Big Blind Action: Adding Chips to a Bet Not Yet Pulled in, Rule 44 questions

[BillM16]

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.

[Nick C]

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!

[Brian Vickers]

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]

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.

[Nick C]

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.

  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.

[MikeB]

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.

[WSOPMcGee]

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]

[Nick C]

Thomas...I guess we can put you down for a call, on this one.

[WSOPMcGee]

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.