Ruling

[snoopy1239]

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?

[boldie]

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 

Raise stands.

[gatso]

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

[DaveShoelace]

Raise stands, should be a min raise

[snoopy1239]

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.

[TightEnd]

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

[gatso]

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.

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

[snoopy1239]

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.

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?

[gatso]

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.

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

[AlexMartin]

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

[kinboshi]

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?

[gatso]

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

[Cf]

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.)

[dik9]

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.

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.

[gatso]

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.