Ruling ~ <half bet posted = call or option ?

[robbiebox]

Hand from Man G £50 F/out Tuesday. Chip counts and blinds maybe not accurate, but close enough for purpose of ruling.

Scenario ~ Blinds 1.5k/3k, folded round to mid position who goes all-in for about 15k. Folded round to sb who chucks in a 5k chip( he had nothing smaller),  bb then draws to his notice that mid-pos had pushed. sb says he didn't realise and was only calling the bb, but doesn't want to call the all-in and a ruling is called for. The ruling comes back that the 5k chip and 1.5k posted sb makes upto less than half the raise so the 5k can be withdrawn if he wants.

Q is I agree that sb hadn't noticed the all-in and in the friendliness of our game, letting him take back the 5k chip is fair, but (A) what is this '<half bet ruling', I thought that was just for raising ? and (B) what would the ruling be here in a GUKPT or UKIPT game ?

[Mitch]

Pretty sure the ruling should be that the player can put the rest in to call for 15k or leave the 5k dead in the pot. Up to players to be aware of the action.

If it was any different it would open the possibility of angle shooting when somebody 'string calls' and throws the first chip in before reaching for the large denomination chip, notices the BB is about to shove and then declares he didnt notice etc etc and he was calling the bb or w/e.

[Cf]

You can either
a) make them leave the 5k in and give them the option to fold or put in the full amount, or
b) let them take back the 5k and fold, having put the 1.5k back

I prefer b. It depends where you play though. a) unfairly changes the action and may affect the natural result of the hand. Eg in example above all in guy might have trash. SB now feels priced in to call due to mistake and BB calls too. All in guy is eliminated but his steal would have got through if not for the ruling.

[StuartHopkin]

Surely the fair rule would be that he gets 2k change and the 3k stays in?

[Cf]

Surely the fair rule would be that he gets 2k change and the 3k stays in?

oh yeah this. Didn't notice he needed change.

[gatso]

Surely the fair rule would be that he gets 2k change and the 3k stays in?

this (though he should get 3.5 back as he's already in for the sb). if you're going to make allowances for a mistake and make him leave the call in the middle it should only be the call. the fact that he did it with an oversize chip doesn't mean he should pay more

personally I'd make him call the raise to teach him a lesson

[dik9]

Just a quick spanner in the works. What if the guys smallest chip was 25k would you still give change if thrown in with the same scenario?

[geordieneil]

you are responsible for your own chips and cards, if he was genuinely unaware of the shove, then thats his fault for not paying attention. as it is under half pot, he/she must leave a minimum of the bb, 3k in this case. the ruling is wrong by G but no surprise there.

[geordieneil]

Just a quick spanner in the works. What if the guys smallest chip was 25k would you still give change if thrown in with the same scenario?

   it would have to be classed as a call.

[dik9]

I dont understand/never seen the "half pot" thing to call. It is the players responsibility, as you say geordieneil. If it were my tournament the 6.5k would stay in the pot with the option to make up or fold.


The new Roberts Rules has included this in IMO it is the worst rule ever, thankfully we dont use Roberts Rules

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.

[Cf]

I dont understand/never seen the "half pot" thing to call. It is the players responsibility, as you say geordieneil. If it were my tournament the 6.5k would stay in the pot with the option to make up or fold.


The new Roberts Rules has included this in IMO it is the worst rule ever, thankfully we dont use Roberts Rules

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.

Why do you think this is a bad rule? I think it makes sense. If you suspect someone is trying to abuse the situation then give a penalty for that if you feel the need. However, 99% of the time this is a genuine mistake. It can happen for multiple reasons. I think it much more preferable to have the hand play naturally rather than bloat a pot.

[dik9]

It opens up all sorts of strokes and takes the onus off the player. The player should follow the action themselves and concentrate on the game! It could also trigger a chain of under calls, but the rule isn't elaborated on for that situation. It will slow the game down, the floor will be constantly be called to asses whether players are making strokes ....... it would just be a complete mess. After you have seen the reaction of the original raiser when you reach for chips and drop the under call over the line, you can now say oops sorry, reconsider and re-raise?!?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the rule as it stands (which is unusual lol) so why change it to this bollocks which will cause more misunderstanding for everyone.

[Cf]

It opens up all sorts of strokes and takes the onus off the player. The player should follow the action themselves and concentrate on the game! It could also trigger a chain of under calls, but the rule isn't elaborated on for that situation. It will slow the game down, the floor will be constantly be called to asses whether players are making strokes ....... it would just be a complete mess. After you have seen the reaction of the original raiser when you reach for chips and drop the under call over the line, you can now say oops sorry, reconsider and re-raise?!?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the rule as it stands (which is unusual lol) so why change it to this bollocks which will cause more misunderstanding for everyone.

I have to say I don't see the situation come up all that often but when I do it's always a simple thing that's noticed very quickly. And it's always been a genuine (as far as i can tell anyway) error. If people have acted behind then yeah, either fix it or leave it in. We can't be taking money out of the pot at this point. But if you're the last player to have acted I see no reason to not fix the situation. And no, you can't re-raise. You were only ever calling so that's all you can do.

I'm all for players paying attention to the game. This rule however for me damages the integrity of the game by artificially influencing the outcome of a hand. To me this is a bigger issue than thinking people might try an angle shoot every now and then.

Oh, and that rule has always been in RRs hasn't it? Certainly was a few years back...

[dik9]

I'm all for players paying attention to the game. This rule however for me damages the integrity of the game by artificially influencing the outcome of a hand. To me this is a bigger issue than thinking people might try an angle shoot every now and then.

Oh, and that rule has always been in RRs hasn't it? Certainly was a few years back...

If I have learnt something over the last few weeks ...... it is not to argue with a mod here

[Cf]

I'm all for players paying attention to the game. This rule however for me damages the integrity of the game by artificially influencing the outcome of a hand. To me this is a bigger issue than thinking people might try an angle shoot every now and then.

Oh, and that rule has always been in RRs hasn't it? Certainly was a few years back...

If I have learnt something over the last few weeks ...... it is not to argue with a mod here

Let's just agree to disagree. I doubt any of us are going to lose sleep over this one

And yes. Never disagree with a mod. You'll get added to "the list" if you do