Is a single chip always a call in your area?

[BillM16]

In my neck of the woods here in the Pacific Northwest, it is quite common to make a silent call by tossing in a single small chip.  Is this true in your poker territory and travels?  The 2015 Summit talked about this briefly.  In those places where you have seen it, is it considered to be a house rule? Is the floor involved in the outcome? 

The relevant rules are #45: Oversized Chip Betting and #39B: Undercalls and #41: Methods of Calling

[Max D]

Yes it is here in Arizona and Nevada too.  It looks like i misread, I meant a larger denomination chip, not a "small one"...

[Brian Vickers]

If heads up or if facing the opening bet of the round we rule it a call for the full amount and the floor is not involved unless it turns into an issue where the floor needs to intervene (player dispute/requests a ruling/etc.).

If it's multi-way and there was a change in action, and the single chip could have been interpreted as trying to call the original bet the floor would be called to make the determination of whether or not to allow a fold and forfeit.

[Nick C]

Brian,
Sorry, I don't understand? You said: "If heads up or if facing the opening bet of the round we rule it a call for the full amount." What full amount? The full amount of the bet, or the chip? If you are "facing" a bet, isn't this what the "oversize chip rule is for?

 The explanation needs to be cleared-up. Perhaps a written example might help me understand what you're trying to say.

[BillM16]

If heads up or if facing the opening bet of the round we rule it a call for the full amount and the floor is not involved unless it turns into an issue where the floor needs to intervene (player dispute/requests a ruling/etc.).

If it's multi-way and there was a change in action, and the single chip could have been interpreted as trying to call the original bet the floor would be called to make the determination of whether or not to allow a fold and forfeit.

Thanks Brian.  I do understand the relevant TDA rules but according to conversations during the 2015 Summit it may becoming common place for players to simply pitch in a single small chip to signify a call. I'm just wondering how many are diverting from the TDA rules in this regard.

[MikeB]

If heads up or if facing the opening bet of the round we rule it a call for the full amount and the floor is not involved unless it turns into an issue where the floor needs to intervene (player dispute/requests a ruling/etc.).

If it's multi-way and there was a change in action, and the single chip could have been interpreted as trying to call the original bet the floor would be called to make the determination of whether or not to allow a fold and forfeit.

Thanks Brian.  I do understand the relevant TDA rules but according to conversations during the 2015 Summit it may becoming common place for players to simply pitch in a single small chip to signify a call. I'm just wondering how many are diverting from the TDA rules in this regard.

Bill: To clarify, the TDA adopted language about acting with a single chip "relatively tiny to the bet" in 2013 after receiving numerous complaints that the habit was getting out of control, and betting discipline was breaking down. NLHE 100-200, Player A opens post-flop for 500, Player B pushes all-in for 3200, Player C silently tosses out 25, Player D tosses out 100. This really can present a problem in light of the "forfeit or call" underbet rules also. Is C's silent 25 a "call" of B's 3200 or A's 500?

So, from a global standpoint this form of betting was strongly discouraged in the 2013 language, but if a local house wants to use it as legitimate action that's their choice.

Regardless of whether it's encouraged or discouraged, from memory (which is imperfect), discussion at the 2013 Summit left it as it would almost always be ruled as a full call of whatever the current full action is. That is in addition to any warning or penalty a player might receive for tiny-betting. If you hold it to a full call everytime regardless of the number of prior actors, it is qualitatively different than the typical "forfeit or fold" option you might have in a "legitimate" undercall.

[BillM16]

If you hold it to a full call everytime regardless of the number of prior actors, it is qualitatively different than the typical "forfeit or fold" option you might have in a "legitimate" undercall.

Thanks Mike.  Consistency in the house rules is what makes this work around here.  A single chip is ALWAYS a call.  It is treated exactly the same as verbally declaring CALL. 

IMO: This is becoming common practice and has evolved out of the need for consistency and simplicity.  The inconsistency and complexity of the TDA Rules are:

• A silent single oversized chip is always a call.
• A silent single undersized chip is sometimes a call.
  • At TD discretion it may be ruled a call.
  • If heads-up it is a call.
  • If multi-way it depends:
    • If facing the opening bet it is a call.
    • Otherwise, a TD decides if it is a call.

So, when a house chooses consistency and simplicity, the rule becomes:

• A single chip is always a call.

Problem solved.  Players understand the house rule much better than the TDA rule.  Angle-shooters must find another angle.  It really is no different than declaring CALL.  Players have both eyes and ears and should use them both to the best of their ability.

Lastly, it can be argued that the TINY chip has certain benefits - as in your example where Player C tosses in 25.  That is easily noticeable, even if you have headphones on.

Ignore this tag. It is a bug in SMF when using nested lists: [/list]

[MikeB]

While that may seem like a simple solution, the exceptions are there for a reason:

1: There are some places where TDs want to give a player the option to "forfeit and fold". The delegates defined those situations in 2013 in Rule 39-B.

2: Betting and raising discipline is essential to poker. Allowing players to toss in any size chip in order to call was seen as an invitation to chaos, and hence strongly discouraged in the language of Rule 41 also adopted 2013.

As you note, effectively the tiny-bet will most often be ruled a full call however a couple problems with stating such in the rule are: A) it might be construed as legitimizing the action as equivalent to the other forms of calling, and B) it might appear to contradict the option to forfeit and fold multi-way when facing a raise of the opening bet.

KEY: In practice the decision tree on an underbet would be:

1: Deliberate tiny-chip bet: always a call (effectively), discouraged, penalize repeat incidents
2: Undercall of the opening bet or any bet heads up: always a call
3: Undercall of a raise multi-way: at TDs discretion either a full call or may permit player to forfeit and fold

To address your concern, it would make this decision tree clearer if 39 and 41 were together as 39 and 40. Since 40 is on Action Out of Turn, it could be moved until a later spot with the other erroneous actions such as after Rule 51.