Re: Rule 37 how to handle silent underbets / underraises

[Mikis]

Example: Blinds 200/400-Player placing mixed denomination chipsin the pot,one $500 chip and one $100 chip without declaring raise. official rule here ?

[MikeB]

Hi Mikis...

Per TDA Rule 37: "...If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed..."

And TDA Rule 39: "...Placing mixed denomination chips in the pot is governed by the 50% standard in Rule 37..."

In your example the bet is 400. The player silently puts in $600 total in mixed chips. The min raise here is another 400 to 800 total. So how do we interpret this player's silent chips?? 600 is 50% or more of the minimum raise (200 is 50% or more of 400)... therefore this player has raised and they are required to make "exactly the minimum raise allowed". You require them to put out another 200 to make it a raise to 800 total.

[K-Lo]

+1

This happens a lot in rec poker actually.  Or with players transitioning from limit holdem.

[Mikis]

 Thank you very much. and please Example #2-Blinds 200/400-Utg call $400,Utg+1 verbally decrying raise " Seven hundred" this is call or raise??

[chet]

Mikis: 

This is a perfect example of where it is the dealers responsibility to clarify what the players intentions are as the players intentions are unclear.  If I were the dealer, I would ask the player if his intention is a) to raise to a total of 700, or b) to raise 700 to a total of 1100.  If he says he wants to raise to a total of 700, I would then explain that he is required to make a minimum raise to a total of 800 and he needs to push 800 in chips forward.  If he says he wants to raise to a total of 1100, then I would tell him that he needs to push a total of 1100 chips forward.  He cannot now change his mind and fold or call as he already said he wanted to raise, the unclear part is only the amount of the raise.

Chet

[Tristan]

+1 the above post by Chet.

[K-Lo]

Do not be surprised if a TD simply forced the raise to a total of 1100 when the player may have intended to state a total.  The player bears the full responsibility of making his intentions clear, and he is at the mercy of the TD rendering a decision that the player may not have intended when the intention is not clear.  I agree that this is a good time for the dealer to ask for clarification, but note that not all dealers will do this and not all TDs will allow this.

It would be nice to have a rule that defines a default for these situations: e.g.

If a player announces raise and an amount but does not say "raise to" or "raise... total", then the amount will be deemed to be amount of the actual raise.

Or

If a player announces raise and an amount but does not say "raise to" or "raise ...total"', the player shall clarify whether the amount is the actual raise or a total amount of the wager. In either case, the player shall be bound to at least a minimum raise.

[Nick C]

Hello Mikis and welcome to the forum.

 I thought your original question was a good time to draw attention to our well traveled author and esteemed TDA member, Thomas McGee. His rules from his publication,  R.O.P.E. (Rules Of Poker and Etiquette) are more detailed than most other rule-sets. This is one suggestion Thomas mentioned that I agree with and would support:

CONFLICTING RULES AND IRREGULARITIES
The 50% Rule

Too often players reaching for chips attempting to call, accidentally are made to raise because of the 50% Rule. It states that if a player throws in 50% or more of an amount needed to raise, then they will be forced to complete the raise. Tournament participants not being professional players frequently mistakenly grab 1 to many chips needed to make the call.

Example: Blinds are $100-$200, there is significant action and Player A is 5th to enter the pot and accidentally has 3 chips stick together and puts out $300 in the pot. They instantly try to retrieve the ill added chip. But it is too late under current rules and they are required to raise and thus have reopened the betting. Rules should not force players to raise and make them put at risk more chips than they originally intended to invest and worse reopen the betting to players that have already acted.

I believe the rule should be changed to 51% or more. Many blinds levels contain 1-2 chip blinds where if a 3rd chip equal to the predominant denomination being used for the blind is accidentally added, when trying to call, would result in a forced raise situation. Being forced to raise only creates tension between the player and the dealer and does not lessen any undesirable action that it is supposed diminish.

These levels all use 1-2 chip blinds:

25-50
100-200
500-1,000
1,000-2,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-20,000
25,000-50,000
50,000-100,000
As you can see the possibility of making a forced raise progressively gets higher as the chip values and blind levels increase. No player ever wants to be placed in the awkward position of being forced to raise simply because they accidentally grabbed three chips and put them in the pot intending to call but instead being forced to raise. Not everyone is an expert chip handler and chips can just as easily stick together.

[MikeB]

It would be nice to have a rule that defines a default for these situations: e.g.

If a player announces raise and an amount but does not say "raise to" or "raise... total", then the amount will be deemed to be amount of the actual raise.

Or

If a player announces raise and an amount but does not say "raise to" or "raise ...total"', the player shall clarify whether the amount is the actual raise or a total amount of the wager. In either case, the player shall be bound to at least a minimum raise.

Definitely on the agenda for the June Summit.

[Tristan]

It would be nice to have a rule that defines a default for these situations: e.g.

If a player announces raise and an amount but does not say "raise to" or "raise... total", then the amount will be deemed to be amount of the actual raise.

Or

If a player announces raise and an amount but does not say "raise to" or "raise ...total"', the player shall clarify whether the amount is the actual raise or a total amount of the wager. In either case, the player shall be bound to at least a minimum raise.

Definitely on the agenda for the June Summit.

I like, keeping it consistent with other rules, when in doubt...the lesser of the two amounts. 

[Nick C]

No comments on the 51% that Thomas Suggested?

[K-Lo]

I can see the benefits, but in my opinion, too big of a change from the standard.  It would take forever to get all TDs to get on the same page.

[chet]

Nick:

Do you really want dealers/Floor Persons to have to try to figure out what 51% of some amount is?  Trying to get folks to figure out 1/2 or 50% is hard enough much less going to 51%.

I think Thomas has some good ideas, but I don't think I can get behind this one. 

It's easy enough if everything is in "even" amounts, but changing it from 50 to 51% makes all the difference in the world. 

For example, what do you do if the amount in question is 1,365?  50% is 682.50, which one can pretty easily figure out in your head.  Can you easily figure out 51%?  I can't.  51% is 696.15.

chet

[MikeB]

Chet, good point on the mental gymnastics of calculating 51%.

Not necessarily advocating it, but I do see Tom's point.

It's probably better to consider it as "greater than 50%", rather than "at least 51%".

50% we can all figure quickly...

It's worth a quick poll at the Summit during current rules to see how widespread the problem is.

[chet]

Mike:

FWIW, I could support a change in the language that removed the "50% or more" and just said something along the lines of "more than 50%".

Chet