Re: Rule 37 how to handle silent underbets / underraises

[Nick C]

That is exactly what Thomas McGee suggests, that's why the denomination of chips was listed. With blinds  25/50 a player grabbing 3 25's for a call (75) would get their extra 25 back, instead of being forced to complete the raise to 100. Simple enough.

I agree that more than 50% might work better. Be careful...we're asking our dealers to count again

[K-Lo]

You don't think that it is a bit counter-intuitive?  Usually one-half of X is rounded to X, not 0.  I am not saying there aren't advantages to rounding down (e.g. reverting to the lesser amount causes less damage), but I am not sure whether the benefits are going to outweigh all the issues that will arise from such a fundamental change.

[Nick C]

Keep it the way it is...I'm only addressing the issue of an unintentional raise. I already know of a room that does not allow a raise if 100% of the minimum required to raise is not pushed forward.  player A bets 100, Player B pushes 195 forward...the dealer gives him back his extra 95 and forces a call I don't like it, but that's how they do it!

 The suggested increase in percentage would offer more protection for the player that unintentionally grabs an extra chip by mistake, or has a chip of a higher denomination mixed in with a lesser chip stack.

 As far as I'm concerned, the 50% raise rule should apply for every poker game! Limit, no-limit, pot limit, spread limit and every other kind of game that exists.

 I still prefer allowing a retraction of the unintentional raise as long as another player has not acted.