rule 43 question

[dwiggi]

player says "bet the pot" or "Raise the pot" in a no limit game. not a valid bet we know, but he/she is to make a valid bet. is it to be a valid bet of the pot size, which then needs to be counted, and if it is a raise is he/she to be held to the raise, or can the "valid" bet just be a call?

strong arguments over this one..

[Dave Lamb]

Raise...is the part that we can use as a valid action in turn. When the player continues the phrase with "the pot", we have an invalid statement.
The player options at that point seem to be only two: Must bet the minimum raise or an amount close to the amount in the pot.

We cannot allow players to finesse a way to get an actual count on the pot by using invalid statements. It makes sense that the player is held to a raise, cannot fold or just call, and may be subject to penalty if these statements become repeat efforts at getting players to act behind him.

[Nick C]

dwiggi,
 I like the way Dave uses the word "finesse" instead of one of the many other less flattering adjectives to describe some of the angle shooters that frequent our poker rooms. I would like to use TDA rule # 37 along with #43. A good dealer should immediately freeze the action and inform the player that his announced bet (the pot) is not valid. The floor should be called and, I would lean towards a required minimum sized bet. The same would apply for a raise; only the minimum. Players need to make their intentions clear. Being told one time should be enough, after that penalties should be enforced.

[DCJ001]

If someone says that he'd like to bet or raise the pot in no limit, the player should be told that this is an invalid action in no limit. The player should be held to the bet or raise that they stated. But the player must not be limited to a minimum bet or raise. The player must be allowed to restate his action to be valid within no limit rules.

Requiring a player to bet or raise an amount that is close to the pot is basically counting the pot for the player. This is not complicated, and it should not be turned into a complicated situation.

[Nick C]

DCJ001,
 How do you hold the player to the bet that he stated when his bet is invalid, and unknown? The problem that we are trying to prevent is when a player bets the pot and the next player reacts. Players have only a few simple options when it is their turn to act; call a bet, fold, or raise. If they are initiating a bet or raise they may either announce how much they are betting or raising or, push their chips forward into the betting area. The only action they shouldn't take is betting the pot, that is why we are having this discussion.
 Establishing a house rule in this situation is easy enough, that is why I suggested the minimum. I think players will learn quick enough and they won't make that mistake again.
 

[mooredog]

We have this occur from time to time and we just tell the player "It's not pot limit so we can't count the pot for you. State how much you want to bet." Noone has ever acted behind the player before a valid bet was announced and unless the pot is really small and therefore easy to estimate the player usually just announces a good sized bet. It has never caused us any problems or disputes.

[DCJ001]

We have this occur from time to time and we just tell the player "It's not pot limit so we can't count the pot for you. State how much you want to bet." Noone has ever acted behind the player before a valid bet was announced and unless the pot is really small and therefore easy to estimate the player usually just announces a good sized bet. It has never caused us any problems or disputes.

Exactly.

And when I said that a player should be held to a bet or raise, I did not mean the pot sized amount. L just meant that they could not chanhe their mind to a check or call. They would still need to bet or raise.

[Spence]

We taught our delaers to reply with "How much is in the pot?" Once the player verbalized an amount, that was the bet.

[Nick C]

Spence,
 I don't think your dealers can announce exactly what's in the pot. The pot should be visible to all players. If there are some hidden chips I would allow the dealer to spread the pot but the player that says " bet the pot" must be told that his bet is not valid.

[DCJ001]

We taught our delaers to reply with "How much is in the pot?" Once the player verbalized an amount, that was the bet.

Doing this amounts to asking a player to count the pot for other players in violation of one player to a hand, which is not a good idea.

[JasperToo]

All Spence is saying is that the dealers ask the betting player "how much is in the pot" to force him to say an amount that he thinks is close to the pot.  It is a friendly way of saying we don't know how much is in the pot and we aren't counting it for you so why don't you tell us how much you think is in there and bet that amount?...

[JasperToo]

DC, I suppose you could make an argument for that but it seems a bit of a stretch to worry about that in these rare cases because the player is likely to make some comment about a pot size bet in any event and it is still up to the other players to decide if he is right.

[Pepper_W]

I really like the approach Spence explained.  If the dealer has the player give the estimate, without physically counting the pot, he/she can then declare that to be the bet based on the player's clarification of what they meant by a pot bet.  IMO that should become a binding bet after clarification.  It strikes me as kind of the same thing as asking them how much their bet or raise amount is. 
The only thing I would be concerned with is if the player then decided to change his bet to "all-in" and that would be substantially more than the pot.  In that case it would be getting close to making a string bet/raise.  If you follow Nick's requirement that the player must make a minimum bet that wouldn't happen. 
Mixing the two would seem to be reasonable.  Requiring a minimum bet, but not allowing the bet to be more than a reasonable estimate of the pot based on a visual assessment might also be an alternative. 

[Nick C]

Gentlemen:
 I think we have all made valid points but, I also think TDA rule #43 clearly indicates betting the pot in a no limit game is invalid...we only need to tell the player to state a specific amount, or push his bet into the pot. The question is; what is a binding amount when a player does say he is betting the pot? That is why I suggested holding the bettor to the minimum because that should stop any player from doing that again and it does not require counting the pot, which the dealer can not do.
 If more of the TDA rules would "zero in" on, or clarify the required action, we would all know what to do. The last line in rule #43 is where the confusion comes from; What is a valid bet?

[Spence]

Could "I bet the pot" be considered a conditional statement? If so then that statement would not be binding...