Author Topic: Can a raise be made after saying complete, when a complete is not appropriate?  (Read 8143 times)

Steven

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
Blinds are 4/8 in a limit game.
Player bets 6 all in on turn.
Next player says complete, which is not available in this sequence.
Do you now treat this as a call of 6 or allow him to raise to 14?

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Hi Steven:

There's a whole contortious line of reasoning that leads up to it, but I favor requiring a min raise here to 14 total.

And it's not spelled out in any specific rule, but to me under Rule 1, "complete" always implies "I intend to increase the bet" (the closest analog of which is "I intend to raise" from the official terms of poker). This is more important in my calculus than the exact amounts involved ("all in for 6", "okay I make it 8" (erroneously)).

But at the end of the day, there is no exact translation of "complete" here so it's ultimately a Rule 1 decision IMO. To me the best interest of the game comes down to "How can I enforce as much discipline as possible here?". And in this case, I favor construing something tantamount to a raise to being a raise when it doesn't exactly apply.... If the bettor mumbles about it, he (and everyone else at the table), will be more cautious about their betting discipline in the future.

Because it's Rule 1, there's at least one and probably more opposite cases that can be made. One is that saying complete is numerically "8". What if the guy had SILENTLY pushed out a 5 and three 1s? It's less than 50% of the way to a full raise of 14 (which would be 10 total as either a 5 and five 1's or ten 1's), so that would be a call if just going by the chips pushed. But he didn't silently push out the 8, he declared something that says "i'm going to put more chips out". A) I don't want people having a shot they can take to test the tables interest in a raise and then smooth call and B) to me "raise" is implied anytime you verbalize something greater than a call amount.

However it was discussed in a few casual breakout groups before and at Summit VI whether to put such a question on the agenda. I must say the majority of people I heard from favor treating a declared amount exactly as they would treat the same amount of chips pushed silently, i.e. treat verbalizing "8" here exactly as you would pushing out 8 in chips silently. And the reasoning isn't so much that declaring 8 doesn't indicate an intent to raise, but rather it's procedurally easier for a dealer to remember to treat them the same. Your OP is in a grey area between the two, I think, where the player has gone beyond declaring a higher number that is less than an amount to raise; he is actually declaring a process of increasing the total bet. So he's put himself in this wobbly area and to really make people think twice about what they say I favor ruling a full raise to let people know they should take their betting seriously. It's not exactly the same, but distantly akin to the TDA language that says "I bet the pot is not a valid bet but it binds the player to making a bet, and if declared while facing a bet it binds the player to making a raise", because we don't want the guy taking a shot with "I bet the pot" then turning around and calling. But ultimately until something is put down in writing, it's a Rule 1 decision IMO that could be ruled either way (call or full raise), and I respect either. My least favorite thing here is to give the guy a choice: "sir you can't complete here, so would you like to call or raise"? Just like I wouldn't give him a choice if he declared "I bet the pot".
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 09:34:47 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

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

 To me the word complete should not be recognized as a time tested universally accepted word for poker. I played poker over 55 years and never once heard it used at a table without "the bet" added to it. If I'm dealing, in your scenario, I return the extra $2 because you can't complete the bet in this case. To me, it's no different than putting 8 into the pot, the dealer should return $2 to the bettor. It's like saying "pot" in a game that isn't pot limit.

 Based on Mike's explanation, it's just another unclear rule that can be called either way. I actually prefer Mike's least favorable suggestion; for the dealer to clarify the intent of the bettor. Why not? That's the best way to straighten it out. As long as the dealer pays attention and prevents others from acting. Players must make their intentions clear, or be at the mercy of the TD.

 This would also be a good spot for one of those illustrations Mike suggested a while ago.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 08:31:29 AM by Nick C »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
I do not mind asking the bettor to clarify his intent in the first instance, as suggested by Nick and for those reasons.  If I had to make a snap decision, where there are clarity issues like there are here, I would tend to go with the lesser action (i.e. call).

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
This can be more complicated than it initially appeared to be. I agree with Ken, but what Mike said has me rethinking my response to another thread about saying "pot" in a game that isn't pot limit. If it's not permitted... so, a must call only, might be the best choice.

The main reason for intervention from the dealer, is based on the various problems that could take place without clarification. Let's look at Steven's original post:

Blinds are 4/8 in a limit game.
Player bets 6 all in on turn.
Next player says complete, which is not available in this sequence.
Do you now treat this as a call of 6 or allow him to raise to 14?

Let's say that the next player (after the complete announcement) says raise and puts 22 out? Or, he says call and puts 14 out...or; he says call and puts 8 out. It has to be corrected. We can also run into a problem with the Player that said complete, stating his intention was only to call after the next player raises to 22. I hope this is making sense, because there are so many scenarios. Bottom line: If the rules say you can't do something, or in this case verbally use unacceptable language... it should be meaningless, and you can only call.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2013, 12:42:30 PM by Nick C »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
I'm going to go with Mike on this one.  I feel that it is in line with the 'I bet pot' stance that was solidified at the Summit.  I think we can all agree that the intention was to put more chips in the pot than calling.  Giving them an option to do something less allows for more angle shots in the long run...and actually encourages players to use improper terms. 

I am in favor of ambiguous terms being the lesser of the two amounts, especially because we cannot determine intent...but in this I think the intent is pretty clear cut.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

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

 You say you agree with Mike. He covered just about every scenario? He said: " My least favorite thing here is to give the guy a choice: "sir you can't complete here, so would you like to call or raise"? Just like I wouldn't give him a choice if he declared "I bet the pot".

 Are you saying you are not in favor of stopping the action and clarifying the bet? How can any action continue when we don't know what the bet is? An automatic call is a perfect fix. If the player intended on raising he'll learn a lesson... Say raise!

 I'm going to take another look back at the thread that covered "betting pot" when not playing pot limit. It does lean more in the direction of an intent to raise, and I believe that's what the summit favored. I won't swear to it so I'd better wait for the new rules before I start squawking :D

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
I favor requiring a min raise here to 14 total.

When I said I'm going to go with Mike on this one, I was referring to the above line.  ;)
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
If we treat it like an "I bet pot" situation, then he must bet some valid amount here, at his option, under the current rules.  If the player actually wants to call, we would still force a raise? As a further example, if the limits were 5/10, he may very well have meant to "complete to 10" as opposed to raising to 16. I know that his intent was to put in more chips than the call amount, but I am not sure how it is much different from him actually announcing a total that is insufficient for a full raise.  Have to agree with Nick here.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
If we treat it like an "I bet pot" situation, then he must bet some valid amount here, at his option, under the current rules.  

Good point.... Under the new rules, declaring "I bet the pot" when facing a bet is a required "valid raise"... to specifically avoid the problem of a bettor facing a bet, declaring "I'll bet the pot", then just turning around and calling...
« Last Edit: July 09, 2013, 08:59:40 PM by MikeB »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
If I had to make a snap decision, where there are clarity issues like there are here, I would tend to go with the lesser action (i.e. call).

And I don't have a problem with this ruling either... the key for me is instilling discipline in betting and raising,... Whether you say:

A: You are verbalizing an intent to increase the bet I'm going to hold you to a raise here...

OR

B: You are verbalizing a bet that isn't applicable here I'm going to hold you to a call....

You are telling the table they better watch what they do because you may rule contrary to their intentions and it's their duty as players to make their intentions clear.

You're not telling them "whenever you do something unclear [and maybe get a free read or instill some confusion at the table] I'll ask you what you are trying to do and then give you an array of options for you to choose from".

Nick C

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

 The few of us that have participated in this discussion, for the most part, have covered valid reasons to support either a call, or raise. In my opinion, that's the problem. I don't care which decision becomes the final rule. However, I would like to see something "solid." If you use an unacceptable statement when facing a bet; it WILL  only be recognized as a call, (passive). or it must be a minimum raise...That's it, one or the other. This is the only way to stop the players that have no consideration for the dealers, other players, or the tournament directors.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Nick:

I have to disagree a bit.  Having rules that are set in concrete sounds like it will solve all problems, but it will not.  You have been around long enough to know that every situation is a little bit different from every other situation.  I believe that it is best to allow the TD some discretion, so that the solution can be adjusted to fit the circumstances of the individual situation.

As far as putting a stop to the player that continues to "push the envelope" and has no consideration, there are other options available for that person, as you should well know. 

Chet

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
If I had to lump non-standard verbal declarations, I would view 'complete' as an aggressive action similar to 'I bet pot' and not a passive action, that is why I would treat them similar...especially since the rule will be implemented soon.  I just don't view them as different enough to have a different standard.

I understand your reasoning behind holding it to a call though, and I'm not opposed to anyone making that ruling.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
I can accept that... Once the "I bet the pot" rule is changed, then I think treating the two situations in the same manner is justified.