blonde poker forum

Situation is there is a flop/trun/river with action on the flop and turn. Heads up

On the river, guy checks, 2nd guy bets 1200, leaving 5100 behind.

1st guy asks "how much do you have left?".

He then picks up 6300 chips (ie the total of guy one) and throws them over the line. AT THE SAME TIME - he says "call". - You cannot tell weather the chips hit the felt first or weather his spoken word of "call" is first.

So, is it a call? or does it go as a raise?

I think the spoken word is more binding so I give him his 5100 hundred back and take it as just a call-if he wanted to raise then its his own fault-he said call so doesnt matter if chips hit felt 1st

U think?

If the chips hit the felt first, then the bet is a raise no matter what he says afterwards. The raise has taken place.

The tricky part here is you have no way of knowing which event happened first.

Which is more likely:

a) player intends to put the other player all-in, goes to the trouble of picking up exactly the number of chips his opponent has, and throws them into the pot, however, instead of 'all-in' he mistakenly says 'call'.

a) player intends to call, but mistakenly asks his opponent how much he has left, mistakenly counts out and picks up exactly that amount of chips and mistakenly places all these chips in the pot.

The intention is clear - he wants to raise, the raise should stand.

Why common sense needs to be so recklessly abandoned with poker rulings is a great puzzle.

I think his intent was clearly to raise and he possibly got confused with his words.

However had he thrown a large denomination chip in without any words would that be a call ???. Does it make a difference that he picked more than one chip in order to bet and then threw them in.. I don't know...

yes, 100% that would be a call

as for the problem in the OP I believe that the verbal declaration stands.
In a situation where I'm betting and I throw in a handfull of chips while at the same time declaring the amount, if the declaration and the actuall amount put in differ I've always seen it ruled that the verbal declaraition goes. shouldn't be any different here

I agree that this is a situation where common sense should over ride any strict interpretation and it should be seen as a raise.

I think he's probably angle shooting and ready to say:

- no I meant to say raise, or
- but I said call

at a moments notice depending on what the other players response is.

But, if it was just a mistake then the fact that it was more than one chip indicates he meant to raise and if it was an attempt at  angle shooting then it commits him to one course of action which he can't be allowed to back down from.

That would be more ambiguous, so you couldn't rely on a 'common sense' approach, therefore a strict interpretation would be required - ie a call.

its a raise

Certainly an interesting one.

Personally I think it is a raise.

However, the TD at the time ruled it as a call.

Just wondered if there is infact a correct answer.

Yet another example why we need standardised set of rules.

Saying you need to apply "commen sense" just causes problems as some people's common sense will be different from others

The problem with not applying common sense is that sometimes the strict interpretation of the rules can lead to nonsense judgments.

If it's the TD's common sense that is being relied on, and the TD's ruling is law - then there's no problem. It's exactly the same as any game or sport where an interpretation of a rule is required from a referee/arbiter.

I agree a standardised rulebook should be made but I still think a verbal comment should be more binding- its similar to when a player holds up say 5x 1k chips and drops them over the line one by one but gets told its a string bet and must take the other 4k back

Why?

Give me an example whereby strict following of rules in poker could lead to what you are talking about.

I believe every situation in poker can be dealt with strictly by a set of rules.

Then, if a situation occurs, like in my OP which is not dealt with by the rules, then the rules can be ammended accordingly.

With strict rules, everyone should know where they stand.

In my OP, it would be easy to have a rule to deal with this situation - something along the lines of if a player makes a bet but announces a different amount AT THE SAME TIME, then it is the chips that stand and not the verbal declaration.

Simple.

The problem here is that you haven't been able to determine what happened first.  No rulebook can cover a situation like that. 

Despite his intention, if he said call and it isn't clear whether he put the chips in before this, the call should stand.  Inexperienced players sometimes say "I call and raise..." and this is usually ruled as a call.   

this is clearly a raise for me. He picks up 6300 chips and puts them over the line. he knows the bet is 1100. The intention is to raise and the raise must stand. If the guy then says "I said call" if he gets called and beaten by his oppo... he gets banned from the tourney.

Done.

Did the TD give an explanation for the ruling? Other than 'that's the rule', which isn't a good enough reason. A TD should always be able to explain the thinking behind a ruling (along with the reasons why any alternative solutions suggested by players are not as good).

Whilst a standard set of rules would, of course, be good, there will always be situations which rules will not be able to cover. In such situations, players are relying on the TD to have a good enough grasp of common sense to make the best ruling from first principles.

Ruling a call in this example is not only wrong (IMO) but is patently and obviously an inferior decision to ruling a raise (due to the fact it will aid an angle shooter).

The reason I think the verbal declaration is this... if the guys says "call" but puts in extra chips it is him thats making the ambiguous move and therefore he shouldn't benefit.. he could easily be doing this on purpose to see what the player behind him will do... will the guy fold(obviously then he is going to win the pot) or if he see's the guy behind him putting in the remainder of his chips the guy could say "why are you putting in extra chips, I only called", He shouldnt get the benefit of this information- might seem harsh but if its a serious tournament then I dont think he should get this benefit, I think verbal declarations should always take precedent as its more likely to indicate your intended actions

But in this particular instance, the verbal declaration is less likely to indicate the player's intention. A good TD should have the ability to spot this and overrule the 'rule'.

fair enough but thats leaves it open to the scenario I explained where if the 2nd guy pushes his chips the initial guy can say "what are you doin I only called"

Yes it can, in my post above yours. I fail to see why this would be a problem.

The player created ambiguity and whatever his intention, he should be held to a call as many angle-shoots rely on creating ambiguity.

So, you people who say it is a call.

I am assuming that if the chips hit the felt first and a split second later he says "call", then you have this as a raise? Or do you still see this as a call?

If he puts the chips in first it's a raise - but that isn't the situation you described.

Which is exactly why 'standard rules' cause problems - there are many non-standard situations. Having things like 'verbal declaration goes' don't help in all situations.

how's about the old "pay attention next time and stop angle shooting, your hand is dead"?

Actually a real punshment for creating this sort of ambiguous situation should be that your opponent gets the choice to make you call or raise.

oohhh..that I like!

I'm sorry but I totally disagree- having standardised rules means that you are taking external influences out of the game completely; a TD is basically a referee, if you take it in an instance by instance situation you are leaving it open to TD's interpretation, which will vary from TD to TD, which means some people will get a result different from others which I dont think should happen.

I'd like to add as a footnote that it is a similar thing with officiating in football which I think is an absolute disgrace at the moment- the more you leave it open to a referee/TD's interpretation the more level of inconsistancy you will get.... offside used to be offside(IMO if your on that big green rectangle thing called a pitch; your interfering with play no matter where you are), now some officials have a different "interpretation" than others... but thats another story which I definately dont want to get into

I'm not saying 'have no rules', I'm pointing out that having no wriggle room for the TD creates situations where rules are applied to incorrect situations (because there will always be situations not covered by the rules).

chips speak.global rule.

except possibbly in star city     where they DONT  pre flop.

luton has its own share of idiosyncratic rules too, no doubt they rule in favour of local/whoever shouts loudest   in my experiences there.

was there  a satisfactory outcome?

It wasnt at Luton.

My point about asking the follow up question of "if the chips go in first etc etc" was to see what exactly you were saying when you say it goes as a call in my OP (YOU meaning the people who say this is a call) - Therefore you are saying which ever action happens first, then that is the bet/call.

So, when you say the point in the OP is a call, you are using your "judgement" as by your own terms, you cannot tell which action happens first.

Now someone else's judgement may be that it is a raise, because that was clearly the intention.

There lies the problem.

Thought it was when the chips crossed the line, rather than when they landed?  Like in football (rather than in rugby).

Theres 2 arguments here:

1)should there be standardised rules to reduce ambiguity? I think there should be

&

2)as there are no standardised rules what should be the ruling here? I think the verbal should be-I've gave my argument earlier why I think this.... But if there was standardised rules that says however much you put in the middle counts more than what you say I would abide by it accordingly

Nonsense - the two camps are ambiguous = raise or ambiguous = call.  I am in the latter camp because there is less opportunity for angle-shooting.

The verbal declaration stands, for any number of reasons

(a) the guy could have been angle shooting
(b) He could have changed his mind at the last second
(c) serves as a suitable punishment for declaring the wrong action and will be a lesson learned
(d) Its a more manageable standard rule, leaving little or no wiggle room for cheats to prosper.

allowing a raise to stand may help in this situation but not in the many others that will crop up that are similar.

If he has been ambigious ambigg unclear then a call should go to prevent angle shooting.

A man speaks sense.

Player in question asked how much other guy had behind then counted out the raise, placing them across the line saying "call" It was a genuine mistake and again it is difficult to say whether chips crossed the line/hit the felt. Decision was made and accepted. Schoolboy error.............been a while since I have called myself a schoolboy  ;whistle;

Geo

was it you?... rotflmfao you giant angle-shooter

shocking behaviour.

Ban him from blonde NOW!!!!!

LOL, I agree mate

Geo

FWIW the board read:

10 - J - Q - J - A. No str8 flush

I had QQ, holding the 2nd nuts but it was obv he didn't have Aces. No question of an angle shoot.

I made the error, dealer says I was held to a call and I accepted this, no problem. Somone else from the table mentioned it to the TD who agreed with the dealer.

Sometimes we players just have to put our hands up and accept our own mistakes, dealers and TD's have a tough enuff time due to inconsistencies between cardrooms regards rules.

As Billy said.......lesson learnt.

Geo.

Geo - I am still not convinced that you made a mistake.

There seems to be no hard and fast rule about this and in my mind it was clearly a raise.

FWIW the guy says he would of called with an Ace as well ;)

Thanks Paul,

In my mind I created a situ that I shouldn't have and was happy to accept the ruling. That table, you'll agree, was a fun table and it would have been unfortunate if we had lost that from my stupidity.

Thanks for the Saturday night BTW, look forward to meeting again soon.

Geo

Geo - if he'd had aces, you'd have outdrawn him on 6th street anyway.

;)

Only if He had been you Dan.  ;D

geo