Author Topic: Re raise controversy  (Read 4941 times)

Steven

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
Re raise controversy
« on: March 07, 2014, 03:49:28 PM »
Quite often a player will call a re raise of his previous bet without announcing call, but will toss in the re raise amount and then pull out the original amount. In some cases the first toss of the re raise amount might in fact constitute another raise, but usually the first amount is pulled back quick enough that no one objects! However, Player B could in fact object and ask for the floor to rule that Player A had in fact made another raise, which would then allow Player B to raise again!

Player A bets 500

Player B raises to 1300

Player A then tosses out a 1000 chip and 3 100 chips without announcing call, but  then pulls back the previously bet 500 chip.

By the book, once the 1300 hits the felt, he has 1800 on the table which would amount to a more than 50% raise (previous raise was 800 and the 1800 is a 500 raise) and require him to up the amount by 300 more to 2100.

This appears to happen quite regularly with no objections being made.

To avoid the problem the player could verbalize the call or pull the original amount back before putting in the full amount!

Or should there be a "one continuous motion" clause added to the betting definition?

How would you rule?

Thanks!
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 10:57:03 AM by Steven »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3352
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Re raise controversy
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2014, 09:51:31 PM »
Steven

 I'm probably missing something but I'm having a tough time following your question.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Re raise controversy
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2014, 12:54:35 AM »
Steven: I'd say that in applying the TDA rules you can always focus on "it's players responsibility to make his intentions clear" (Rule 2 and Rule 40). In fact, it's the only rule that is underlined in the TDA.

This means that if a player does something that's not 100% standard, it's his responsibility if you rule other than what he intended. If he truly just intended to call in your example, but you rule it a raise because of his slight of hand... that's not your fault... it's his fault.

SO, I'd just say that if you come around and you interpret his tossing 1300 and snatching back 500 to reasonably be part of the same action, then you can rule it a call.

I'd also say that I like these situations to enforce the rules rather stringently because it's a) an educational opportunity, but also b) tells the table that you are going to enforce betting rules closely. He's not out alot of $$$$, he'll be more careful next time, and everyone at the table will remember it.

But whenever something is non-standard and subject to interpretation, it's at TDs discretion, and player's responsibility.

Thanks for the great example!
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 02:24:34 AM by MikeB »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Re raise controversy
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2014, 04:20:28 AM »
I agree with Mike.

I also agree with Nick... I had the same problem until I realized the third line should start with "Player C...."

k

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3352
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Re raise controversy
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2014, 08:24:31 AM »
Upon further review...I can agree with Mike, also.

Ken, thanks for clearing that up. Wasn't too sharp when I read it last night. ::)

Steven

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
Re: Re raise controversy
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2014, 03:20:57 PM »
Thanks for the responses! This scenario and the "inadvertent raise" scenario that I also posted are common occurrences that I see happen very often as a player, but very rarely is there any objection by a player or a dealer. Given your responses that you'd usually overlook the technicality of these particular scenarios and rule in favor of intent, then I can understand the said reaction of players and dealers not to object! However, just for fun, allow me to add a few more random thoughts to test what should maybe occur in these or related situations!

1) thanks Nick and Ken for the problem in line 3 - I have since edited the original to change Player B to Player A since Player A made the original 500 bet

2) when such an occurrence does in fact happen, do you think that a player or dealer is still obliged to call the floor for a decision, given the new Rule 2 which amongst other player responsibilities appears to oblige a player to point out mistakes as they occur - even though the player or dealer anticipates that the floor may rule in favor of intent?

3) rules 1 and 2 describe Floor Decisions and Player Responsibilities - could there be another rule denoting Dealer Responsibilities - in this case, when to call the floor?

4) if you as a Floor or TD are physically standing over and monitoring the play at a table in which one of these "inadvertent" or "unintentional" acts does occur, and if no player or dealer reacts, do you feel obliged to make a ruling anyway even though you may rule in favor of intent? If so, then any player who does recognize the technicality of the issue may be obliged to in fact react and ask for your decision because he may not know if you recognized the irregularity

-- thanks for your thoughts to these off the wall thoughts!
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 03:36:02 PM by Steven »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3352
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Re raise controversy
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2014, 07:20:59 PM »
Steven:

 #1. you're welcome.

 #2. I would say that the floor needs to be notified every time a decision has to be made. The dealer and players must always speak up whenever a mistake or error is made, however, that does not give either the authority to make a ruling.

 #3. Good dealers should know every rule and what decision the floor should make, but...many times the dealer is the guilty party, or the reason a decision is needed, therefore allowing the dealer to make a ruling on his own blunder would be unacceptable to most players. 

 #4. I'm not sure I'm going to give you the answer you're looking for but, if I'm on the floor and see a mistake that I can correct, I will. A good dealer should catch these mistakes and save us, please, from allowing the players to take control. ::)