Underbet situation.... raise call or fold?

[deagian]

SB: 800 / BB: 1,600
Player A pushes All-in with around 30,000. Player B folds and Player C without seeing that player A pushed All-in says raise 3,200.

The dealer then tells player C that his options are to call the All-in or forfeit his 3,200 and fold.
Player C folds his cards and dealer puts them in the muck. The rest of the table folds all the way to the All-in player.

The All-in player now calls for floor and says that player C should have been forced to call the All-in as he announced Raise.

What would you rule in this case? Would you force player C to call the All-in?

[Stuart Murray]

It's very situational, and I would always consider the ability and experience of the player and the equivalent stack sizes before making a decision, however the majority of the time I would rule that the player's 3,200 stays in and the action stands as-is.  By the book however it should technically be a minimum raise of the 30,000 to 58,400.

Stu

[MikeB]

Hi Deagian:

TDA Rule 37, adopted at the 2013 Summit applies here:

37:   Verbal Declarations / Acting in Turn

A: Players must act in turn. Verbal betting declarations in turn are binding. Chips put in the pot in turn stay in the pot. An undercall (betting less than the current call amount) is a mandatory full call if made facing an opening bet multi-way on any betting round, or facing any bet heads up. In all other situations, TD’s discretion applies. For purposes of this rule, in blind games the posted BB is the opening bet on the first round.
**********************

You need to first decide whether this action was in response to the opening bet or some intervening bet. I take by your description that this is pre-flop, and the blinds have been posted THEN Player A pushes out 30,000?

In that case Player C is not responding to the opening bet (the BB), but rather an intervening bet. So it's going to be up to TD discretion in this case.

The way the rule is intended, IMO is deliberately skewed in favor of ruling a full call (or a full raise in this case), unless there is some compelling and understandable reason why Player C would have gotten the action wrong. Remember that the new TDA Rule 2 clearly states it is player's responsibility to follow the action.

But the rule is left to your discretion given all the circumstances in the situation, because he wasn't responding to the opening bet.

IF on the other hand, this were post-flop and A were first to open a betting round for 30,000, and C just was inattentive and tough he'd opened for the BB, according to Rule 37 he would definitely be responsible for a full raise.

Thanks for the great case.

[Nick C]

Deagian,

 I like what Stuart mentioned about the experience of the player. It appears as though, in your example, it was a gross misunderstanding and I am never in favor of too many chips being won... or lost, when it was clearly not the intent of the bettors involved.

[K-Lo]

With respect to the exercise of TD's discretion, I agree with Stuart that the experience of the player is a factor that I would take into account.  The fact that the amounts are very different suggests a gross misunderstanding, and I also agree with Nick that this is an important consideration as well. Moreover, if the tournament is a casual tournament, the ruling would likely be different than if the tournament were more formal.

Personally, I also consider whether or not the all-in bet would have been clearly visible to the undercaller. If the player whispered "raise" and barely moved his chips forward, I would treat this very differently than if the player and dealer clearly announced the raise and the player has moved all of his stacks forward in clear view to the table and in a form where the stacks are clearly countable. The undercaller must have a satisfactory answer to the question "why did you put in only 3200 when you can clearly see that this player has his entire stack in the pot?"

The underlying concern is that someone seeing the big all-in might want to get a reaction before deciding on whether or not to call, by making the underbet; if you always give the player an option to top-up or fold, then making an underbet could be a very cheap way to test the waters by seeing if the all-in player reacts to the underbet and seems anxious for you to put in all of your chips (in which case you may suspect a big hand and fold), or if the all-in player appears more neutral (this might suggest a lighter shove and you may be more inclined to call).  Because of this potential angle, I would say that in more serious tournaments, I think most TDs would definitely make a min-raise binding here - there's just no point in engaging in the guessing game.

[MikeB]

Moreover, if the tournament is a casual tournament, the ruling would likely be different than if the tournament were more formal.

Yes, this isn't mentioned often enough. The very nature and setting of the tournament is a legitimate factor when discretion is involved... not the only one certainly, but reasonable to take into consideration.

The underlying concern is that someone seeing the big all-in might want to get a reaction before deciding on whether or not to call, by making the underbet; if you always give the player an option to top-up or fold, then making an underbet could be a very cheap way to test the waters by seeing if the all-in player reacts to the underbet and seems anxious for you to put in all of your chips (in which case you may suspect a big hand and fold), or if the all-in player appears more neutral (this might suggest a lighter shove and you may be more inclined to call).  Because of this potential angle, I would say that in more serious tournaments, I think most TDs would definitely make a min-raise binding here - there's just no point in engaging in the guessing game.

Yes, and also why the rule reads the way it does: always binding if facing opening bet or heads-up; otherwise discretionary....

... as opposed to: always binding if facing opening bet or heads-up; otherwise player may either make a full call or leave bet in a fold.

[Nick C]

I like what Ken mentioned about the dealer: " I would treat this very differently than if the player and dealer clearly announced the raise...." A good dealer simply announcing "Raise" in a clear sharp voice, could put an end to so many of these unclear betting situations.

 We need to allow our dealers to become more active, instead of discouraging them from saying or doing anything because we are afraid they will get it wrong. Let the dealers control the action and "flow" of the game. This can easily be done without violating any rules. In my opinion, we need more from our dealers.