PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: NoMat on March 30, 2015, 04:18:46 AM
-
No Limit Texas Hold-em Tournament. Blinds 150-300. Big Blind has three 100 chips posted.
All fold to Cutoff who raises 500 to 800, Button calls, Small Blind folds, Big Blind, without comment or indication, tosses in a 1000 chip in with the three 100 chips. What is this?
Is the BB considered a bet? Does Rule 42 single chip apply. Does Rule 43 multiple chip apply? Does removal of a single 100 chip and the 50% rule apply? Does Rule 44 Previous "Bet" chips not pulled in apply?
There was considerable disagreement among directors. Not that is should probably affect the ruling, but the BB later said he was just looking for a 500 chip back in change.
-
NoMat: This is a great question that we've rehashed in the past. There is no "firm" rule that covers this. Obviously, "make your intentions clear," will never be enough. Why? Let's take a look at what leads to the confusion. Consider what new players to the game must think...The small blind and big blind are not considered for "substantial action." Raising in the BB position when action returns to you is acceptable...but isn't that like raising yourself? ::) Also, the only time players are allowed to remove chips from their bet, is when they are completing a bet or raise. Example: Blinds 500/1000...the SB removes his 500 and replaces it with a 1000 chip.
The reason for the problem is simple; the players fail to announce "call" or "raise" before they act. So, until we come up with a solid "rule" that governs this situation, the confusion will continue.
Possibly something like this would help:
#1) Whenever a player is facing an increase in the amount that he has already placed into the betting area, he must (not should, or may, or if he feels like it), clearly announce his intentions, or his action will always be considered a call. Or, #2 Whenever a player is facing an increase in the amount that he has already placed into the betting area, his action will equate to the closest amount of the sum of his chips. :-\ Or any other way you want to say it! Until we fix it...it will forever remain our (the TD's) problem.
All of my rambling on did not answer your question. Here is my answer: Because the BB did not announce his intent, or retract his 300 before tossing in a single 1000 chip...it is a raise. There will always be arguments, I know, but until we sort it out...that's how I see it. You also mentioned that the BB later stated that he was expecting 500 back, making his desired action a call. If he had removed his three 100's, I would have agreed. Great topic.
-
Without verbal, this would be considered a call. This is pretty much standard now, and I believe affirmed at the last summit when the question was raised (again). Although, as Nick alludes to, simply verbalizing call would avoid any ambiguity, particular to avoid an incorrect ruling from a floor person who may not be keeping up to date with trends.
The reasoning behind this being a call is as follows: when it gets to that player it is 500 to call. Therefore, throwing in a single oversized chip is a call of that amount. What might confuse the issue is that while, in the past, the dealer would scoop all bets into the centre (e.g. When it gets to the big blind, some dealers used to scoop 300 from each player and put that into the centre, leaving the outstanding 500 amount to be called in front of each person), the correct procedure now is to leave all chips in front of each player until the betting round is complete. This can cause some confusion, however, if you imagined that everyone's 300 was taken in first, I'm sure you would have less trouble ruling that the 1000 chip is just a call of 500.
Another way of getting to the same ruling (I.e. Call of 500), is noting that there is ambiguity as to whether there is a raise to 1300 or just a call of 800 asking for change. Both are reasonable interpretations. Generally, when we encounter such ambiguity, we tend to default to the "lesser action" which in this case is just a call. This usually, but not always, has the least significant impact on other players (who were not a fault) in the hand.
-
There you go...two replies and two different answers. It needs to be fixed. I also have a big problem with any dealer that pushes bets into the pot before the betting, for that street, is complete unless I were isolating equal bets when action is head to head. I've never practiced it, or taught it in 35 years!
Come on players, help us out a little, will you? If I have 300 in the pot and it has been raised 500 more to 800...if calling, I'd say call or remove the 300 before tossing in 1000. If I were raising, I would either say "raise" or leave the 1300 (three 100's and one 1000) in the pot. Why would I expect 500 change?
The fix would be so simple.
-
It should be ruled a call. I have used time and time again the phrase "indication of a raise" in these scenarios, especially when the small blind throws out one chip (oversized chip rule on small blind).
Although the 300 is still in front of the BB, essentially that 300 is matched by all players and is part of the pot. We keep the 300 in front of the BB for time management purposes (not bringing in all the chips twice) but the 300 is part of the pot now.The player is facing a bet of 500 and throws out a single 1k chip without comment. 1000 chip on top of a 500 bet is an oversized chip.
Now here's where the "without comment" is important: The BB has given us no "indication of a raise," meaning he did not announce raise, nor did he push all the chips forward, pick up the bb with his other chips and set them back down, nothing to indicate that he was doing anything other than calling. I would accept the aformentioned examples as clear "indication of raise."
This also falls under the unclear betting rule, the player has failed to make his intentions clear. It could be a call and it could be a raise. Since we do not know what the intention is, we have to rule that the smaller amount applies, as it is the "least damaging ruling to the game."
-
If this is a call then the following would be the same?
UTG calls the BB with 3 of the 100 chips.
Cutoff raises 500 to 800.
Button calls the 800.
SB folds.
BB calls the 800.
UTG now throws in a 1000 (or 5000 for that matter) chip without comment or indication without removing the chips in place.
Raise or call?
How does the "removal of a single chip" come into play?
Are the blinds different?
Thanks all
-
I agree with the notion that the rules should be more clear on this point as there remains much disagreement. It is clear that there are rules (39, 42) that would favor the call given the silent placement of a single oversized chip. But, the new 2013 rule 44 says that the chips in front of the BB (or any other position) from the prior bet may make this a re-raise instead of a call. The BB could have removed the 300 before placing the 1000 if his intention was a call. Leaving multiple chips totaling 1300 is a full raise of 500 over the previous raise. Leaving prior chips in the pot can be considered a multiple chip bet even while adding a single chip. Also, there is the new 2013 rule 53 that says betting action should not be used to obtain change - which is what the BB claims was his intent. Under the circumstances, and considering the new rules, I would most likely rule it as raise.
And, as a twist on NoMat's last posting. What if the BB and UTG have 300 in front of them and both quickly toss a single 1000 chip in to the pot? Do both get 500 change?
-
BillM16:
So you agree with me! This is so rare, I must make a note of it! :D
-
In view of NoMat's and BillM16's (and Nick's) comments, perhaps a rule clarification or some specific examples involving blinds in the addendum may be warranted. If there is still confusion, then I can't see why there would be resistance in clarifying the application of the rules in this circumstance. However, I can assure you that at least at the highest levels of tournament play, these scenarios would uniformly be ruled as a call by knowledgable TDs. I believe my explanation and Brian's explanation are sound and reflect the current practice in these situations.
Moving on to NoMat's second example, in the absence of a verbal indication, UTG's wager would similarly be ruled a call. The "removal of a single chip sufficient for a call" concept clarified in the multiple chip betting rule (new in last update) does not apply here since the actual (physical) betting action in question only involves one oversized chip. If, on the other hand, like Brian notes, the player took the chips on the table back and then threw them all back on the table with the big chip together in one action, then the multiple chip betting rule would apply. I can see why there is confusion because the new multiple chip rule does not explicitly distinguish between chips wagered in one action or chips making their way into the pot in multiple chunks over several iterations. Again, all I can say is that most tour and circuit TDs would not treat the situations described as invoking the multiple betting rule.
Personally, I would also note that many players are conditioned to not touch chips once they have been wagered (or the pot for the matter), which means it is not always evident to players that they could even have taken back the 300 -- so I would tend to believe the person was asking for change anyway. As I mentioned before though, unless I suspected an angle, I'd be content to default to the lesser action anyways (call) if there is ambiguity.
I also want to address Bill's note on Rule 44. This rule shouldn't be taken as suggesting that what might otherwise be a calling action should be deemed a raise. That was not the intention of the rule (also new in last update). The "rule" was meant to be a warning that in cases where chips already wagered are before a player, there can be ambiguity. Thus players are encouraged to verbalize their action to avoid a ruling that might be contrary to their intentions.
If memory serves correctly, the history behind this new rule came primarily from a discussion on what would happen when different amounts of chips have been wagered by a blind, and then the blind puts in more chips. Without hashing through all of it again here, I think it's safe to summarize what was meant to be said as this: if the amount already wagered is less than the total amount needed to call (like in NoMat's two examples), and an oversized chip is then thrown in, the action is deemed a call; however, if the amount already wagered is SUFFICIENT to cover the total amount needed to call, and then another oversized chip is thrown in (e.g. if UTG had originally called 300 by throwing in a 1000 chip expecting change, and then, when facing a raise to 800, he then throws in another 1000 chip), this would be a raise. These are examples of different situations involving chips already wagered that I think was contemplated by the new rule; I don't think the rule was ever meant to suggest that one should lean toward ruling something a raise over a call in cases of ambiguity,
All this said, I sympathize with those who are trying to figure out what to do from the language of the rules without the benefit of following the discussion or the history. So yes, maybe an example or two in the addendum would be helpful.
-
I'll admit that I don't know the history of rule 44 but I will take a look at the 2013 summit videos for more background. However, the first sentence of rule 44 when taken literally makes it clear that what might otherwise be a call can be a re-raise given chips left in the pot in front of the acting player. The fact that players are encouraged to be verbal in several existing rules makes it hard to believe that rule 44 was added merely to suggest that once again.
-
I'll admit that I don't know the history of rule 44 but I will take a look at the 2013 summit videos for more background. However, the first sentence of rule 44 when taken literally makes it clear that what might otherwise be a call can be a re-raise given chips left in the pot in front of the acting player. The fact that players are encouraged to be verbal in several existing rules makes it hard to believe that rule 44 was added merely to suggest that once again.
Find the part where Matt Savage comments on the #1 question he receives on Twitter.
-
Wow!
K-Lo, I didn't find where Matt commented on the "#1 question" yet, but I did find the discussion on the "Proposed New Rule" regarding "Previous Bet Chips Not Pulled In." The TDA Summit 2013 (part 4) video covers this discussion in the first 8 minutes.
Here is my (mis?)interpretation of what was said:
4) Previous Bet Chips Not Pulled In
A) When no change is due
- A single oversized chip is not added to the previous bet
- Multiple chips are added to the previous bet
B) When change is due and is less than the amount raised
- A single oversized chip is not added to the previous bet
- Multiple chips are added to the previous bet and the change due
C) When change is due and is enough to cover the raise
- Any chip(s) will be added to the bet including change and is subject to the 50% rule
D) Player removes some (but not all) of his prior bet chips before adding one or more chips
- If one or more chips are removed then the chips left behind are added to the new chips
- If no chips are removed then see A, B, and C above
E) Player removes all chips of his prior bet chips before adding one or more chips
- Single oversized chip and multi-chip rules apply
F) If BB removes his bet then adds chip(s)
- If called around, the new chip(s) added are a raise, subject to the 50% rule
- If facing a raise, the single oversized chip and multi-chip rules apply
(Note: F was not on the slides but was brought up in the discussion following E)
I'm posting this, as is, with plans to continue the discussion later. At this time, I will say that the published rule, when taken literally, does not convey what was apparently discussed and agreed upon. That said, I do believe I prefer a more literal interpretation over the more complicated alternative. Perhaps another discussion is warranted during the upcoming summit.
-
Wow!
K-Lo, I didn't find where Matt commented on the "#1 question" yet, but I did find the discussion on the "Proposed New Rule" regarding "Previous Bet Chips Not Pulled In." The TDA Summit 2013 (part 4) video covers this discussion in the first 8 minutes.
Here is my (mis?)interpretation of what was said:
I'm posting this, as is, with plans to continue the discussion later. At this time, I will say that the published rule, when taken literally, does not convey what was apparently discussed and agreed upon. That said, I do believe I prefer a more literal interpretation over the more complicated alternative. Perhaps another discussion is warranted during the upcoming summit.
Ken: Thanks for noting this segment of the 2013 discussions. You correctly note that there are a series of different circumstances that can present when a player tosses chips out on top of a previous bet, and/or manipulates the previous bet in the process.
While you correctly note the suggested solutions, what is more revealing is the discussion and "voting" after this material was presented. There was very uneven voting from the delegates about what constitutes a raise, a call, etc.. At that point it was obvious that to try and finalize something more than what currently appears in the rules could be counter-productive. The bottom-line, as stated in the rule, is that these gestures have a wide range of interpretation and it's in the player's interest to clarify his/her intention before putting out the additional chip(s).
Perhaps additional progress can be made this Summer.
-
No Limit Texas Hold-em Tournament. Blinds 150-300. Big Blind has three 100 chips posted.
All fold to Cutoff who raises 500 to 800, Button calls, Small Blind folds, Big Blind, without comment or indication, tosses in a 1000 chip in with the three 100 chips. What is this?
This is one of the easier circumstances... I would venture to say the large majority of TDs would say it's a call with a single overchip. See reply to K-Lo in post above, that there was considerable difference of opiinion when the delegates were polled in 2013 about various situations involving chips on top of bets not yet pulled in.
Is the BB considered a bet? Does Rule 42 single chip apply. Does Rule 43 multiple chip apply? Does removal of a single 100 chip and the 50% rule apply? Does Rule 44 Previous "Bet" chips not pulled in apply?
There was considerable disagreement among directors. Not that is should probably affect the ruling, but the BB later said he was just looking for a 500 chip back in change.
The way the "call" proponents look at this is that the BB is facing a 500 raise. While facing this raise he silently tosses out a single overchip.
Also, very importantly he does not manipulate the three 100's in front of him, which can result in a difference of opinion as to his action. What if he pulls one of the 100's back and tosses out the 1000 on top of the remaining two 100's? What if he scoops up the three 100's, adds the 1000 and tosses the whole lot forward? There are alot of permutations to this basic action. At the end of the day is it worthwhile to try and write rules for 6 or 7 possibilities? Will the average dealer be able to remember them all, let alone TDs? Until and unless there is alot of uniformity in practice, the best guidance is contained in Rule 44 currently: it's up to the player to make his/her intention clear before tossing out additional chip(s).
This will make for interesting discussion at the June Summit.
Thanks for the great question!
-
I think we're all on the same page!
-
If this is a call then the following would be the same?
UTG calls the BB with 3 of the 100 chips.
Cutoff raises 500 to 800.
Button calls the 800.
SB folds.
BB calls the 800.
UTG now throws in a 1000 (or 5000 for that matter) chip without comment or indication without removing the chips in place.
Raise or call?
How does the "removal of a single chip" come into play?
Are the blinds different?
Thanks all
Mat, I just saw this follow-up question. Answer is that it is the same. As for the "removal of a single chip", that rule refers to betting multiple chips at the same bet. Here we have three 100's bet earlier, and now a 1000 (or 5000) tossed silently on top of the 100's. So you're not dealing with removal of a single chip, because multiple chips weren't bet this time, only the silent overchip.
Another great question.
-
While you correctly note the suggested solutions, what is more revealing is the discussion and "voting" after this material was presented. There was very uneven voting from the delegates about what constitutes a raise, a call, etc.. At that point it was obvious that to try and finalize something more than what currently appears in the rules could be counter-productive. The bottom-line, as stated in the rule, is that these gestures have a wide range of interpretation and it's in the player's interest to clarify his/her intention before putting out the additional chip(s).
I enjoyed learning a little about the TDA process by watching the Summit videos. It certainly is challenging to reach a meeting of the minds and consensus in voting. I'm interested in any other materials that might be available. It is still a bit of a mystery to me of how the TDA reached the bottom-line as it exists in #44 today.
I would prefer a simple rule that could be understood by all. That would require removing many of the variables that were discussed (number of chips, change due, chip manipulation, etc.) from consideration when determining the players action with chips left in the pot. Perhaps not so coincidentally, that is what seems to of happened to #44 before publishing the new rule. As I have said before, when one takes the first sentence of #44 literally, it seems to be quite clear to me as it doesn't make exceptions for any of the variables outlined in the summit discussion. However, as you folks have made clear to me, the literal interpretation is not REALLY the intention. Instead, it was simply pointing out yet another warning to the players that without verbal declarations their actions could be determined by the complicated issues by silently adding chips to prior chips.
Put another way, I would prefer:
When a player is facing a raise the FULL AMOUNT of all previous chips left behind from a prior bet are ALWAYS included to any chips SILENTLY added to the pot. The multiple-chip rule then applies.
Now, I know that this also has issues. For example:
Personally, I would also note that many players are conditioned to not touch chips once they have been wagered (or the pot for the matter), which means it is not always evident to players that they could even have taken back the 300 --
etc.
I think it is quite rational that even a single chip being added to a previous bet to be treated as a multiple-chip bet totaling the full amount of those chips. This might also be one of the best training aids for players to realize the importance of verbal declarations.
-
BillM16:
Your suggestion is similar to my suggestion from my first post... would you agree? #1) Whenever a player is facing an increase in the amount that he has already placed into the betting area, he must (not should, or may, or if he feels like it), clearly announce his intentions, or his action will always be considered a call. Or, #2 Whenever a player is facing an increase in the amount that he has already placed into the betting area, his action will equate to the closest amount of the sum of his chips. Undecided Or any other way you want to say it! Until we fix it...it will forever remain our (the TD's) problem.
-
Your suggestion is similar to my suggestion from my first post... would you agree?
Yes indeed Nick, it is very similar and I should have included a reference to it in my previous post. As you have pointed out in this and other postings, we often seem to think along the same lines.
-
BillM16,
It's just clarification and simplicity that I'm (usually) looking for. I believe we often "overthink" some of these scenarios. Anyway, I enjoy reading your replies, and I'm always appreciative for the input from fellow TDA members...especially when we agree. ;D
-
Put another way, I would prefer:
When a player is facing a raise the FULL AMOUNT of all previous chips left behind from a prior bet are ALWAYS included to any chips SILENTLY added to the pot. The multiple-chip rule then applies.
Now, I know that this also has issues. For example:
Personally, I would also note that many players are conditioned to not touch chips once they have been wagered (or the pot for the matter), which means it is not always evident to players that they could even have taken back the 300 --
etc.
I would not be surprised if this were to be debated again. I am not sure it would get enough support to pass though. The issue with such a rule change is that it tends to favor rulings where the player is obliged to put in more chips than less, which is somewhat contrary to a widely-held view that where there is ambiguity, the lesser action is typically favored. This tends to have less impact on the innocent players (e.g. they will not be raised out of the hand).
Just so I am clear, under your proposed rule, how would the following be decided?
Blinds are 100-200. Big blind posts 200, has 1 5000 chip left behind. There is a min-raise to 400 and several callers. Action is back to the big blind, and he throws in the 5000 chip silently. Under your proposed rule, what would this wager be?
-
Ken,
If you ask me, it's no different than any other situation where the action is unclear. It is interesting that you should mention the fact that he only has one 5000 chip remaining, because this should have no relevance at all. The fact that he silently acted is the problem. I truly believe it would be much easier to teach the players to say what they mean, as opposed to re-writing every rule to fit each and every situation their ignorance creates. The rule that I suggest would put the BB all-in because he said nothing, or did not remove his 200 first. Sure it's confusing, but until the players realize; the dealers and other players are not mind readers, their unclear action, may translate to an unintended result!
We need to teach the players the basic, simple rules of etiquette, the first just might be to let the players know what in the hell you're doing!
-
Just so I am clear, under your proposed rule, how would the following be decided?
Blinds are 100-200. Big blind posts 200, has 1 5000 chip left behind. There is a min-raise to 400 and several callers. Action is back to the big blind, and he throws in the 5000 chip silently. Under your proposed rule, what would this wager be?
It is interesting that you should mention the fact that he only has one 5000 chip remaining, because this should have no relevance at all. The fact that he silently acted is the problem.
I propose that even a single chip be treated as a multiple-chip bet when placed silently into the pot on top of chips from a prior bet. So, in your example the player would be all-in.
A player with chips in the pot from a prior bet may withdraw one or more of those chips either before placing new chips into the pot or during the single continuous motion of placing new chips and withdrawing old chips to complete the bet.
As Nick says, the problem is the fact that the player has chosen to act silently. If this is allowed - and I cannot see obtaining enough support for eliminating this option - then the silent player must realize that the bet must be completed with only one forward motion. The safest way is to first remove the unwanted chips before adding the new chips. However, it may be acceptable to bring in new chips and then to remove the unwanted chips with one continuous motion from his stack, to his bet, and back to his stack. Of course, the remaining chip total would become the new bet.
I'm glad to say that I don't see angle shooters often and sad to say that I do see them even occasionally. Imagine the opportunity for the occasional angler in the scenario that you mentioned. With min-raisers all around there might be an opportunity to toss in 5K and see how many fold before running into someone that asks "Is that a raise or a call?" (Assuming for a moment that the dealer isn't in full control.)
-
I would prefer a simple rule that could be understood by all. That would require removing many of the variables that were discussed (number of chips, change due, chip manipulation, etc.) from consideration when determining the players action with chips left in the pot. Perhaps not so coincidentally, that is what seems to of happened to #44 before publishing the new rule. As I have said before, when one takes the first sentence of #44 literally, it seems to be quite clear to me as it doesn't make exceptions for any of the variables outlined in the summit discussion. However, as you folks have made clear to me, the literal interpretation is not REALLY the intention. Instead, it was simply pointing out yet another warning to the players that without verbal declarations their actions could be determined by the complicated issues by silently adding chips to prior chips.
Put another way, I would prefer:
When a player is facing a raise the FULL AMOUNT of all previous chips left behind from a prior bet are ALWAYS included to any chips SILENTLY added to the pot. The multiple-chip rule then applies.
I think it is quite rational that even a single chip being added to a previous bet to be treated as a multiple-chip bet totaling the full amount of those chips. This might also be one of the best training aids for players to realize the importance of verbal declarations.
Bill: great option to include in the discussion at the Summit. It certainly does address everything: whatever you add to chips in front of you, BOTH the original chips and the chip(s) you add will be counted as one total bet.
One problem with this approach, however, is that IMO almost everyone (dealers, TD's, and players) have come to consider prior bet chips as a prior bet (whether or not change is due) and a silent overchip as a call of the raise amount. To change that and say that in this circumstance an overchip is part of previously bet chips unless the player declares call first may be considered to much of a change, we'll see.
.... So, in line with your idea, I'll throw this version out for discussion: in lieu of a call or any other obvious interpretation, the TD may interpret the combination of chips as one total bet. From one POV I know that's kind of obvious, however it says either it's a call, or all chips in the pile constitute the total bet. Not that I think that necessarily would be adopted, but it's good for the debate process.
A couple years ago Dave Lamb proposed something along the lines of this decision algorithm:
A) Consider the amount needed for the player to call;
B) If the new chip(s) put out BY THEMSELVES would constitute a raise, then the raise amount is the total of all chips, including any change due from the initial bet;
C) Otherwise it's a call.
The key in B is that we don't deduct the change due from the initial bet in calculating how much extra it is for the player to call. Example: 150-300, the BB has a 500 posted (200 change due)... Player C raises to 900 total... so it's 600 more for the BB to call (he's committed to 300 from his prior bet of the BB, and he's facing 900 total). If the BB puts out a new amount of chips, either mixed or single, that does not constitute a raise of a bet of 600, then it's a call (the 200 change is not taken into consideration). However, if the BB puts out a new amount of chips that by itself is a raise above 600, then the total pile, including the new chips and the prior bet (including the 200 change) is now the total bet.
Now with this (or any other decision tree) we're back to whether the average dealer can remember that and calculate it accurately. Hence the certain language of Rule 44: a player is advised to declare his action prior to putting out new chips.
Many thanks for raising this important issue...
-
Bill: great option to include in the discussion at the Summit. It certainly does address everything: whatever you add to chips in front of you, BOTH the original chips and the chip(s) you add will be counted as one total bet.
One problem with this approach, however, is that IMO almost everyone (dealers, TD's, and players) have come to consider prior bet chips as a prior bet (whether or not change is due) and a silent overchip as a call of the raise amount. To change that and say that in this circumstance an overchip is part of previously bet chips unless the player declares call first may be considered to much of a change, we'll see.
Mike, I do realize that this represents a departure from the traditional interpretation of a silent overchip on top of a prior bet as being a call. However, I also believe that this is where the root of the problem exists. The complex decision trees stem from this very root. IMO, learning that one plus one is two ought to be pretty simple everyone. If you add a single chip to an existing chip it is two chips not one.
.... So, in line with your idea, I'll throw this version out for discussion: in lieu of a call or any other obvious interpretation, the TD may interpret the combination of chips as one total bet. From one POV I know that's kind of obvious, however it says either it's a call, or all chips in the pile constitute the total bet. Not that I think that necessarily would be adopted, but it's good for the debate process.
A couple years ago Dave Lamb proposed something along the lines of this decision algorithm:
A) Consider the amount needed for the player to call;
B) If the new chip(s) put out BY THEMSELVES would constitute a raise, then the raise amount is the total of all chips, including any change due from the initial bet;
C) Otherwise it's a call.
Rather than attempting to word this in a way that allows one to hold on the traditional single chip rule as (almost) always being a call, I prefer a clear and concise 1+1=2 type of rule. However, again as this is a departure, it certainly implies a need for some leniency during a reasonable transitional learning period. It may actually be easier to get consensus as everyone will certainly understand it.
-
Gentlemen: It's getting late and this requires more time than I have to give at the moment. However, a couple points I'd like to mention. Mike's Quote. "the TD may interpret the combination of chips as one total bet. Problem #1...I find it interesting that several mention the combination of chips as one bet. I prefer the wording from my earlier post..."the sum of all chips" Same thing isn't it? #2... Example: 150-300, the BB has a 500 posted (200 change due)... The BB must get his change immediately, there should never be 500 posted by the BB when the big is 300. #3 One of the problems we have (constantly) with most of our rules is suggested again in the same sentence: "the TD may interpret...." I suggest we start substituting "may" for "must" or "will."
Quoting Mike again: in lieu of a call or any other obvious interpretation, the TD may interpret the combination of chips as one total bet.
I suggest: "the TD will interpret...."
-
I respect the difference of opinion and am fine with it going up for debate. I just don't think it will gather enough support to pass, simply because it's such a huge departure from what has always been done, and I'm not sure there is enough evidence that suggests the current way is so wrong as to need fixing.
I agree that the rule in question could use some clarifying, but clarifying AND changing the "default" to a (usually big) raise rather than a call? I just don't see it happening without a stronger supporting argument as to why a change (in the result I mean, not the language of the rule) is necessary.
-
TDA #44 Previous Bet Chips Not Pulled In. The problem could originate with the wording of the rule itself..."Not pulled in"? Chips should never be "pulled in" until the betting round is complete. Therefore, a better description would be: Chips from an incomplete bet. Consider the small blind position, (which is where the discussed situation occurs on a regular basis), the SB is never pulled into the pot until his "option" is fulfilled. In fact, the only time a player is allowed (or should be allowed), to remove any chips from the pot is when they are completing a blind, a bet, or a raise! Players are not even allowed to rake-in their own pot!
Every poker player knows that "Verbal is Binding"...why not introduce: "Verbal is Mandatory!" ;)
There are exceptions to every rule, but perhaps our rule (#44) should be reduced to: #44 Incomplete Previously Bet Chips: Players MUST verbally declare their bet amount before altering - in any way - their incomplete wager. This will include: removing or increasing any chips in order to complete a blind bet, a call amount, or a raise.
-
TDA #44 Previous Bet Chips Not Pulled In. The problem could originate with the wording of the rule itself..."Not pulled in"? Chips should never be "pulled in" until the betting round is complete. Therefore, a better description would be: Chips from an incomplete bet. Consider the small blind position, (which is where the discussed situation occurs on a regular basis), the SB is never pulled into the pot until his "option" is fulfilled. In fact, the only time a player is allowed (or should be allowed), to remove any chips from the pot is when they are completing a blind, a bet, or a raise! Players are not even allowed to rake-in their own pot!
Every poker player knows that "Verbal is Binding"...why not introduce: "Verbal is Mandatory!" ;)
There are exceptions to every rule, but perhaps our rule (#44) should be reduced to: #44 Incomplete Previously Bet Chips: Players MUST verbally declare their bet amount before altering - in any way - their incomplete wager. This will include: removing or increasing any chips in order to complete a blind bet, a call amount, or a raise.
Again, I like your thinking here Nick and would like to add along those lines.
It is true that the root of the problem exists as a result of
- player chips not pulled in from a prior bet
- change may be due on the prior bet
- player is now facing a raise
- player acts silently with one or more chips
- existing well known single chip and multiple chip rules are being applied inconsistently in this situation
What are the legal options for players in this situation?
- fold and receive any change due
- announce either call or raise before handling the chips
- removing all or part of the chips from the prior bet before making a silent response to the raise which would then follow existing single and multiple chip betting rules
IMO, most TDs would agree with the above list. (The only complication might be when part of the bet is removed. Would the TDA agree that it then ALWAYS constitutes a multiple chip bet?)
That brings us back to focus on the original problem: Players in this specific situation who want to act silently and while leaving ALL of his prior bet chips in front.
What can be done to improve upon this specific situation?
- Make "Verbal is Mandatory!" (as Nick said)
- Always include the chips being added with the full amount of prior bet chips left behind and then follow the existing multiple chip rule (my preference)
- Institute Dave Lamb's algorithm (or some other variation). See post from: MikeB on April 05, 2015, 12:50:50 PM
Are there any other options that would represent an improvement?
While watching the video from the 2013 Summit it is very apparent that there is a whole lot of difficulty in getting so many people to comprehend the specific problem and the alternatives for improvement. I hope we can make the 2015 discussion easier (although I'm sure it will never be "easy").
-
The issue with such a rule change is that it tends to favor rulings where the player is obliged to put in more chips than less, which is somewhat contrary to a widely-held view that where there is ambiguity, the lesser action is typically favored.
You've hammered the nail.
-
The issue with such a rule change is that it tends to favor rulings where the player is obliged to put in more chips than less, which is somewhat contrary to a widely-held view that where there is ambiguity, the lesser action is typically favored.
You've hammered the nail.
Would this add one item to the list of problem roots?
- any ambiguity should favor the lesser amount over the greater amount of chips in the response to the raise
Also, would this add another option to the list of possible improvements?
- disregard all prior bet chips and any change due and consider only the new chips as the complete response to the raise
This option represents another variation of Dave Lamb's algorithm and favors a lesser amount.
-
Gentlemen: This is the third page of discussion on this subject. For Brian to say that Ken "nailed it" with no change is a bit puzzling to me. To our Players: just tell us what you want to do. What better way "to make your intentions clear."Make Your Intentions Clear as Listed in TDA #'s 2, 3, 37B, and 40...In addition Rules 39 & 40 both suggest verbally declaring "call" or verbally declaring the full amount when raising. Do we really need TDA #44? ???
BillM16: As I've stated before, I agree with most of what you say. However, I don't agree with: It is true that the root of the problem exists as a result of: player chips not pulled in from a prior bet. :-\
If Players are not allowed to touch any chips that have already been pushed, the entire problem would be solved. I always considered it normal, and acceptable, for players to remove chips to correct a blind or bet, but if it's going to cause this much controversy...change it!
-
My detailed response was post #5 or 6 on the first page. I spoke about a term that I use called "indication of a raise" when handling additional chips being put on top of previously bet chips.
-
BillM16: As I've stated before, I agree with most of what you say. However, I don't agree with: It is true that the root of the problem exists as a result of: player chips not pulled in from a prior bet. :-\
I'm sorry for my misunderstanding of what was meant by the phrase "not pulled in." I took it as meaning that the player did not pull his prior bet in before making his response to the raise. If I have it right now, the phrase meant that the dealer has not yet pulled in the prior bet - and I agree the dealer shouldn't do so - which is why I assumed we were talking about the player pulling the chips in. Sorry for contributing to the confusion here.
-
BillM16: Somehow I knew that you misunderstood what "pulled in" means. Imagine new players to the game trying to understand what the hell it means? Now go back and read my posts! Thanks BillM16, because of your last reply, I will rest easier tonight.
;D ;D I rest my case!
By the way, you can go back and change your mistake if you'd like. Click on "Modify" and you can fix it. It's probably a good idea because it will give others the wrong idea as to how you feel about the ruling.
FYI, we have discussed this on other threads and the only time I allow dealers to "pull in" bets is when the action is down to two players. One player bets, the other raises. If I feel it is necessary, in order to "isolate" the raised amount, I will subtract the equal amount of the bettor from the raisers stack, putting both equal stacks into the pot, thus isolating the raise amount. That's it! It's something I've always done without a hitch.
-
The issue with such a rule change is that it tends to favor rulings where the player is obliged to put in more chips than less, which is somewhat contrary to a widely-held view that where there is ambiguity, the lesser action is typically favored.
You've hammered the nail.
Yet another factor that has to be taken into consideration...
.... Hopefully by this time it's becoming obvious why Rule 44 was not more ambitious in 2013: there just wasn't a supermajority consensus of opinion AND practical understanding as evidenced by the variation in "call vs. raise" voting after it looked like there was a basic consensus. To say more than Rule 44 does would have just invited confusion.
Another consideration is that we're usually not talking about huge sums here... so why go beyond Rule 44 and write 6 different "sub-rules" for these situations when there wasn't clear understanding in the first place? Now that everyone has had a chance to mull this over, maybe further clarification can be reached in 2015.
-
OMG I can't bear to read all 3 pages of this.
This rule used to be so simple.
All it has to say is if you toss in a SINGLE oversized chip without declaration at any time when facing action it is a call.
[BeginRant]
IT's A CALL if it's a single chip.
IT's A CALL if you have additional chips from a previous bet.
IT's A CALL if you manipulate chips from a previous bet.
IT's A CALL IF YOU DO ANYTHING WITHOUT DECLARATION.
IT'S A CALL. IT'S A CALL. IT'S A CALL.
[/EndRant]
-
Thomas...I guess we can put you down for a call, on this one. :D
-
Yes Nick, put me down for a call :)
Now that I've had the time to at least read the first page........
How does the "removal of a single chip" come into play?
Are the blinds different?
Thanks all
NoMat you're missing a small but very big detail in the scope of your question.
It isn't the "removal of a single chip". That's a misinterpretation that seems to happen because the rules need serious rewording help.
What your question should say is: How does the "removal of a single OVERSIZED chip" come into play? The word oversized here is very important.
So in your scenario, the BB has added a 1,000 chip to previous chips of 300. If you remove the 1,000 chip, there is not enough chips in the pot to call the 800 bet.
The removal of the single OVERSIZED chip can be better illustrated by this scenario: Blinds are 150-300
UTG raises to 600
UTG+1 raises 1200
Cutoff puts in two 1,000 chips - this is a call. Why? Because when you remove one of the two oversized chips, the remaining chip is not enough to call. This falls under the multiple same denomination chip rule.
Conversely
Cuttoff put in two 500 chips and one 1,000 chip - this is a raise. Why? All the chips are oversized. But if you remove one 500 chip, there is enough to call 1,200. Therefore the additional 500 chip constitutes a raise.