Author Topic: Multi-chip betting and some other confusion  (Read 5962 times)

EvilWeenie

  • Guest
Multi-chip betting and some other confusion
« on: July 27, 2014, 12:56:27 PM »
Here's a discussion we've been having on the staff section of our group.  I thought I understood the rulings, but now I've ingested too much information.  There's also some confusion as to whether an undercall must complete a call/raise.  From what I'm reading, there seems to be some discrepancy between Robert's Rules and the TDA amendments on that one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey everyone! I was asked if a player can pull his/her chips back when they didn't know there was a raise in front of them or if they had to complete the raise and wanted to post the correct answer here so we are all on the same page. -- Roberts Rules states: A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action. However, if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you.

Crystal Cash Thank you.


Lacy Maci However........Unless you have in head phones or talking constantly and not paying any attention and the dealer announced the raise....Then, I make the bet stand and they leave those chips in and may call or fold their cards. That stops the inattention or it is constant inattention.


Nathan Proctor I tend to make an empty threat that they'll have to leave those chips out there next time unless they're habitual offenders, like Maci said; to "remind" them to pay attention.

Crystal Cash
 Side note: IF you verbalize your action, you ARE calling regardless of whether you know that there was a raise or not.


Nathan Proctor
Verbal is binding.....always.


Crystal Cash
 Some people have told me (after saying 'Call') that they didn't know that there was a raise and so they should be able to take it back... Negative.


Lacy Maci
Absolutely

Lacy Maci
But just be certain the dealer has said raise. We are tough but fair.

Wendy C. Davidson
 Here is another part of the rules... A little below the ruling that Erin stated. The only problem is that it does not specifically state what happens if there as already been a raise... Does the player then have to be required to call said original raise or does the player now have to actually make a re-raise? As I read and understand it, if there is at least half of what the original raise was, the player must complete to the original raise amount.


Robert Keller
 along these lines, What is the rule if a player places a gray chip thinking it is a black? It was 200 to him and he put out one black and one gray

Nathan Proctor
 Wendy: 50% of a raise must be completed. Similar to if a player isn't aware that there's already been a raise and announces "raise". They must make a minimum raise.

Robert: Multiple Chip Betting
When facing a bet, unless a raise is declared first, a multiple-chip bet is a call if there is not one
chip that can be removed and still leave at least the call amount. Example: preflop, 200-400
blinds: A raises to 1200 total (an 800 raise), B puts out two 1000 chips without declaring raise.
This is just a call because removing one 1000 chip leaves less than the amount to call (1200). If
the single removal of any one chip leaves the call amount or more, the bet is governed by the
50% standard in Rule 41.


Nathan Proctor
So, since removing the 1k chip leaves less than the 200 call, it's just a call.

Jeremiah Harwell
 Think you might be misenterpretting that rule Weenie, or applying it to the wrong scenario. Robert says the bet is 200, player puts out 1100. He raised to 1100.

Nathan Proctor
 I was thinking the same thing but according to the wording above, unless it only applies to two chips of the same denomination, it appears to be just a call.


Nathan Proctor
 Although personally, I prefer to call it a raise to 1100.


Jeremiah Harwell
 That's obv the wrong wording or scenario. That would also apply if the bet was 200 and a player out out a 500 and 100 chip. Still a 600 raise.


Nathan Proctor
 Actually, since either the 500 or the 1000 chip is enough to cover a call, it's a legit raise.
Again, unless I'm reading it wrong.


Nathan Proctor
 Oops, I did read yours wrong.


Nathan Proctor
 Still, according to the wording, it says that's still just a call.

Nathan Proctor
 I really feel like I'm misinterpreting this somehow. I'll have to read it when I'm better rested.


Jeremiah Harwell
 What's the source? In Roberts scenario, the 100 chip could be "removed" and the bet is still covered. Obvious raise.

Nathan Proctor
 It says if "either" is removed.
he source is the latest amendments from the Tournament Directors Association which is where Roberts defers to in matters of tournament play.
I'm trying to find something specific in Robert's Rules.


Wendy C. Davidson
  Ok so I'm confused.... Per the multiple chip betting rule Nathan posted... 1). It does not use the word "either", it says "if not one chip can be removed"... That doesn't mean either, that means there could be a specific one. 2). The example used in the rule... If the blinds are 200-400 and a raise of 1200 was placed ( being a raise of 800, 400 + 800), then why is it a call if a player throws out 2 chips worth 1000? This is a raise don't you think? It's the now call of 1200 plus another 800 raise. The 2000 raises the exact amount of what the first raise amount of 800 was. Here is another example. If the blinds are 300-600, and someone throws out 3 yellow chips (500's) meaning to raise to 1500 without saying anything, then according to this rule it's only a raise of 1200 since removing one yellow chip would leave just over 50% (specifically 66.66%)of what the raise should be, then requiring the raise to only be a min raise.


Nathan Proctor
 Thank you. I knew I was too tired last night.


Nathan Proctor
 Btw, there is a 1 chip rule and a 2 chip rule, not a 3 chip rule....yet.


Wendy C. Davidson
 It says "multiple" chip rule... It does not say 2-chip rule. Multiple means "more than one", it does not mean just 2.


Jeremiah Harwell
 So, pretty much I was right the whole time. Lol


Nathan Proctor
 All right, that's it. I'm going to have go to the top of the food chain and ask the professionals at the TDA. I'll post all this of their forum and get classification once and for all.
(Shut up Jeremiah. No one likes a sore winner. Especially when I'm wrong.)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Multi-chip betting and some other confusion
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2014, 10:07:32 PM »
Hi Evil: These are great fundamental questions, and you'll see these situations all the time, so important to clarify:

1: Multiple Chip Betting: Strongly suggest your team reviews the Illustration Addendum that was added to the 2013 TDA Rules. The Addendum is included at the end of the "longform" versions of the rules, you can download here:
http://www.pokertda.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Poker_TDA_Rules_2013_Version_1.1_Final_longform_PDF.pdf   The addendum has numerous examples of Rule 43 in practice.

Also note the "useful rule of thumb" described in the addendum: in practice, if one of the smallest single chip(s) in the bet is removed and leaves less than the call amount, it is a call. If the smallest single chip is removed and the call amount or more remains, it is governed by the 50% standard in Rule 41.  This rule of thumb works because if removing just one of the smallest denomination chips leaves less than the call amount, then removal of any larger denomination chip would as well, so there is then not one single chip that can be removed and still leave more than the amount to call.

2: Regarding whether an undercall must be completed to a full call / raise, please see TDA Rule 37: Verbal Bets / Acting in Turn / Undercalls. Note the undercall language adopted by the delegation at the 2013 Summit: "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, TDís discretion applies."

This is self-explanatory: if multi-way (3 or more players), and there's been only one bet on the current betting round, and you push out any amount of chips that is less than that opening bet, you have made a full call. If just two players are still in the hand, undercalling any bet must be rounded up to a full call. This leaves only one situation: multi-way and there's been at least 2 bets on the round before the undercall.... in these situations the TD may rule it a full call, or rule a different remedy as he or she feels best suits the circumstances of the undercall.

Hope this helps, and thanks again for the great questions!
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 12:35:21 AM by MikeB »

EvilWeenie

  • Guest
Re: Multi-chip betting and some other confusion
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2014, 07:57:58 AM »
My question with the undercall is that Robert's Rules state that a player may pull back their bet if the don't realize there's been a raise, whereas the TDA states that a full call must be completed.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Multi-chip betting and some other confusion
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2014, 10:40:17 AM »
Hi Evil: great follow-up question.

RRoP, Section 3, Betting and Raising, Paragraph 13 reads: "13. A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action and must make the amount of the wager correct. (This also applies right before the showdown when putting chips into the pot causes the opponent to show the winning hand before the full amount needed to call has been put into the pot.) However, if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you".

The TDA in rule 37-A recognizes that there are 3 basic undercall possibilities:

1: An undercall of the opening bet (i.e. there has been no intervening raise). The TDA requires this to be a full call. So does RRoP above, in first sentence.

2: Multi-way, an undercall where there has been an opening bet and at least one raise prior to the undercall: The TDA Rule 37-A reads "In all other situations, TD's discretion applies". This gives the TD full latitude to A) require the bet be brought to full call; B) allow the player to leave the undercall in and fold; OR even C) in extraordinary situations, using Rule 1, to allow the player to retract and re-consider the bet (which is the RRoP option). The ultimate TD ruling will be based on the totality of the circumstances. The reason the TDA does not mandate the player be allowed to retract his bet is obvious: 1) this could be a huge angle problem; 2) it is contrary to TDA Rule 37-A, second sentence; "chips put in the pot in turn stay in the pot"; and 3) it is contrary to the fundamental premise that players must be alert and follow the action (TDA Rule 2 and 46).

3: Heads-up, there is no possibility of an intervening raise so an undercall is always increased to a full call.

Thanks again for the great question, and please keep them coming!
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 10:42:03 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3344
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multi-chip betting and some other confusion
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2014, 12:11:24 PM »
EvilWeenie,

 I've had similar questions that you can find on posts from long ago. I hate to refer to Rule #1 but, I believe this is an area that the rule is intended for. Robert's Rules begins with:

POKER ETIQUETTE
The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:
Deliberately acting out of turn. I think the key word here is deliberately. Knowing the history of certain players can make a difference on my decision.

Here's another that comes into play:
SECTION 2 - HOUSE POLICIES
DECISION-MAKING
1. Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.
same section
 8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the personís amount of poker experience and past record. The key word here, IMO, is intent.

I have always been surprised that "substantial action" is missing from the glossary in RR's. I believe that as long as another action has not followed (the unintentional wager), the bet may be retracted. However, this is not the opinion of most TDA members. I am also not a big fan of "verbal is binding" no mater what. When I believe, or it appears obvious, that the action is unintended, I lean in the direction of what's best for the game.

Great subject that needs more clarification, from Robert and the TDA.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Multi-chip betting and some other confusion
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2014, 07:54:59 AM »
I thought the more interesting part of that conversation was the issue of 'verbal declaration trumps all'.  We always lean toward applying the "verbal declaration is binding" rule; I agree that currently is the default that will be applied in almost all cases. However, I do think one can still apply Rule 1 there and either (1) allow for "top-up" or fold or (2) retract the entire amount and allow the action to be reconsidered, in extreme circumstances. It really depends on the specific facts of the situation.

As a theoretical point though, in these types of situations where the harsher "penalty" may arise because the player has verbalized an action, is this really the fairest approach?  We want to try encourage players to verbalize their actions -- taking a more lenient stance in situations where the player did not verbalize an action and simply put chips into the pot silently seems contrary to that objective.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3344
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multi-chip betting and some other confusion
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2014, 09:34:57 AM »
K-Lo,

 That's exactly how I feel about the verbal is binding. It seems counter productive if the player that verbalizes his "unintentional bet" gets the greater penalty. Player A bets 200...Player B calls 200, Player C raises to 2000 and Player D says raise and pushes 400 into the betting area. The strict rule could force him to complete his raise to 4000. If the same situation occurred and Player D said nothing but pushed 400...he could only be forced to surrender the 400 and not 4000.

 I believe that Ken and I agree on this. We are punishing the player that announced his raise, which only encourages players to remain silent. I'm all for allowing a complete retraction of the obvious unintentional raise.