Another Raising Question

[K-Lo]

Someone posted the following question on Matt's Twitter Feed:

Blinds are 250-500. 1st guy raises to 1100.  Next guy silently throws a 1k and a 500 piece.  Raise or call?

To which Matt replied it is clearly a CALL.


This is going to confuse the heck out of people, at least according to the current rule set.  By the book, the 1500 bet does not qualify under the exception governed by the two same denomination chip rule, where you can remove one chip and assess whether the single chip would have been sufficient to be a call.  Rule 39 explicitly states that mixed denomination situations are governed by the raising rule, which in this example, would require the player to top-up his raise to 1700 total.

So I'm not sure whether Matt misunderstood the question, or whether he is saying that the wager should be considered a call despite the explicit language of the rule.

There is obviously merit in deeming this a call, however, since you would make the same wager if you wanted 400 in change and had no 100 chips.  But this is not currently supported the language in the TDA rules.  Maybe TDA should change rule 39 to refer to any two chips (not necessarily same denomination), where if removing EITHER chip, the remaining chip would not be sufficient to constitute a raise, then the wager will be deemed a call.

[Nick C]

Ken,

 The raise rules for no limit are very confusing. I do however agree with Matt that the 1K and the 500 piece are clearly a call for the 1100 total bet. I also agree with your assessment; the rule (TDA #39) could be cleared up by removing the last line, and replacing it with yours.   

[K-Lo]

Thanks, Nick.

Should it make a difference then whether we are talking about two chips or multiple chips? 

For example, same scenario, but guy silents throws three 500 chips in.  Rule says raise... but should be call as well for the same reasons?  Then the rule should be changed to apply to multiple chips, not necessarily same denomination, where if upon removing any one of those chips the remaining chip(s) would not be sufficient to constitute a raise, then the wager will be deemed a call.

[Steven]

Rule 39
"When facing a bet, unless a raise is first declared, multiple same-denomination chips is a call if removing one chip leaves less than the call amount."

The rules are clear. (Rules 39 and 37)

The first scenario with two different chips is clearly a RAISE since the raise amount of 400 is greater than 50 percent of the 600 raise.

Ken's second scenario of 3-500 chips is clearly a CALL, not a raise, since taking one chip away from the 3 "same-denomination" chips is less than the call amount.

The rules are clear and the players need to avoid confusion by announcing call or raise to clarify their intent!

[K-Lo]

The first scenario with two different chips is clearly a RAISE since the raise amount of 400 is greater than 50 percent of the 600 raise.

Hi Steven: 

So when Matt Savage says that the first scenario is clearly a "CALL and NOT A RAISE", are you saying "the man" is wrong?    Maybe you should ask him.   By the way, some of his followers have already asked him to clarify, pointing out what you have pointed out, and he pointed them to pokertda.com.

Your point is what I was getting at in my original post.  While there are certainly merits in saying it should be a call, the rules currently (and clearly) would say the first scenario is a raise.  Since the same 1500 action could be used to simply call, it does make sense that it should be a call, but this, it seems, would require a rule change.  Maybe he intends to change it at the Summit, but he hasn't shared or confirmed that with anyone yet as far as I know.

K

[Nick C]

Steven,

 I don't know how you can say the first scenario is clearly a raise. What this discussion confirms is; Rule #39 (like so many others) needs some work.

 I know of a local Casino that does not apply the standard 50% raise rule for no-limit...if you don't put 100% of the bet into the pot (when you intend to raise) your extra "short amount" is returned to you! I don't like it, but that's what they do.

 I remember an example that was given in a similar situation on an old rule-set...it went like this: Player A bets 400, Player B raises 800 (total for next player to call is 1200)...Player C tosses two 1000 count chips into the pot...is this a call? or is it a raise?

[Steven]

39: Multiple Chip Betting

When facing a bet, unless a raise is first declared, multiple same-denomination chips is a call if removing one chip leaves less than the call amount. Example of a call: preflop, blinds are 200-400: A raises to 1200 total (an 800 raise), B puts out two 1000 chips without declaring raise. This is just a call because removing one 1000 chip leaves less than the amount needed to call the 1200 bet. Placing mixed denomination chips in the pot is governed by the 50% standard in Rule 37.

Nick,

1) Your example is the exact example listed for Rule 39 of the current TDA rule set!

2) I  state my case for scenario 1 solely based on the TDA rules. As per rule 37, the "short" raise amount of  400 (1500 - 1100 = 400) is more than 50% of the current raise amount of 600, so he should up the bet to 1700. Furthermore, rule 39 does not apply here because the 2 chips(1000 and 500) were not "same denomination"

Nick, agree, however, that if a casino has a house rule that favors a 100 % raise instead of a 50 % raise, then the 1500 old be a call.

3) Btw, there was a previous version of the Multiple Chips rule, maybe circa version 1 of 2009, that did not specify "same-denomination". In that case, the 1500 would have been a call. However, that rule was rewritten in the language that currently exists for Rule 39.

[K-Lo]

So are we in agreement that his decision is going to confuse the heck out of people?

[Nick C]

Thanks Steve,

 I get so confused I talk of the old rule-sets and the damn example is in our current TDA rule 39

Can I erase my last reply

So...to better explain the situation...if player B placed a 1000 and two 500's into the pot (instead of two 1000's) it would then be a raise, correct?

[Steven]

Nick,

Correct! The chips are not same-denomination and the 800 extra is in fact 100% of the 800 raise amount! In fact, if the player put in 1600 using 1000+500+100, then that too would qualify as a raise and require that player to put in an extra 400 to bring the raise o the full 800. (Provided there is not a house rule like the one you mentioned that requires the full raise mount to qualify as a raise, and of course provided the player has the extra 400', meaning he is all in)

I was just thinking, that last caveat is kind of interseting - if the "raiser" did put in 1600 and had only another 200 behind, I think he'd have to put the extra 200 in, unless maybe he can fold and forfeit the 1600, saving the last 200 for a better spot?!!!!

 

[Nick C]

Steven,

 I agree 100% with all that you've covered on your last post. I do not agree with your reply #3 when you say:   "The first scenario with two different chips is clearly a RAISE since the raise amount of 400 is greater than 50 percent of the 600 raise." It is only a call.

[Steven]

Nick,

What you're not agreeing with is in fact the whole reason Ken initiated this thread! The 1500 is not same-denomination and the raise amount of 400 (1500-1100) is greater than 50% of the current rise mount of 600. 50% of 600 is 300, and 400>300. And the player did not announce call.

37: Raises

A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. 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 (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips, Rule 39). In no-limit & pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.

Ken,

Yes I'm in agreement that his decision would confuse the heck out of everyone, as it seems not to be compliant with rules 37 and 39. I did mention in a previous post that a few years back there was a version of the Multiple Chip rule that did not specify "same
-denomination". In that case, his ruling would have been appropriate, IMHO.

[Nick C]

Steven,

 I understand that a 1000 value chip and a 500 value chip equal 1500. And I know that the extra 400 constitutes 50%...however, the 500 is considered the same as a single over-size-chip in this situation.

 If we could correct the current rule to consider single chips of mixed denominations, as opposed to just mixed denominations, maybe? i.e. A 1000 chip and five 100 count chips would qualify as a 50% raise that MUST be completed. There are only two denominations but, the difference is the number of chips.

 My argument is based on the two different denominations and not the amount, even though they are equal...and I believe that is what the rule is trying to tell us.

[Tristan]

I agree with the 'call' ruling.  While by textbook definition it doesn't fit under multiple same denomination chips, it is the same type of situation.  The wording of the rule should be adjusted. 

[mitchy6]

Ok… Here is the easiest way to understand this over-sized / same denomination chip rule…

If both chips are of equal value (I.e. multiple same value chips) or if one is of a lesser value of the two or multiple chips, as in your examples.  Then by taking away one multiple same value chips or the lesser value of these chips, results in the remaining chip(s) not being enough to cover the call, then the taken away chip becomes the single over-sized chip rule, resulting in just a call. 

I.e. in your example, 1k and a 500 chip tossed in, results in a call…. Because, (while they are not the same value / denomination of chip,) by taking away the 500 chip, (the lesser value chip,) the single remaining chip(s), (1k chip,) is not enough to cover the bet/raise; then the remaining chip, (500 chip,) is considered the single over-sized chip.  The same rule applies to tossing in (3) 500 value chips, which also results in just a call.