PokerTDA

POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: fgmyers on October 23, 2012, 02:19:56 PM

Title: 2 Non-Standard Lingo Cases: 1) "Bet the pot" in NL; 2) Questionable betting term
Post by: fgmyers on October 23, 2012, 02:19:56 PM
[Note from admin: This thread contains two different cases of non-standard language: 1) the original post concerns use of the term "pot" in a non pot-limit game; 2) The 2nd case concerns the phrase "Make it 1000" when facing a bet of 700: is that a call or raise if 1000 is less than the minimum amount to raise? Please feel free to discuss either topic in this thread]

Original post:
No limit live game, 5 players in the pot.  After the flop, player in the first position says, "I bet the pot."  

Can you hold them to betting the actual amount of the pot?  

Our initial ruling was the player is responsible to bet but not necessarily the actual amount of the pot since "Pot" is not a valid bet in no limit.

Any feedback would be very helpful...

Thanks!
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: chet on October 23, 2012, 03:57:27 PM
Frank:  There are several other threads on this subject.  Basically the only time the phrase, "I bet the pot." has any meaning is in pot limit.  In any other game, such a phrase has absolutely no meaning and is basically defined as an unclear, meaningless statement.

As to holding the player to some amount of a bet, I might be able to support a limp bet, but along that line what would you do with the following:

A is SB of 100
B is BB of 200

C calls the 200
D says, "i bet the pot"

Does your interpretation hold D to a call of 200 or do you hold D to a min-raise to a total of 400? 

I think you are hard pressed to 'force' D to a min-raise, when he said nothing about a raise.

It will be interesting to see from others on this interesting topic.  My preferable ruling would be that those words have zero meaning and the dealer should ask the player what he/she intends.

Chet
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: Nick C on October 23, 2012, 06:56:31 PM
fgmygrs,

 I like what Chet said because; If I were dealing I would stop the action immediately and clarify the intention of the player. The problem would be compounded with a reaction from the next player. That is when the floor would be called and their decision might not be what the bettor intended. 
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: MikeB on October 24, 2012, 12:44:25 AM
No limit live game, 5 players in the pot.  After the flop, player in the first position says, "I bet the pot."  
Can you hold them to betting the actual amount of the pot?  
FG: This was discussed and voted on at the 2011 Summit. The language adopted is incorporated in TDA Rule 42, specifically in the last sentence: "... Declaring 'I bet the pot' is not a valid bet in no-limit but it does bind the player to making a bet...."   The rule clarifies that while "pot" is undefined in a non-PL game, such declaration is a commitment to bet. The dealer should immediately ask the player to declare a specific bet amount or push a specific amount of chips forward. In discussion at the Summit it was concluded that this bet could be as small as a min bet or raise.

As to your specific question as to whether the TD can hold the player to an exact bet of the pot (or a close approximation), I do think that is within TD's discretion under Rule 1. However, that would involve counting the pot which we don't want to do in non-PL events, and it really is outside the intention of Rule 42 as it was voted on in 2011, IMO.  I for one would like to see "... and may be subject to penalty..." discussed as an amendment to the rule at the next Summit. Depending on the circumstances, declaring "pot" in a non-PL game can be as or more disruptive than a conditional declaration for which the 2011 Summit did add the subject to penalty language.

Thanks for the great question, I've moved it to the TDA Rules board b/c it is in fact a TDA rule topic.
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: K-Lo on October 24, 2012, 05:31:21 AM
Quote
In discussion at the Summit it was concluded that this bet could be as small as a min bet or raise.

Chet brings up a good point, one which I think identifies a gap in the rule.

In any given betting round, if a player says "pot" or some variation thereof when he is already facing a bet, this technically means "I raise the amount of the pot".  The rule, as written, currently says "it does bind the player to making a bet" appears to leave open the possibility that the player could merely call a bet when asked to clarify his action, which is clearly nothing close to what likely was the player's intention.  I think a case can be made that the player should be held to a min-raise.

The potential "angle" that the rule leaves open is when a player says "pot", and then just puts in the minimum wager possible when asked to clarify his action.  Once could argue that this is similar to an "I call you and raise to X" type string bet, which we rule as a call.  Also, as Chet pointed out, the player who says "pot" did not actually use the word "raise".  So on the other hand, I think that a case can also be made to hold the player to the lesser action, being a call, if that's what he chose to do when asked to clarify his action.

Personally, I tend to lean towards supporting the first view -- i.e. the player should be held to a min-raise.  A "pot" bet clearly, IMO, signifies an intention to bet some "big" amount -- but that amount is just undefined because we can't count the pot.  However, the intended amount is clearly not in the order of a call.  

My suggested amendment to Rule 43 would be as follows:

Players are entitled to be informed of the pot size in pot-limit games only. Dealers will not count the pot in limit and no-limit games. Declaring “I bet the pot” is not a valid bet in games that are not pot-limit no-limit but it does bind the player to making a bet of a valid amount when not facing a bet, and to making a raise of a valid amount when facing a bet.  These declarations may be subject to penalty.

I agree with Mike that a penalty should be considered, and in my mind, if a player pots and then simply bets or raises the minimum when clarifying his action, with no attempt to bet an amount close to what "pot" probably would have been, then I think he has benefitted from making a large-sounding bet but risking the minimum, and this action should be penalized at the end of the hand.  

(As a different but related point, I think Rule 44 (String Bets and Raises) should also include the 'subject to penalty' language. Players who intentionally use a string bet knowing that they will be held to a call, as an angle to try to slow down the action should be penalized.  Similarly, players who intentionally say "raise" and then "call" knowing that they will be held to a raise, as an angle to try to induce a call should also be penalized.)
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: chet on October 24, 2012, 10:36:35 AM
K-Lo:  Had I bothered to read the existing rule, I would have posted differently.  I am not a Pot Limit player, never played it, probably never will. 

I think your post is well stated and I agree completely.  One point that I would like to bring up:

There are many players who specialize in Pot Limit games, usually Omaha of some form or other.  Some of them have never played anything else.  What would you propose if such an individual took the action under discussion and you knew this player was a virtual novice at no-limit?  I realize the rule holds this person to a bet, but do you make some form of one time exception given the novice status?

Chet
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: Nick C on October 24, 2012, 11:08:56 AM
fgmygrs;

 I'm glad K-Lo said it, and I quote: " I think a case can be made that the player should be held to a min-raise." Perfect! Saying I bet the pot, (IMO) is a clear indication that a raise is intended. I'll even go a step further and say that the player making the statement had every intention to raise. Unless of course it's that low life, scumbag, angle-shooting, son-of-a-gun that thinks he can use every rule to take advantage of others.

 Chet brings up a good point that should give the floor free use of good old rule #1. A quote from author Chuck Ferry:"the rules are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure." I believe K-Lo's example (mandatory min-raise), outlines the remedy for the improper verbal statement. A penalty could also be enforced, but I think one warning should prevent any future occurrence. I also feel that Chet's question pertaining to the novice player must always be considered. This is covered under rules of etiquette: Infractions are often done without intent or without knowledge that they are improper. I think, because of this, the intent, and presumed competence of the player must always be considered before any rule is enforced.

 
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: fgmyers on October 30, 2012, 02:43:47 PM
Thanks again gentlemen...You have been, as usual, a tremendous help!!!
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: Brian Vickers on November 01, 2012, 01:34:21 PM
I've only had to make this floor call a couple times and I've always ruled that the player must bet if he was facing a check and raise if he was facing a bet.  The bet or raise must be at least the minimum but the player can bet or raise more.  He is bound to an aggressive action at this point.
Glad to see that is the consensus.
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: Spence on November 02, 2012, 08:09:06 AM


There are many players who specialize in Pot Limit games, usually Omaha of some form or other.  Some of them have never played anything else.  What would you propose if such an individual took the action under discussion and you knew this player was a virtual novice at no-limit?  I realize the rule holds this person to a bet, but do you make some form of one time exception given the novice status?

Chet
Those players would know what the pot amount was and if asked to state a proper raise would still probably rase the pot though at that point there would be no harm or foul.
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: Tristan on November 05, 2012, 08:50:37 PM
Slightly off topic, but what would you guys rule if the bet is 700 and the next player verbalizes "make it 1000".  I'm just curious.

An argument could be made that they meant to raise, yet it wasn't half.
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: Nick C on November 05, 2012, 09:45:07 PM
Tristan,

 Just when you think you've heard them all, someone comes up with a new one ;D It is a call.
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: MikeB on November 06, 2012, 04:33:20 PM
Slightly off topic, but what would you guys rule if the bet is 700 and the next player verbalizes "make it 1000".  I'm just curious.

An argument could be made that they meant to raise, yet it wasn't half.
I like enforcing a min-raise here to 1400 total. What if the player verbalized "raise it... 1000". He's declared raise, and b/c he afterwords stated an amount less than a min raise he must make it a min raise. The phrase "make it" is not an official term of tournament poker and therefore is at the discretion of the TD on how to interpret it.

On the other hand, if the guy had only said "1000", then IMO that is equivalent to silently pushing out 1000 in chips, which is less than 50% of a min raise, and therefore a call.
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: chet on November 06, 2012, 04:37:34 PM
Mike:

Cannot this statement also be interpreted to mean the raise is 1,000 on top of the 700 bet, for a total of 1,700?

Chet
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: Nick C on November 06, 2012, 08:51:39 PM
Based on the original, question, how can you call this a raise? It's no different than tossing a 1000 chip into the pot, or two 500 count chips. I would have to assume that the player missed the 700 bet in front of him. I know of no rule that would support the intent to raise in this situation.
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: chet on November 06, 2012, 09:34:14 PM
Nick:

Are you responding to Mike's post or what???

If you are responding to Mike's post are you telling me that if a player facing a 700 bet, says "Raise it 1,000", you would not hold that player to a raise of 1,000 on top of the 700? 

Chet
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: MikeB on November 07, 2012, 12:39:51 AM
Mike:

Cannot this statement also be interpreted to mean the raise is 1,000 on top of the 700 bet, for a total of 1,700?

Chet
Chet: well it could be... however there's a convention that whatever amount is stated after the declaration of raise is the total amount of the bet, not just the amount of the raise. Also, in the exact context of the original post, "Make it 1000", IMO is more consistent with the idea that the player has in mind a total amount of 1000 rather than a raise of 1000 on top of 700.  
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: MikeB on November 07, 2012, 12:43:48 AM
Based on the original, question, how can you call this a raise? It's no different than tossing a 1000 chip into the pot, or two 500 count chips. I would have to assume that the player missed the 700 bet in front of him. I know of no rule that would support the intent to raise in this situation.
 

For those of us who would rule this a raise, what makes it different than just tossing out chips is the phrase "Make it" which precedes the tossing of the chips...  Since "make it" is not an official term in poker it's left to the TD discretion to rule what that statement means, if anything, or to ignore it completely and just focus on the chips pushed out. Whatever ruling the player gets, it's his fault if it isn't what he intended b/c it's his responsibility, not the TD's, to make his action clear. Per TDA Rule 3: "The use of non-standard language is at player’s risk because it may result in a ruling other than what the player intended. It is the responsibility of players to make their intentions clear. See Rules 36 & 44."

While the term "make it" is not an official term of poker, it's not uncommon to hear it at the table and IMO it almost universally is a declaration of intent to take aggressive action (raise or initiate a bet). It's not a phrase I commonly associate with intent to call.

As per my original post, if the guy had in fact just stated "One thousand" without any preceding verbal indication of a raise then IMO it would not be different than tossing out 1000 in chips (i.e. I'd rule it a call).
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: Stuart Murray on November 07, 2012, 06:06:48 AM
"make it 1,000" would be a raise to 1,400 total for me also.

Had a player said "Make it 1,000 more" then that for me would be 1,700 total

Regards
Stuart
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: K-Lo on November 07, 2012, 07:23:07 AM
Since "make it" is not an official term in poker it's left to the TD to rule what that action is, and whatever ruling the player gets, it's his fault if it isn't what he intended b/c it's his responsibility, not the TD's, to make his action clear. Per TDA Rule 3: "The use of non-standard language is at player’s risk because it may result in a ruling other than what the player intended. It is the responsibility of players to make their intentions clear. See Rules 36 & 44."

I agree that you can potentially get different answers here.

Personally, I would rule this a call.  I am envisioning the player saying "make it 1000" and then putting out 1000 in chips if nothing is said.  To me, this is the same as "I am betting 1000", insufficient for a raise, and therefore a call.

I can sympathize with the argument that "make it" might suggest a raising action, but I am hesitant to have to debate the nuances of non-standard terms with players every time one is used, especially if potentially, due to language issues and regional customs, not everyone will understand the term or interpret it in the same way.  I would just worry about where I'd have to draw the line...  Would I also enforce a raise if the player said "Let's make it interesting, 1000 now" or "Bumping it up to 1000" or "Jack it baby, 1000 total" or "(thumb up gesture and throw it 1000)" or "uppy-uppity 1000" or "take it up a notch, 1000"?   

All of these potentially may suggest a raising action to various people. I want to make it clear, at least in formal games, that if you want to raise, say raise -- I'm not going to consult my dictionary of local euphemisms and slang to figure out your intent.
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: Nick C on November 07, 2012, 07:25:08 AM
I have to say that I'm surprised at the opinion from two of our more respected members. Based on TDA rules, I would only allow "raise" as acceptable. I was under the impression that TDA #3 was specifically created to eliminate the use of "non-standard" language.

 While we're at it...I think TDA # 44 also leans in the direction of a call;  "whenever the size of a declared bet can have multiple meanings, it will be ruled with the lesser value."

 That's the way I see it.
Title: Re: 2 Non-Standard Lingo Cases: 1) "Bet the pot" in NL; 2) Questionable betting term
Post by: MikeB on November 07, 2012, 10:22:24 AM
I'd like to break this into two threads, but b/c the system doesn't permit that I changed the topic title and intro to the original post to reflect both topics.
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: Tristan on November 07, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
Oh, what a pot I have stirred!  Lol.

I would and did rule it a call.  I had conflicted thoughts about it though.

"Make it" (something other than it is) implies he wants to bet more than 700.

$1,000 obviously doesn't constitute a raise.

There are some bar poker leagues in this area, and they allow people to raise any amount.  When I played in one it was acceptable for UTG to raise to $450 when the big blind was $400.  It baffled and astounded me.  This leads to some of these players to be confused when they come in to play poker in a live 'real' setting.

The reason that I ultimately decided to rule it a call is because it is in line with rulings that I have made with other players who put out 1000 in that situation.  I feel it is more acceptable to the tournament players for me to rule it a call, than to rule it a raise and then have to defend my position to players who could be upset.  Easier to point to rules 36 and 37 in TDA to explain to players why it was a call than to argue semantics on why it could be a raise.

36:   Methods of Raising
In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by (1) placing the full amount in the pot in one motion; or (2) verbally declaring the full amount prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot; or (3) verbally declaring “raise” prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion. It is the player's responsibility to make his intentions clear.

37:   Raises 
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round.  If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips in Rule 39). In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.

The player did not fulfill any of the methods of raising, nor did they put in 50% of a raise.  He did (arguably) want to make the bet more than 700, but his intention was not to put in 1400 or he would have done that.


Sorry Mike, didn't mean to hijack the thread.  :-[



Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: MikeB on November 07, 2012, 10:50:59 AM
Since "make it" is not an official term in poker it's left to the TD to rule what that action is, and whatever ruling the player gets, it's his fault if it isn't what he intended b/c it's his responsibility, not the TD's, to make his action clear. Per TDA Rule 3: "The use of non-standard language is at player’s risk because it may result in a ruling other than what the player intended. It is the responsibility of players to make their intentions clear. See Rules 36 & 44."

I agree that you can potentially get different answers here.

Personally, I would rule this a call.  I am envisioning the player saying "make it 1000" and then putting out 1000 in chips if nothing is said.  To me, this is the same as "I am betting 1000", insufficient for a raise, and therefore a call.

I can sympathize with the argument that "make it" might suggest a raising action, but I am hesitant to have to debate the nuances of non-standard terms with players every time one is used, especially if potentially, due to language issues and regional customs, not everyone will understand the term or interpret it in the same way.  I would just worry about where I'd have to draw the line...  Would I also enforce a raise if the player said "Let's make it interesting, 1000 now" or "Bumping it up to 1000" or "Jack it baby, 1000 total" or "(thumb up gesture and throw it 1000)" or "uppy-uppity 1000" or "take it up a notch, 1000"?  

All of these potentially may suggest a raising action to various people. I want to make it clear, at least in formal games, that if you want to raise, say raise -- I'm not going to consult my dictionary of local euphemisms and slang to figure out your intent.
K, thanks for the post. My concern is that based on the above you seem to be saying that if I'm facing a bet of 700 and I respond by gesturing thumbs up and saying "I'm bumping it up" I can then push out 700 in chips and call b/c my verbal and action doesn't explicitly include the word raise...  Conversely I could verbally state something that sounds for all the world like a call ("I'll go along with 700", "I'm in for 700", "700 is good")... and then push out five 500's and raise b/c my verbal statement doesn't explicitly include the word call.

Obviously the above statements could invite an incredible amount of gamesmanship at the table. While I agree it would be nice to completely cleanse table vernacular, IMO Rule 3 is there to A) strongly encourage the use of official terms and B) declare that use of anything other than these terms is at players risk. KEY: As the language is currently written I don't interpret it to mean that all other declarations and gestures are undefined and must always be ignored.

This raises an interesting question of what is "player's risk"? IMO this means that once you do or say something non-standard you might not be asked to clarify your action. At TDs discretion the TD may  declare your action to have a given meaning and if that's different than your intention it's not the TDs duty to bring the ruling in line with what you say your intention really was. Obviously, b/c two TDs can interpret non-standard action differently, different rulings can result.

This all said, I 100% agree that whenever there is use of non-standard terms it is appropriate to advise the player to use standard terminology in the future.
Title: Re: Stating "I bet the pot" in No limit Holdem
Post by: MikeB on November 07, 2012, 10:56:36 AM
Sorry Mike, didn't mean to hijack the thread.  :-[
Not a hijack Trist, it's a good place for it actually... thanks for "raising" the issue, (couldn't pass up that pun).
Title: Re: 2 Non-Standard Lingo Cases: 1) "Bet the pot" in NL; 2) Questionable betting term
Post by: K-Lo on November 07, 2012, 11:11:02 AM
Agreed with Tristan and Nick.  

Mike - I think it is very situational.  The fact that the player puts out 1000 does not make the intent clear.  If the player said "I'm bumping it up to 2000", I am fine with allowing this as a raise despite not using the word "raise".  However, "Make it 1000" to me does not clearly indicate a raise, so I would treat it as a bet of 1000.  I don't think we can even assume that the player intended to raise anyways, as he may not have been aware of the original bet.  Perhaps it's a US/UK thing, but I rarely hear that term here.  I don't see "make it 1000" as different from "bet 1000".  The only thing that is clear here is the amount, and the amount of 1000 would be treated as a call here according to the Rules.  Furthermore, forcing a raise in this situation potentially has a greater impact on further betting, and I think going with the lesser action causes less damage.

   
Title: Re: 2 Non-Standard Lingo Cases: 1) "Bet the pot" in NL; 2) Questionable betting term
Post by: Tristan on November 07, 2012, 11:38:04 AM
Furthermore, forcing a raise in this situation potentially has a greater impact on further betting, and I think going with the lesser action causes less damage.   

This. 

I could see more people getting upset with ruling it a raise, and that is why I brought up the ability to defend my ruling.  By ruling it a call, I would most likely only have one player that would be possibly upset.  The other way...could be many. 

I instantly envisioned players that I previously held to a call when they put out less than 50% of a raise and the players who didn't want it to be a raise coming up to me demanding to know the difference;  when they are not satisfied with my logic, purposely using non-standard verbiage from then on to make their point.  Nightmares ensued...lol.  :P

I honestly totally understand how someone could rule it either way though. 
Title: Re: 2 Non-Standard Lingo Cases: 1) "Bet the pot" in NL; 2) Questionable betting term
Post by: Nick C on November 07, 2012, 11:49:38 AM
Chet,

 I was responding to Mike's post. He did not say "raise it 1000"...he said "make it 1000"

 All I can tell you is; I rule this a call 100% of the time in any situation. If I agreed with you, we would both be wrong.

 Players must make their intentions clear!.....That's another one you toss in for good measure.

 Tristan and Ken got it right. No question about it.
Title: Re: 2 Non-Standard Lingo Cases: 1) "Bet the pot" in NL; 2) Questionable betting term
Post by: chet on November 07, 2012, 06:44:17 PM
Nick:

I quote from Mike B in reply #12:  "What if the player verbalized "raise it... 1000". He's declared raise, and b/c he afterwords stated an amount less than a min raise he must make it a min raise."

My question about this being interpreted as a raise of 1000 to a total of 1700 was based on that statement and only that statement.

Chet
Title: Re: 2 Non-Standard Lingo Cases: 1) "Bet the pot" in NL; 2) Questionable betting term
Post by: Nick C on November 07, 2012, 09:27:15 PM
Chet,

 If a player says; raise it 1000, then that's what he has to do. Everybody knows that. Verbal is binding. The total amount would be 1700, not a min raise. However, the original situation omits any mention of raise. I also think that my answer is clear and simple. Saying "make it 1000" does not constitute a raise when facing a bet of 700 unless the player is all-in for 1000.

 That's the correct answer, and I'm sticking to it.