Adding chips to a previous bet: raise or call? Rule 44 situations

[Luca P.]

Hello, I had this situation:
NL 100-200
UTG raise 400 to 600
UTG+1 folds
MP put 1100 into the pot (wanted to make call, but floor declared raise)
MP+1 folds
HJ folds
CO folds
BTN folds
SB and BB fold
UTG then tosses one 5000 chip on top of the 600 that already has.

Floor is called.
I decided it was a call for the "oversized chip rule".
Do you do the same?
If not, why?

[K-Lo]

I agree with you that it is a call.  

At that point in the action, it is 500 for the UTG to call, and he tosses one chip in -- that is a call of the 500.  

If he wanted to raise, he must verbally announce raise.  Most TDs will also allow a raise if a player takes the 600 back "from the pot" and throws in all 5600 forward together in one motion.  But in your example, as written, this is a standard call (though commonly misunderstood by players).

[MikeB]

Great question, and something the membership is still working to try and standardize. At Summit VI, if you watch the video on this there is agreement on some of these "silently adding to chips of a prior bet not yet pulled in" (i.e. Rule 44) type situations... but not all. And honestly if you ask the same person one day what the rule is, you might get a different answer the next day... it's a work in progress...

The Association originally drafted a set of Illustrations ("rules") to cover all of these situations where chips are put out silently:
A: There is change due from the prior bet.
A-1: Player puts out an overchip
A-2: Player puts out multiple chips
B: There is no change due from prior bet
B-1: Player puts out an overchip
B-2: Player puts out multiple chips
C: Player disturbs prior bet
C-1: Player pulls all of prior bet back then puts out overchip
C-2: Player pulls all of prior bet back then puts out multiple chips
C-3: Player pulls PART of prior bet back (leaving one or more chips), then adds an over chip
C-4: Player pulls PART of prior bet back (leaving one or more chips), then adds multiple chips
D: Any of the above PLUS player tosses the entire lot forward...

Any truly comprehensive rule regarding adding new chip(s) to chips from a prior bet not yet pulled in must address each of the above. There just wasn't anywhere near enough consensus to move forward with one or more rules that would address each of these at Summit VI, so it was deemed better to make the point in Rule 44 that everyone agrees to: Because so many possibilities exist, it's advisable to declare your bet verbally PRIOR to putting out chips in any of the above situations...

There is yet another consideration to all this, and that's the practical side.... WHATEVER rules are adopted must be practical for the average dealer to remember and implement. In some conditions, it's one thing to have a theoretically sound rule and yet another that will yield the most regularly consistent rulings. An example of this would be to say that anytime the new bet involves adding just a single overchip it's a call... regardless of whether the bettor disturbs the prior bet, has any change due or not, or tosses the whole lot out forward, it's still a call. Just to give an example of this controversy, some say "well, if he puts out the overchip then tosses the whole pile forward he's gesturing a total bet"... however might that be a string bet of sorts: 1) puts out the overchip (done deal it's a call); 2) tosses it all forward (that's a second action so it's a stringed bet).  Another twist: what if Player A has a call of a prior bet of 1800 in front of him (with 1000, 500, and three 100's out there), and Player B raises to 4000 total. Player A then pulls back two of the 100's and tosses out a 5000 on top of the remaining 1000, 500, and 100 silently. There's a pile of chips totalling 6600 which A has deliberately constructed for this bet. If he just wanted to overchip call with the 5000, why didn't he just either silently add the 5000 or pull ALL of the prior bet back? why make a point of leaving the 1000, 500, and 100 out there? So a theorist might consider that a deliberate multiple-chip bet of 6600 total, well enough for a raise. However, is the average dealer going to think like this? Would it just be cleaner to say "hey you just added an overchip, it's a call". Then twist it and say he does this then tosses the lot out forward, does that make a difference or is it a string action as previously described?

It would be great to have this dialogue on here and see if some consensus can be reached, at least for some of these possibilities.

Back to Luca's original example: this is one where there is nearly 100% agreement that it's an overchip call...

....but let's put some twists on Luca's example (assume the UTG has a 500 and 100 from his prior raise to 600 total):
1) what if the UTG drops the 5000 on top of the 600 THEN takes and tosses the whole mixed pile of 5600 forward when he's facing a total bet of 1100? Does that gesture turn an overchip call into a multiple-chip raise, or is that a string action?
2) what if he pulls the 500 and 100 back towards his chip stack in his hand, adds a 5000 to his hand, then extends his hand and tosses the 5600 pile out?
3) what if same as 2, but only tosses 5500 out, or 5100? Is he making a deliberate point that it's a specific multiple chip bet in that circumstance?

... And what is the average dealer going to think intuitively in these situations... Keep in mind we need not only a theoretically sound rule, but perhaps more importantly a memorable rule that's reasonably easy to implement and likely to produce the most consistent interpretations with minimal need to call the floor....

This is great stuff for Summit VII, it might take til then to get full agreement

[Stuart Murray]

I agree with your decisions Luca and would of ruled the same

Stuart

[Nick C]

Why not just insist that any player responding with any amount (or number of chips) that differs from the exact amount required to call, announce his intentions? I would not consider the addition of the 5000 count chip on top of the 600 already in the pot as a call. If the 600 were retracted first, I would then consider it a call. Either I'm missing something or I'm not understanding the question.

[Tristan]

I would have ruled it a call as well.  Any time they have to add chips in order to make the call and they throw out that single big chip without saying anything it is a call in my eyes.

[Nick C]

Sorry guys, I just don't see it as a single chip when he has at least two chips already in the pot! Either announce call...or retract your 600 before putting the single chip into the pot. What you are saying is; in order to raise to 5600 (in the example given) the player must say raise before placing the 5000 into the pot, right? Well then why not just insist that he say call if that is his intention? I don't see it your way at all, sorry.

[Tristan]

42:   Oversized Chip Betting
Anytime when facing a bet or blind, placing a single oversized chip in the pot is a call if a raise isn’t first verbally declared. To raise with an oversized chip, raise must be declared before the chip hits the table surface. If raise is declared (but no amount), the raise is the maximum allowable for that chip. When not facing a bet, placing an oversized chip in the pot without declaration is a bet of the maximum for the chip.

I understand what you are saying Nick, but you logic is opposite of what it says in this rule.  You are saying it is a raise unless they say call, when this rule clearly says it is a call unless they say raise.

[Nick C]

Tristan, My argument is based on the fact that it is not (1) single oversized chip. the player in question had 600 as a bet (at least two chips) prior to his single 5000 count chip. It is not a single chip.
The intent of the Oversized Chip Betting rule is for a player facing a lesser bet than the size of the chip he is about to put in action. There is a difference. That is the problem with too many rules, they can be interpreted both ways. The way I see it; tossing a 5000 chip when you already have a 100 and a 500 in the trail, is no different than tossing them in together.

 Do you really read the rule that way? You really believe the rule is that clear? Wow, I don't see it that way.

[Tristan]

Do you really read the rule that way? You really believe that rule is that clear? Wow, I don't see it that way.

Yes because, I feel, the other standard is messier. 

Let me ask you this Nick...What would you rule if player A bet 200, Player B raised to 1200, Player A asked the dealer to pull in the 200 from each, and then Player A threw out a 5000 chip?  Would you rule it the same?  Would it matter to you if the Player had not asked the dealer to pull in the 200 from each and the dealer did it anyway?

[WSOPMcGee]

It's a call.

Nick, the player is facing action. The action to him is 500 more. At that point under the old standard, his chips should already be in the pot and brought in. Thus there would be no chips in front of him. Hence when facing an action of 500 more and you toss in a 5.000 chip, the player is calling.

Hopefully that makes  more sense.

For whatever reason the players asked us not to bring the chips in anymore when the bet has been called and raised. Some kind of Strategy thing.

[Nick C]

Thomas, you wrote: Nick, the player is facing action. The action to him is 500 more. At that point under the old standard, his chips should already be in the pot and brought in.
That is not the proper dealer procedure. Bets are placed in the betting area, or across a betting line, to clearly determine which players are in for the current wager, who is next to act, and to show that all active players are in for the correct amount. When a player raises the amount of the raise is determined and the action proceeds clockwise until the betting round is complete.

 The only exception to the rule is when action is heads-up. Example: Player A bets 1700...Player B announces raise before pushing his 1700 forward. At this point, I have no objection, to "bring-in" both confirmed equal bets while awaiting the raise amount from Player B.

 Wagers must never be "brought-in" in a multi-way pot before all betting for that round is complete. It can be compared to a player who "splashes-the-pot." It will always prove to be a problem, even when we can clearly determine the correct amount was wagered. A good dealer should patiently re-stack or adjust a sloppy or spilled stack. The bet should not be brought-in until all active players have satisfied all bets for the current betting round.

Tristan: You asked me: Let me ask you this Nick...What would you rule if player A bet 200, Player B raised to 1200, Player A asked the dealer to pull in the 200 from each, and then Player A threw out a 5000 chip?  Would you rule it the same?  Would it matter to you if the Player had not asked the dealer to pull in the 200 from each and the dealer did it anyway?
First of all, why would any player ask the dealer to do that? And second, if he went that far, why not make his intentions clear? Tossing in a 5000 chip in your example, would put the player at the mercy of the floor. He certainly is at least calling.

[Tristan]

First of all, why would any player ask the dealer to do that? And second, if he went that far, why not make his intentions clear? Tossing in a 5000 chip in your example, would put the player at the mercy of the floor. He certainly is at least calling.

Players do things I don't expect and for reasons I cannot comprehend quite frequently!

[zvjerko]

I would like to add this, can we get back to amount of 1100 and floor decision of raise. Do we here have also 2 chips, 1x 1000 plus 1x100 or in what way chips entered into play? Is it here a rule of multiple chips? I see 2 different rulings and both are confusing for me. The first also might be a call or I am misunderstood something. The second ruling might be a raise since player could easily call with one chip of 5k but he leaves 600 in play and adds this 5k chip. This multiple chips rule definitely needs a more clarification.