blonde poker forum

Guy opens for 900 (blinds of 150/300).

Lady doesn't realises there has been a raise and says 'raise to 800' before putting in any chips.

What should the ruling be here?

This is why they have special poker tourneys for women  ;hide;

Raise stands.

raise was declared before the amount so it should be a min raise

Raise stands, should be a min raise

Does it make a difference that she said 'raise to 800' instead of 'raise 800'? 'Raise to 800' isn't even an underaise, it's an undercall.

verbal of "raise" goes, as the amount is < min raise, goes as a min raise

yes, it makes an absolutely huge difference as 'raise 800' (as opposed to raise, 800) would be a legitimate raise to 1700, 'raise to 800' is a min raise to 1300

this is not however true in ireland or any cardroom which operates the ridic rule of raises having to at least double the previous bet, in these places all 3 of those cases would result in a min raise to 1800

I guess I can see why she'd be forced to make a min-raise, considering that the total minimum amount she can raise to is 1,500 and 800 is above half. But what if she'd said 'to 700', would that have to be a call or something seeing that it's below half?

no, the initial declaration was raise, nothing after can change that, we only need to figure if it's a min raise or more than that.

whether or not the amount is more than 1/2 the min raise is only considered when chips are put in the middle with no verbal declaration of call or raise

"raise" is the key word. goes as a min raise.

What happens if you say "raise" and then announce a figure that's more than the number of chips you have in front of you?  You can't raise that amount (obviously), and as you've said raise, you have to raise something - but are you then obliged to make a min raise or do you have to raise all-in?

never come across this one but I would say that if a verbal declaration is of an impossible amount either because of chip denominations in play or stack size then the td should rule it as the closest possible legal bet, in this case it'd be all-in

I'm going to go against the grain here and suggest that this lady is not held to her raise: she can fold, call, or raise (to any amount she pleases). No-limit rules do allow some leeway in having not noticed the size of a previous wager.

In this case she clearly thinks the bet stands at 300, but she is mistaken - it is 900. Providing there has been no further action she, at the discretion of the TD, can reconsider what to do.


12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300 into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot.

Example: On the end, a player puts a $500 chip into the pot and says softly, “Four hundred.” The opponent puts a $100 chip into the pot and says, “Call.” The bettor immediately shows the hand. The dealer says, “He bet four hundred.” The caller says, “Oh, I thought he bet a hundred.” In this case, the recommended ruling normally is that the bettor had an obligation to not show the hand when the amount put into the pot was obviously short, and the “call” can be retracted. Note that the character of each player can be a factor. (Unfortunately, situations can arise at big-bet poker that are not so clear-cut as this.)

huh?

It is down to the player to follow the action, Gatso is 100% correct

Min Raise if it was "to 800"
A Raise of 800 if she said "Raise 800" as the guy opening has gone 300 with 600 therefore raising 800 would be legit.

cf, that rule (which is kinda ridic and luckily only at the discretion of the td rather than set in stone) is for instances in which chips have been placed in the pot with no verbal declaration. if there is any verbal declaration as in this case then that stands.

as you like robert's rules I'll quote from them

8. A verbal statement denotes your action and is binding. If in turn you verbally declare a fold,
check, bet, call, or raise, you are forced to take that action.

Ok, let's look at a few examples, all of which see this 900 raise first. What would you do in each of these situations, and why?

1) Player throws 300 into the pot, and says nothing.

2) Player throws 300 into the pot, and says "call".

3) Player throws 800 into the pot, and says nothing.

4) Player throws 1100 into the pot, and says nothing.

5) Player throws 800 into the pot, and says "raise to 800"

6) Player throws 1100 into the pot, and says "raise by 800"

Personally yes, I think it's up to the player to be keeping track of what's going on, but there are certain situations where you might make a mistake, and I think it's useful to have a rule to cover this.

One example I often see is the person in the SB just throwing in chips to complete, without realising there's been a raise - every time I've seen this they've been allowed to take back the extra chips they throw in and fold - it's the same situation pretty much.

call
call
call
call
minraise
minraise

Also, yes, the rules do state this, but the no-limit section starts:


SECTION 14 - NO LIMIT AND POT-LIMIT

A no-limit or pot-limit betting structure for a game gives it a different character from limit poker, requiring a separate set of rules in many situations. All the rules for limit games apply to no-limit and pot-limit games, except as noted in this section.


Implying that this rule maybe takes precedence. (Obviously in a limit game it's not really possible to make this error, or if you do make the mistake you've in all likelihood still made a legal bet so it doesn't matter).


Don't view this as me trying to start an argument by the way, I just enjoy discussing different situations where rules aren't clear cut, makes for some interesting discussion :)

sigh, have you actually read any of the above posts? putting chips into a pot with no verbal declaration is very different to declaring raise, call, whatever

1,500 ldo.

ok, I'll continue to quote RR at you. the rule that you quote above referring to gross misunderstandings is initially referred to thusly


it is quite specific that this is for bets or calls made by releasing chips into the pot. this rule is not designed for verbal declarations

Can you link me to the rules you're reading please gatso? I notice that the ones i'm viewing make no mention in this rule about whether it's verbal or not, and we have different rule numbers. It may be I'm viewing an out of date version.

It does seem strange to me that if you make a mistake you might get away with it if you don't verbally announce your intent, but if you verbally announce it you won't. Works for me though as I keep my mouth shut when making my bets :)

cf>>>>>Gatso.

As it was a woman, she should be allowed to change her mind obv.

I copied it from http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/pdf/RobertsRules.pdf which is an ood version but the exact same rule, word for word, is in v11 from 2007 but I don't have a copy of that on my comp.

actually, v11 is here http://www.pokercoach.us/RobsPkrRules11.mht

Ok, so in "betting and raising" we have:

13.   A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action and must make the amount of the wager correct. (This also applies right before the showdown when putting chips into the pot causes the opponent to show the winning hand before the full amount needed to call has been put into the pot.) However, if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you. At pot-limit or no-limit betting, if there is a gross misunderstanding concerning the amount of the wager, see Section 14, Rule 8.

which relates, in the no-limit play section to:

8.     If there is a discrepancy between a player's verbal statement and the amount put into the pot, the bet will be corrected to the verbal statement

which I think we agree on - verbal statements take precedence. However, there is an additional rule later in the no-limit section, the one I quoted earlier:

12.   Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action.

Which in this, and similar occasions applies. The player has raised not realising there has been a raise in front of her. The rule covering this mistake makes no mention as to whether this mistake was verbal or not.

It does seem strange that the rule is sort of repeated twice. I'm guessing the first instance is because there's no specific "fixed limit" section, and he wanted to cover it for that too.

those rules are not exactly 100% clear but this one is


are you not happy with that? I think it covers this particular case perfectly well

Yes, I understand that rule, and in the majority of cases it obviously applies.

What are your thoughts on rule 12 though? Why should we not apply it here? It makes no mention of whether the action was verbal or not.

because we have absolutely no need to.

she said raise, the rules say that means she must raise. we have no reason to find something to override that

Three more posts before Gatso explodes.

I'll take the under.

What determines damage in this rule?


This is so open to stroke pulling it's stupid. Does reading someones face when you go to put chips in, determine damage? In this case, according to this along with rule 6 in cash, I can pick up as many chips as I want, drop down the first call and say raise, , knowing that If I plead that I didn't know it had already been raised, I can get my money back?

Every rule a TD uses, even if it is discretionary and against the written rules, should be for the good of the game, having rules that contradict themselves, and are so open to abuse hinders the game, and I am surprised to see this in RR, and can't remember seeing it in older versions.


PS. Gatso I am with you and am not trying to find it to the contrary, but it is obviously causing some confusion .... don't explode :)

If the lady is pretty, let her raise what she likes

If shes not pretty, min raise , sorry luv

the lady has said raise  her fault so she Must min raise.

I think the angle-shooting part of it is why the rule opens with "at the discretion of the TD". Maybe the rule is not needed in this case, but I think its inclusion in RR is a good thing. For example:

Blinds are 600/1200. BB is sat to the right of the dealer. UTG is sat to the left, so the BB doesn't really have a clear view of the UTG players stack. UTG is first to act and says "all in, 32". It folds around to the big blind who somewhat reasonably thinks it's only 2,000 more, doesn't even look at his cards and announces call. It then transpires that 32 meant 32,000.

It's a slightly contrived example, someone would probably notice and comment on that fact he's pushed in for 32,000, but it illustrates the sort of mistake that might be made. If I was asked to rule on this situation then I would almost certainly be applying rule 12 here.

best bit of this thread. epic delivery crow!

It is a cold November morning - the sun barely peeps over the horizon and struggles to burn through the dawn mist which hangs over the heath.

Cf stands alone, drawing deep into his lungs the air which may be among his last. He awaits Gatso, his opponent in the duel to the death which must take place today. Through the mist, his opponent strides towards him, backlit by the glow of his car behind him, ablaze.

"So Cf, please choose your weapon"

"I choose, Robert's Rules..."

this is my favourite part of the thread. a player moves in for 32k and another perfectly reasonably thinks it's 3,200????????????????????????????

if the 2nd player is stupid enough to a) not check the amount and b) wrongly estimate oppos chip stack by a factor of 10 then fuck robert's rules, they deserve no protection from their stupiditly, I'm invoking smithy69's rules no. 18b and putting them in the carpark with the short stacks.

ah, and here we have the problem. There are only a few TDs that actually know the rules...hell, you and Gatso can't even agree on it (although you seem to be disagreeing with the majority here)...if you and Gatso can't agree on it ..how on earth will TDs ever get it right?