two interesting situations: when is manipulation or not?

[MrPick80]

1° SB100 BB200 , raise from middle position 500.. player from SB take back his 100 chip and throw 1 chip of 1000. is call 500 or raise 1000?

2° SB100 BB200 , raise from middle position 500... player from SB take back only one chip of 50 and throw 1 chip of 1000. is call 500 or raise 1050?

[Dave Miller]

1- call
2- raise

[Nick C]

I agree with Dave.

[Max D]

Agree with Dave and Nick
1- call (Rule 45 Oversized chip betting)
2- Raise (Rule 46 Multiple chip betting)

[BROOKS]

Agree with Dave and Nick
1- call (Rule 45 Oversized chip betting)
2- Raise (Rule 46 Multiple chip betting)

Sorry for bringing up an older post but I'm just curious as to why you rule #2 as a raise. To me it also falls under Rule 45 oversized chip betting. He only threw 1 oversized chip into the pot. Removing one 50 chip and leaving one there, then throwing out an oversized chip should be a call. If he had picked up the 50 and threw it out with the oversized chip, then yes, definitely a raise.

I understand Rule 46 but I do not think it applies when there is already a previous bet out there and 1 oversized chip is put out when action returns to them. I understand Rule 46 to be when a person is betting multiple chips at one time.

Hopefully a few others will have something to add here and this can be cleared up for me

*I've been doing more searching on here and came across these older threads that seem to agree with me:

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=554.0

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=548.0

[Nick C]

Brooks,

 This is a great question...still.

 The simple answer is to insist that players announce exactly what they are doing. However, that would be to simple, so it rarely happens.

 I looked back at the two links you referenced and wanted to change my own answers!
 Taking back your short bet or blind first, before tossing in the oversize chip, would make it much easier to enforce the oversize chip rule. The problem, in my opinion, is when the player leaves his short bet or blind in the betting area and then adds the oversize chip. I realize, I'm not answering your question, just clarifying that I do understand the situation that you speak of.

 Unless the TDA comes up with a specific "firm" rule...this will always create controversy. TDA Rules #'s45, 46, and 47 all pertain to this situation but still allow the floor to call it either way. I'm sure it could be easily fixed...possibly not to everyone's liking...but it could be corrected.

Example: Players faced with a situation when more chips are required to either complete a bet or raise, or to raise a specific amount, are encouraged to announce their intentions before adding chips to an existing blind, or an incomplete existing wager. Failure to declare a raise, before adding an oversize chip, will disallow the raise and the oversize chip rule will apply.

Or:

Players faced with a situation when more chips are required to complete a bet or raise, or to raise a specific amount,  MUST announce their intentions before adding chips to an existing blind, or an incomplete wager. Failure to remove an existing short bet or blind without clear declaration will automatically be recognized as a raise to the sum of all chips.

 That's it...one or the other.

[Dave Miller]

I ruled #2 a raise because he left one chip out there before throwing in the big chip. If he had left them both out there, it's easy to rule that he forgot about it. But since he deliberately left one behind, it's multiple chips, so a raise to 1,050.

[Nick C]

Dave,

 I agree with your reasoning about leaving one chip in, but why create am ambiguous situation by separating leaving one chip in, or leaving two chips in? Applying the multi-chip rule would apply for both situations. The only way I can see this ever being resolved is if the dealer can clear up the confusion before the next player acts.

[MikeB]

1° SB100 BB200 , raise from middle position 500.. player from SB take back his 100 chip and throw 1 chip of 1000. is call 500 or raise 1000?

2° SB100 BB200 , raise from middle position 500... player from SB take back only one chip of 50 and throw 1 chip of 1000. is call 500 or raise 1050?

Pick, thanks for the great case. These and all similar situations are the subject of TDA Rule 47 "Previous bet chips not pulled in".

At the 2013 and 2015 Summits the delegates debated each of 6+ possibilities where prior bet chips are stacked in front of a player and he's now facing additional action: such as pull back all prior chips, pull back part of the prior chips, pull back part then add a new chip(s) and throw the whole lot forward, etc. etc. . At both Summits there was significant disparity as to handle each situation; enough disparity that it didn't make sense at that time to adopt a detailed rule for every possibility. Instead the general language was adopted: "Because several possibilities exist, players should declare their bets before putting out new chips on top of prior-bet chips not yet pulled in." This everyone can agree to... if you have chips in front of you from a prior bet, you should declare your bet before you manipulate any of the prior bet chips. If you don't declare, then it's up to the floor to rule what your bet is, and you may get a ruling other than what you intended.

At the Summit discussions, some of the possible situations had a high level of agreement,  but in others there were opinions all across the board. In the two cases you present, the vast majority would come down:
Case 1: a call. The player pulled everything back, he's facing a raise, he bets an overchip silently.
Case 2: the majority in 2015 would have ruled this a raise. Why? Because the player only pulled back one chip, then he put out a new larger chip along with it. WHY did he leave that one prior chip out there if he didn't want to "make a point with it"? So the majority but not all would rule that a raise to 1050 total, and did rule as such when a similar case was presented at the Summit.

[BROOKS]

Thanks for the responses.

I would just like to ask about scenario #2 if he didn't pull back any chips, his 100 was out there and he threw out a 1k chip, without removing the 100.
Are we ruling this a raise to 1100 or just a call, as he threw out 1 oversize chip and did not pull back any prior chips?
I lean towards just a call

[Nick C]

Hello Brooks,

 This is exactly what Mike was referring to: " if you have chips in front of you from a prior bet, you should declare your bet before you manipulate any of the prior bet chips. If you don't declare, then it's up to the floor to rule what your bet is, and you may get a ruling other than what you intended." I'd call it a raise, too...based on the multiple chips.

Teaching players to declare their intent, has proven to be just too difficult for our poker buddies to adopt.

 There is one point I'd like to mention that I know caused a little confusion when the rule was first introduced in 2013...TDA #44 Previous Bet Chips Not Pulled In...pulled in had some puzzled as to what it actually was referring to. Previous Bet Chips not taken back or Previous Bet Chips Exchanged or Previous Bet Chips Colored Up would be a few choices to consider.

[Max D]

I am wondering if we fully answer the question?  The original question in the title of the post includes "manipulation or not?"  Just would like some clarification about what the question was for that part?  Angle shooting?  manipulating chips?  not sure I understand that part of the post.

[Nick C]

Hi Max,

 Interesting that you even picked up on the word "manipulation" in the original question. Mike B is the only person that even used "manipulate" in his answer. I'm not saying "manipulation" was the worst choice of words, however, according to The American Heritage Dictionary...ma-nip-u-late...1) to operate or control by skilled use of the hands. 2) to influence or manage shrewdly or deviously....3) to tamper with or falsify for personal gain.

So...based on the true meaning of the word, I'd say that manipulation of previously bet chips (with skilled use of the hands) should never be allowed. Such as gathering chips together and causing any uncertainty. Our answers (I believe) are directed to the common, unintentional action of completing a bet or raise, without intent to confuse. Therefore, as everyone has stated, without clarification from the bettor, or even the dealer, we will forever have to deal with this annoying situation.

 Take a minute to think of the action we all use whenever we are in the SB position and increase to the BB amount. Depending on the limit of the game, it may be an action that occurs with almost every hand dealt.
i.e. Limit Poker 5 & 10 Blinds, 2 & 5. When action returns to the SB we exchange the two chips and replace them with a single 5 count chip, or we add three more 1's. The response from the SB is usually, "call" at which point he can either put in the 5 and retract the two 1's...or he can retract the two 1's first (preferred) and then toss in the 5. Of course they can also fold or raise. I think everyone will agree, if the short amount were removed first, we wouldn't have this problem.

 The solution seems so simple; say what you mean, or retract the short amount before "manipulating" your intended amount!

[BROOKS]

The solution seems so simple; say what you mean, or retract the short amount before "manipulating" your intended amount!

YES!!!

[MikeB]

I am wondering if we fully answer the question?  The original question in the title of the post includes "manipulation or not?"  Just would like some clarification about what the question was for that part?  Angle shooting?  manipulating chips?  not sure I understand that part of the post.

As far as "manipulation" of prior-bet chip(s), in 2015 the TDA adopted Rule 47-B: If facing action, clearly pulling back prior bet chip(s) binds a player to call or raise.

In the original case this would mean that IF the SB picked up one or both of the 50's, pulled them back as if he was going to call or raise, then decides he wants to toss the 100 forward and fold, that's not a permissible action. By manipulating the prior-bet chips the player binds himself to at least calling the full bet to him.

That's the only situation where "manipulation" per se would become a factor in this case. And the OP doesn't indicate that such action occurred here.