common tiny chip call attempt:

Excerpt from Rule #41:
Silently betting chip(s) relatively tiny to the bet (ex: blinds 2k-4k. A bets 50k, B then silently puts out one 1k chip) is non-standard, strongly discouraged, subject to penalty, and will be interpreted at TDs discretion, including being ruled a full call.

Unfortunately, I very often see the single tiny chip caller occurring after an all-in bettor.  The dealer always must request the caller to confirm his intention.  This is rarely (or never) penalized around here.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: one chip = all in ?
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2016, 01:37:50 PM »
Rule 41 was specifically adopted at TDA Summit 2013 in response to a new "betting fad" of tossing out tiny chips when facing a much larger prior bet. The Association wanted to nip this trend in the bud so to speak before it got so out of hand that we lost all betting discipline and it somehow became okay to toss out any size chip for any occasion.

The illustration in the OP is a bit different in that the tiny chip is tossed out silently as an opener when facing no prior bet.

Personally I would never allow a player to clarify his action here. If so, that would give him the option to toss out a tiny chip, gauge the table reaction and then determine what his betting action is going to be... anywhere from 400 to all-in in this case. Rather I would rule this a min-bet and call it 400 to the next player. Let's say instead he had tossed out two 100's, then we would have 50% of the min bet of 400 and there would be no doubt we'd rule that a 400 opener using the 50% standard in Rule 43. Why we would allow him to toss out one less chip and call it all in makes no sense and gives him an undeserved range of betting options.

There's another way to interpret this action: 1) That player is "signalling his intent to bet" by putting out any chip(s). Therefore we're going to hold him to a bet. 2) If he puts out a mistaken amount then we use the betting guidelines to come up with the most appropriate amount, and this is done by TD determination, not by player clarification. 3) There is a general guideline in TDA that unclear bets will be ruled "the lesser of", also 4) The least damaging for the game is to not let betting discipline get out of control where "any chip can mean any bet"... just rule it a min bet, caution the player, and move on.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2016, 01:40:45 PM by MikeB »

Max D

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: one chip = all in ?
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2016, 08:50:12 AM »
I agree with Mike, I have seen people move a (one) stack for all in, but one ship should be a min raise, there are too many ways to misconstrue the meaning of the move.  Players need to make their intentions clear (but if they did we would be able to get rid of half the rules...). :o
Max D

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: one chip = all in ?
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2016, 10:53:43 AM »
I also agree with Mike and Max. No reason to add to unclear actions...say what you mean, or do it!

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: one chip = all in ?
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2016, 09:54:56 AM »
Rule 41 was specifically adopted at TDA Summit 2013 in response to a new "betting fad" of tossing out tiny chips when facing a much larger prior bet. The Association wanted to nip this trend in the bud so to speak before it got so out of hand that we lost all betting discipline and it somehow became okay to toss out any size chip for any occasion.

Unfortunately this has not curbed this betting fad in my area.  I wonder if different wording would be more effective?  IMO, there are several problems that weaken this rule:
Quote from: TDA Rules 2015
Rule #41
Silently betting chip(s) relatively tiny to the bet (ex: blinds 2k-4k. A bets 50k, B then silently puts out one 1k chip) is non-standard, strongly discouraged, subject to penalty, and will be interpreted at TDs discretion, including being ruled a full call.
  • using the term chips(s) versus the more accurate fad of a single chip
  • using the embedded parenthetical example, which is not needed and merely makes the rule harder to read
  • OK, it's non-standard, strongly discouraged, subject to penalty,
  • But, in the end it will be interpreted at TDs discretion ... which can only happen if someone complains and calls the floor - which never happens
  • And, finally, the end result is, as expected, ... including ruled a full call.

This is exactly what the single chip caller had intended! 

How can this trend be nipped using this version of the rule? Why would we expect the floor to be called when someone tosses in a single small chip for a call.  Should we really expect the dealer or another player to complain?  If the tiny chip caller were threatened with a penalty, would he not simply claim: I said call as I tossed the chip.  Which, of course, is acceptable by the TDA.

Perhaps, we are fighting a losing battle here.  Perhaps, the trend has become a de facto standard.  Should the TDA reconsider this rule?

Regards,
B~

« Last Edit: November 22, 2016, 02:16:13 PM by BillM16 »