One for the rule book..............

[AndrewT]

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

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).

[Hairydude]

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

[AndrewT]

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'.

[Hairydude]

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"

[M3boy]

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.   

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

[doubleup]

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'.

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

[M3boy]

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?

[doubleup]

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.

[AndrewT]

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"

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.

[boldie]

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

[doubleup]

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.

[boldie]

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!

[Hairydude]

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"

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.

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

[AndrewT]

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"

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.

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'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).

[portfolio]

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...

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?