Hello fellow TDs,
I have just purchased Thomas McGee’s fantastic compilation (R.O.P.E.) and would like to congratulate him for this outstanding work for the community.
Of course I have seen some points where different TDs around the world would disagree and some tournaments follow slightly different procedures, but there's one with which I'd like to ask our members to share their points of view.
On the section "Betting and Raising", part #29, there's a section that reads:
If you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may not withdraw that portion of chips that have been committed to the pot. You may reconsider your option to either call or fold.
This seems highly illogical to me considering the other rules that cover betting and acting in poker. I tend to find the fundamentals, reason and logic to every rule in poker, but this one seems very odd. It seems to protect the player that is not paying attention to the game and not understanding that its his responsibility to know where action is and what has happened to that moment in the hand.
My view of the situation is this (let's consider blinds are 500 - 1000 in all examples for clarification purposes):
1 - Whenever a player acts in turn that action is binding.
2 - Let's say player A is first to act and, in turn, acts by betting 6000 chips by putting six 1000 chips in the pot, but not saying anything. I believe everyone here will agree that action binds him to the 6000 bet.
3 - Now let's say player A has bet 2000 by silently putting two 1000 chips and then player B, also silently and in turn, puts six 1000 chips into the pot. That action clearly signifies a raise to 6000, right?
So the action of putting chips into the pot, in turn, is binding, unless the player has stated something different prior to releasing the chips.
Now to me, it seemed logical that, if player A raises to 10.000 and player B, listening to his loud music with powerful noise-reduction headphones, puts in 3.000 chips into the pot, clearly signifying an intention to raise. Player B has put in chips in the pot but those chips were not enough to constitute a raise (it's not at least 50% of the minimum amount required to raise the pot). Therefore, it seems natural to me that he would then be obligated to call the preceding bet. (Kind of the live version of the online misclick lol).
Now, I have seen both interpretations in use in various tournaments. I played a tournament at The Venetian Extravaganza series last year where this same situation arose and the floor obligated the player with a huge all-in call.
This last week at LAPT Brazil, the TD ruled the player could forfeit the chips he'd put in the pot and fold the hand.
I feel the later conduct is condescending with the inconsiderate and not focused player and goes against other precepts of poker rules. RROP has added this safeguard ins his compilation to exempt unaware players of an obligation.
Please share your thoughts in this matter.
Best Regards,
DC