Bad floor decision.
What are your options when the floor makes an incorrect decision that costs you 100s of not 1000s of dollars?
I had a sit
If he put out 2 black chips on top of the 55 it’s a call because one black chip didn’t fully cover a call.Also, you don’t have to enforce every rule. You can and that’s your right, but sometimes when a fish clearly intended something else you can immediately verify with them what they are trying to do and let it slide. It’s called spirit of the game.If a pro makes that mistake
I don’t agree with you, you can’t just say if he puts out 2 100 dollar chips the 55 does not count but say if he makes an obvious raise they do. I guess you can if you write up the rules that way but that doesn’t seem consistent to me. Maybe the written rules of the room cover this if so I’m fine with just dropping the issue.
The "single oversized chip rule" is what matters here. This is how you apply it to more complex situations like this.
Take the new chips from this action (2 blacks), remove one of the smallest denomination chips (1 black). Combine the remaining chips with his prior bets from the street (155). If this amount is less than the bet faced (170), it will be a call in 100% of competently run cardrooms and there is zero room for dispute.
Thread should be renamed "Good floor decision I don't like" and OP KITN for not including the actual ruling in the post.
There is a rule where if someone put in more than half of what a raise would be you are now forced to raise.I bet 50 my opponent bets 100 I throw in enough chips to make it 126 total I now have to at least min-raise to 150. If I wanted to call I would have to make it 124 dollars total or less.Despite the fact that my opponent made a mistake and threw in over half the amount for
Can’t tell from you description but you need to realize it is not a one chip rule. It is the oversized chip rule. If the one large chip wasn’t enough for a call then by saying nothing the two chips can only be a call.
Regardless this situation sounds like way too much was going on. Some would even say you were trying to angle the other player. True or not, sounds like the floor was trying to make the correct ruling.
I doubt the mgr does anything in this case to make anything up. I doubt mgr reprimands the floor. But it will get out and you will look at least vindictive. Don’t expect to ever get a close ruling to ever go your way again.
Let me tell you what happened exactly.
My opponent bet out for 55.
I raised to 175.
Then he put 2 additional 100 dollar chips out for a total of 255. Which is 80 dollars additional. The threshold for a raise would be 60 additional or more but he put out 80 additional so IMO he should have been forced to raise or to fold and leave that money in.
He called. $100 was not enough to complete the call. Both chips were necessary. It is a call.
I guess the crux of the issue is whether or not the 55 count. I feel I’ve seen plenty of players call with chips and pull back their original chips this guy didn’t. If you are right that the 55 does not count even though he didn’t pull it back then I agree that he did not raise.
That wasn’t the angle that the floor was arguing for but it’s something to be considered.
They pulled back the chips. Pulling them back and putting them back forward, they are part the new action. Apply the rules onto them. In your case a raise
If they pull the chips back and leave them back. Only the two new chips matter. That is a call.
If the chips already out are never touched then they are nt part of new action, then it is a call. This sounds like what happened. The floor was right.
Btw, what you tried to do was an angle.
Can’t tell from you description but you need to realize it is not a one chip rule. It is the oversized chip rule. If the one large chip wasn’t enough for a call then by saying nothing the two chips can only be a call.Regardless this situation sounds like way too much was going on. Some would even say you were trying to angle the other player. True or not, sounds like the floor
There is no way what I did could be angle shooting. All I wanted was a ruling that enforced the rules. From what a lot of people are saying it seems that they might have been enforced properly. If that is the case as it sounds like it might be then I have nothing to complain about. It is a somewhat complex situation where it wasn’t clear to everyone at the table what the ruling should be. I do appreciate your feedback.
It’s interesting to me that you say the 55 does not count. In my experience if instead he threw out 4 100 dollar chips and did not take back the 55 the bet from him would absolutely be 455. Do you agree with that?
Yes because you now move to a different rule. The oversized chip rule is no longer in play. Now it becomes all the chips left out is the single action.
I don’t agree with you, you can’t just say if he puts out 2 100 dollar chips the 55 does not count but say if he makes an obvious raise they do. I guess you can if you write up the rules that way but that doesn’t seem consistent to me. Maybe the written rules of the room cover this if so I’m fine with just dropping the issue.
Actually yes he can say that. Because that is exactly the rules. At least that is the normal rules. I have never see different rules on these points. I am sure somewhere there are different rules. But that is a minority.
It’s interesting to me that you say the 55 does not count. In my experience if instead he threw out 4 100 dollar chips and did not take back the 55 the bet from him would absolutely be 455. Do you agree with that?
Yes, I agree that if we changed the details of what happened, the ruling would be different. Crazy, I know.
If I have a $1 chip out for my SB and throw in a single $5 chip, I have barely called the BB due to the oversized chip rule. If I throw out two $5 chips, I raised to $11.
There is no way what I did could be angle shooting. All I wanted was a ruling that enforced the rules. From what a lot of people are saying it seems that they might have been enforced properly. If that is the case as it sounds like it might be then I have nothing to complain about. It is a somewhat complex situation where it wasn’t clear to everyone at the table what the ruling
It’s really not that complex, it’s just that a lot of poker players don’t know some of the more basic rules. Hell, many of them think an oversized chip is a raise if they have chips out there already or if “but I have a bunch of small chips and would have obviously used them if I want to just call”.
There is no way what I did could be angle shooting. All I wanted was a ruling that enforced the rules. From what a lot of people are saying it seems that they might have been enforced properly. If that is the case as it sounds like it might be then I have nothing to complain about. It is a somewhat complex situation where it wasn’t clear to everyone at the table what the ruling
Usually at this point, the OP digs in and insists they are right for another 200 posts. Someone actually learning is rare. Good job.
There is no way what I did could be angle shooting. All I wanted was a ruling that enforced the rules. From what a lot of people are saying it seems that they might have been enforced properly. If that is the case as it sounds like it might be then I have nothing to complain about. It is a somewhat complex situation where it wasn’t clear to everyone at the table what the ruling
Maybe not but you sure sounds like you're trying to.
In my opinion the placement of the 2 $100 chips out there is not a raise because the first one wouldn't have been enough for a call. The chips that are alredy out there typically don't count (especially if the player then removed them after placing the2 $100 chips out there).
I also don't think this is angle shooting. It is just a hope that the other player will be forced to raise based on the rules. Typically an angle is when a player does something that is within the rules and then pretends that they intended to do something else. Like when a player puts out raising chips and then says "call"
In my opinion the placement of the 2 $100 chips out there is not a raise because the first one wouldn't have been enough for a call. The chips that are alredy out there typically don't count (especially if the player then removed them after placing the2 $100 chips out there).I also don't think this is angle shooting. It is just a hope that the other player will be forced to r
I agree that if he took back the 55 it wouldn’t have even been a question if he called 200 does not signify a raise in any way. The floor wouldn’t have been called. The way you mentioned it though makes it sound like he did remove the 55 which he didn’t. That said, if it’s true that the 55 doesn’t count then he still only called.
You are 100 percent correct, I honestly hoped that according to the rules he would be forced to raise so I could go all in but it sounds like he was not and I just didn’t understand the rules correctly.
IMO angles are intentional, this is just OP not knowing the rules. I see people throw around that term like a seven year old who just learned a new word that then tries to use it in every sentence. 99% of the time the "angler" does something by accident or just doesn't know the rules.
Yeah nothing to see here. The OP wasn't angling. He just didn't understand the rules as they were written. I can see where he's coming from.
This rule and this ruling is a cluster****. First, obviously the room rules can be almost anything, and whatever they are, that's what the room should follow.
If we use TDA rules... man, it is a disaster. The actual text of rule 46 is both somewhat unclear and seems wrong. It disagrees with its own illustrated addendum. So the correct ruling seems to require you to decide which of the two you're going to follow, either the rule or the illustration. If you follow the illustration (which I personally believe should be correct, since the oversize chip rule clearly applies in this situation, and the two are a matched pair), then it is a call because of the multiple chip rule. If you follow the rule itself as it was written, then you use the 50% rule, and here again there is ambiguity, as it depends on whether the previously bet chips should be considered in that calculation, which is again ambiguous. If so, it should be forced to a raise. If not, it is a call.
Total cluster****.
Moreover, just as an aside, pulling all chips back and pulling no chips back are sometimes treated the same way, sometimes in different ways. It is brutal. Pick one and go with it.
Finally, as a second aside, I just generally do not love the clarity provided by these rules (43-46), even outside the inconsistencies noted above. They are long and complex, which is not what you ideally want for a rule, but would be fine if the issue is nuanced and if they completely addressed the issue. Unfortunately, IMO while they get 80% of the way to being clear, they still leave some ambiguity - in particular, rule 46 does not describe whether chips need to be pulled back first or not to be considered in the "chips pulled back" section (the examples all imply the need to pull the chips back first, but the rule does not actually mention that one way or another), which first means that the rule itself is not clear, and second can allow for angling by letting the better watch for reactions then later pulling back chips, which unfortunately is also commonly done by people who simply want to pull back earlier bet chips, and in fact is probably the most common way it is done at the tables. I don't really care which version is the one intended to be applied, but if you're going to have a long, complex rule, go the whole distance and make sure it completely and descriptively covers the possible situations clearly.
Anyway, here are the rules, and their illustrations. I've highlighted the relevant parts, both to the OP situation, and to my complaints about the rule in general.
43: Raise Amounts
A: A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior full bet or raise of the current betting round. A player who raises 50% or more of the largest prior bet but less than a minimum raise must make a full minimum raise. If less than 50% it is a call unless “raise” is first declared or the player is all-in (Rule 45-B). Declaring an amount or pushing out the same amount of chips is treated the same (Rule 40-C). Ex: NLHE, opening bet is 1000, verbally declaring “Fourteen hundred” or silently pushing out 1400 in chips are both calls unless raise is first declared. See Illustration Addendum.
B: Without other clarifying information, declaring raise and an amount is the total bet. Ex: A opens for 2000, B declares “Raise, eight thousand.” The total bet is 8000.
44: Oversized Chip Betting (Overchips)
If facing a bet or blind, pushing out a single oversized chip (including your last chip) is a call if raise isn’t first declared. To raise with an overchip you must declare raise before the chip hits the table surface. If raise is declared but no amount is stated, the raise is the maximum allowable for the chip. If not facing a bet, pushing out an overchip silently (no declaration) is a bet of the maximum for the chip.
45: Multiple Chip Betting
A: If facing a bet, unless raise or all-in is declared first, a multiple-chip bet (including a bet of your last chips) is a call if every chip is needed to make the call; i.e. removal of just one of the smallest chips leaves less than the call amount. Ex-1: Player A opens for 400: B raises to 1100 total (a 700 raise), C puts out one 500 and one 1000 chip silently. This is a call because removing the 500 chip leaves less than the 1100 call amount. Ex-2: NLHE 25-50. Post-flop A opens for 1050 and B puts out his last chips (two 1000’s). B calls unless raise or all-in was first declared.
B: If every chip is not needed to make the call; i.e. removing just one of the smallest chips leaves the call amount or more: 1) if the player has chips remaining, the 50% standard in Rule 43 governs the bet. 2) A bet of a player’s last chip(s) is an all-in bet whether reaching the 50% threshold or not. See Addendum.
46: Prior Bet Chips Not Pulled In
A: To avoid confusion, players with prior-bet chips not yet pulled in who face a raise should verbalize their action before adding chips to the prior bet.
B: If facing a raise, clearly pulling back a prior bet chip binds a player to call or raise; they may not put the chip(s) back out and fold.
C: If new chip(s) are added silently and the bet is unclear to the house, the call and raise rules 41-45 apply as follows: 1) If prior chips don’t cover the call AND are either left alone OR fully pulled back, an overchip is a call and multiple new chips are subject to the 50% raise standard (Rule 43). 2) If prior chips are partly pulled back OR if prior chip(s) cover the call, the combined final chip bet is a raise if reaching the 50% standard (Rules 43 and 45), if less it is a call. See Illustration Addendum.
Illustrated Addendum:
Rule 45: Multiple Chip Betting.
“A: If facing a bet, unless raise or all-in is declared first, a multiple-chip bet (including a bet of your last chips) is a call if every chip is needed to make the call; i.e. removal of just one of the smallest chips leaves less than the call amount. B: If every chip is not needed to make the call; i.e. removal of just one of the smallest chips leaves the call amount or more: 1) if the player has chips remaining, the bet is governed by the 50% standard in Rule 43; 2) if the player’s last chips are bet he or she is all-in whether reaching the 50% threshold or not.”
Example 1: There is not one chip that can be removed and still leave the call amount.
1-A: Player A opens post flop for 1200, B silently puts out two 1000’s. This is a call because neither chip can be removed and still leave at least 1200.
1-B: NLHE, blinds 250-500. Preflop the UTG raises 600 to total of 1100. The UTG+1 silently puts out one 500 and one 1000 chip. This is a call because neither the 500 nor the 1000 can be removed and still leave at least 1100.
Example 2: Same as 1-B above except the UTG+1 puts out one 1000 and five 100s silently. Four of the 100s could be removed and still leave the 1100 call amount. Therefore, this would be subject to the 50% standard in Rule 43: the minimum raise is 600, 50% of 600 is 300, therefore, if the UTG+1 puts out 1400 or more, he will be held to making a full raise to 1700 total. Since the UTG put out 1500 he must raise in this example.
Example 3: Same as 2 above except the UTG+1 puts out one 1000 and three 100s silently. Two of the 100s can be removed and still leave the 1100 call amount therefore this is subject to Rule 43. Since the player did not put out at least 50% of a minimum raise, this bet is ruled a call and 200 is returned to the player.
Example 4: Multiple-chip bet of all chips. A) If all chips are needed to make the call, this is treated exactly the same as a player with chips behind (See example 1 above). B) If removing just one of the smallest chips leaves the call amount or more, the player is all-in regardless of whether the bet reaches the 50% raise standard.
Example 4-A: A opens for 1400, B (with remaining chips behind in large chip stack) silently pushes out one 1000 and three 500’s. This is a mandatory min-raise to 2800 because the 50% threshold of 2100 (1400+700=2100) is reached.
Example 4-B: Same 1400 opener, B (with remaining chips behind in large chip stack) puts out one 1000 and two 500s. This is a call because it is short of the 50% threshold of 2100. NOTE: In both example 4-A and 4-B, Player B would be all-in if putting out his or her last chips.
Rule 46: Prior Bet Chips Not Pulled In, situation examples.
Situation 1: If prior chips don’t cover the call AND are left alone. Ex: THE 25-50, the BB posts two 25’s, button raises to 600 total (550 more to BB).
1: Adding an overchip is a call (drop a 1k chip onto the two 25’s).
2: Adding multiple new chips is a call if all new chips are needed to call a) drop two 500’s onto the two 25’s or b) drop a 100 and 500 chip onto the two 25’s. In these two examples all new chips when combined with the prior chips are needed to make the call.
3: Adding multiple new chips is a Rule 45 multiple chip bet if one of the smallest new chips is not needed to make the call (drop a 1k and 500 chip onto the two 25’s is a total bet of 1550). Per Rule 45, a silent multi-chip bet is a raise if it hits the 50% threshold; otherwise it is a call.
Situation 2: If prior chips don’t cover the call AND are fully pulled back:
1) Removing all prior chips and adding an overchip is a call (pull back the two 25’s, add 1k chip).
2) Removing all prior chips and adding new multiple chips is a Rule 45 bet (pull back two 25’s, add two or more new chips).
Situation 3: if prior chip(s) are partly pulled back (whether or not they cover the call amount)
1) Partial removal of prior chips (pull back one 25, leave the other 25 out, add any new chip(s), is a Rule 45 multiple-chip bet (a raise if hitting 50%, otherwise a call).
Situation 4: If prior chip(s) cover the call amount, adding any new chip(s) is a Rule 45 multiple chip bet. Ex: THE 50-100, BB posts one 1k chip. Pre-flop raise to 700 (600 more to BB). The 1k prior chip covers the raise, thus adding any new chip(s) is a Rule 45 bet of all chips. This applies whether or not the initial 1k posted is pulled back or left alone.
Situation 5: Regardless of the above, the gesture of combining and pushing or tossing all chips forward may be interpreted as intent to bet all chips under Rule 45.
In the OP, the action was:
My opponent bet out for 55.
I raised to 175.
Then he put 2 additional 100 dollar chips out for a total of 255.
He added multiple new chips and did not pull back earlier bet chips. The earlier bet chips were not enough to make the call. Removing either new chip would not leave enough to make the call (with or without the previously bet chips). This is clearly covered by rule 46(C)1:
C: If new chip(s) are added silently and the bet is unclear to the house, the call and raise rules 41-45 apply as follows: 1) If prior chips don’t cover the call AND are either left alone OR fully pulled back, an overchip is a call and multiple new chips are subject to the 50% raise standard (Rule 43). 2) If prior chips are partly pulled back OR if prior chip(s) cover the call, the combined final chip bet is a raise if reaching the 50% standard (Rules 43 and 45), if less it is a call.
But the illustration that matches the situation says use multiple chip rules instead of 50% rule:
Situation 1: If prior chips don’t cover the call AND are left alone. Ex: THE 25-50, the BB posts two 25’s, button raises to 600 total (550 more to BB).
[...]
2: Adding multiple new chips is a call if all new chips are needed to call a) drop two 500’s onto the two 25’s or b) drop a 100 and 500 chip onto the two 25’s. In these two examples all new chips when combined with the prior chips are needed to make the call.
I think it should be handled by the multiple chip rule, as in the illustration, which would mean that we consider whether removing any single chip would leave enough for the call. He added two 100 chips, removing either one leaves him at 155 ("when combined with the prior chips"), not enough to call the 175. So it would be a call.
If we instead use the rule as actually written, we apply the 50% rule. OP raised 120 on top of 55 to make the raise to 175. A min raise of that would be an additional 120, or a raise to 295. 50% of that would be a raise of 60, or a raise to 235.
He added two 100 chips. By themselves, not enough to force a raise according to 50% rule. Including the previously bet chips? Enough to force a raise. Which do you use? Who the **** knows. The illustration for the check for whether it's a multiple chip bet seems to imply that you should use previously bet chips in its calculation. But this is a different, if related situation. Total cluster****.
If I were king, this is a call because of multiple chip bet rule 45. According to rule 46 as written, with unclear rules on whether previously bet chips should count when determining the 50%? Probably increase to a raise, but maybe also a call. Have fun, floors.
Based on the example for rule 45 I would argue that he definitely made a call. If player c throws out 1600 dollars and doesn’t say anything it’s still a call even though 1600 is more than the 50 percent needed for a forced min raise. That said, what is the purpose of the 50 percent rule? I guess it would only apply if someone said raise but didn’t throw enough out for a raise? If someone said raise then I thought they would be forced to minraise no matter how much money they put out there if it wasn’t at least enough for a minraise which has me asking why even have this 50 percent rule?
I guess the 50 percent rule only applies if people are using smaller chips and they silently throw out too many that goes over the 50 percent?
The 50% rule (rule 43) is used when a player puts out more chips than the amount to call, but not enough for a full legal raise, to determine whether it is a call or raise.
Rule 43 is pre-empted by the oversize chip rule (rule 44) when just a single oversize chip is bet when facing a bet or blinds.
Rule 43 is pre-empted by the multiple chip rule (rule 45) when multiple chips are bet when facing a bet.
Rules 43, 44, and 45 are all adjusted by the previously bet chips rule (rule 46) if a player has chips already bet this round and adds additional chips. This is the rule which is inconsistently written with its own illustration.
I was maybe a little harsh earlier on the lack of clarity in the current rules. It's a complicated situation we're trying to address. I do think it needs some TLC though.
The action plan needed, according to me:
A- Fix rule 46 to be consistent with its illustration, one way or the other
B- Provide a clear rule for when and why previously bet chips should be included in various calculations (such as in rule 43 and 45)
C- Clarify how chips can be "pulled back" in rule 46, i.e. can it be done after putting out new bet chips
D- If possible, add any additional edge cases needed to cover other situations not yet contemplated (I can't think of any, but maybe there are more)
E- If possible, simplify rules 43-46 to be more clear or less complex. It may not be, it's a complicated set of things we're trying to manage. But if so it would go a long way to making this set of rules more clear to everyone.
This rule and this ruling is a cluster****. First, obviously the room rules can be almost anything, and whatever they are, that's what the room should follow.If we use TDA rules... man, it is a disaster. The actual text of rule 46 is both somewhat unclear and seems wrong. It disagrees with its own illustrated addendum. So the correct ruling seems to require you to decide wh
I'd be lying if I said I read every word of this, but your confusion seems to stem from understanding it as a simple binary: either the player pulls back the previous bet's chips or leaves them be. There is a set of tertiary options where the player does something with the chips other than pull them all back (pull some back, pick them up and include them in the betting motion with the other chips, etc), and *those* are the actions that should be interpreted as intent to include those chips as part of the new action's total.
It's the opposite way of saying what others have said in this thread, which is that UNLESS they somehow indicate the previous bet's chips are part of the new action's total, they're assumed to not be part of it. I think that's the more intuitive but also less clear way of explaining it (what does "somehow indicate" mean?), so the most clearly delineated rule just enumerates the two only actions that *shouldn't* be interpreted as counting toward the new action total.
IME in cash games, not touching the chips from the previous action is the most ambiguous option, so dealers will ask for clarity or just wait a beat while looking at the player to see if there's any indication of intent before bumping the previous action's chips back to the player.
I'd be lying if I said I read every word of this, but your confusion seems to stem from understanding it as a simple binary: either the player pulls back the previous bet's chips or leaves them be. There is a set of tertiary options where the player does something with the chips other than pull them all back (pull some back, pick them up and include them in the betting motion w
I don't think I am. The rules clearly indicate where they apply to each of those situations. I have no issue with having three different categories of "chips pulled back": none, some, all.
which is that UNLESS they somehow indicate the previous bet's chips are part of the new action's total, they're assumed to not be part of it
I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say here, but if anything you're proving my point that it's not totally clear. The rules in a different place are unambiguous that you DO count previously bet chips when they are not pulled back. Should you? I would prefer not, and for the OP's situation the rules don't even say. But in this other place they say you do. It's a mess.
While the 50% rule wasn't relevant in this case, I just can't agree that it is ever an angle to insist on its enforcement when it does come up. The rule doesn't say that 50% of the prior bet is like a raise — it says that it is a raise. Anything greater than 50% of the prior bet is a raise.
So if it is an angle to insist that one part of the range resolves to a raise, then it is an angle to insist that any part of it does, including a bet greater than 100% of the prior bet! I agree with OP here: If you don't like the rule, then lobby to change it.
I also agree with OP that the 50% rule is enforced selectively, especially at the lower stakes. You could argue that this is a good thing, but again you'd be arguing against the essence of the rule. It is meant to provide consistency, disambiguation, and fairness, but we lose all of those benefits when it is selectively enforced.
Personally, I think that the 50% threshold is too low because it is way too easy to cross by mistake, so the intent that it is meant to signal is often not real. I'm guessing that 50% was chosen because it is easy to calculate on-the-fly, but something like 75% would be a more confident signal of intent.
As described by OP it seems like this was a raise. I would want the chips not pulled back to be treated as part of the bet, as that seems to be the most common way of treating them in my region. Maybe I would feel different in a different region, and I think this is one of those things where local customs apply.
That being said, I think it’s a mistake for you to try to get anyone in trouble or try to get money. First of all, the floor has no idea who has the best hand when he comes to make that ruling, so he doesn’t know if he is helping or hurting anyone by ruling the way he does. Secondly, as pointed out by Dinesh, reasonable people can disagree on the correct ruling.
I would want to escalate this for reasons of clarity, not for reasons of trying to “make things right”. If you had a pot pushed somewhere else due to a dealer error, ok that’s worth trying to “make things right”. In this situation, it’s ambiguous, so they don’t have reason to give you any money or punish the floor, only an interest in seeing if they want to make a clarification on the right ruling to their staff.
You’d be surprised how many players with years of experience don’t know rules that have existed forever (example: This thread). Hell, many of them think an oversized chip is a raise if they have chips out there already or if “but I have a bunch of small chips and would have obviously used them if I want to just call”.Edit - I still remember Daniel Negreanu, a guy who has been a
To be fair I remember DN insisting on an old HSP episode that “of course you can get a count of the pot” in holdem. Which he justified saying done all the time inPL games.
