Another ruling thread

[Vinodh]

hmmm its obv reasonable that he thought your bet was 1500 rather than the large overbet.  There is a rule that covers this kind of thing in nl games:

 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 needs some protection. 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.)

Good balance there.

There is no doubt that the Hero has SOME culpability here. It is wrong to automatically assume (I am aware of the modern fashion which Guy mentioned, but it is not enshrined in the rules afaik) ) that when the guy chucked 1,500 in, he was calling the full bet. Always best to clarify first, & we must accept SOME responsibility here.

All a bit unfortunate really, but no big deal. The blame is not wholly with the villain, imo.

Thanks for the post doubleup! it does sums up the situation I totally agree Tikay,  that the mistake on my part is not saying "6k" when I bet the amount. Lesson learnt! Still dont understand this concept of "not understanding the bet wagered"

[CHIPPYMAN]

Don't ruling says , " if u announced call , u called the full amount ?" #verbalstand

[theprawnidentity]

As you're not obligated to verbally announce the size of the bet, in the position of the villain I would certainly want to know how much the bet was before announcing call.  As soon as he says call I would have thought the villain has to pay the full amount.

Based on this ruling, if the villain goes all in do I just have to not ask for a count and only pay the amount of chips I thought he had?

The other way to look at this is from the point of view of the villain.  We're effectively holding the nuts and when he says call I would be more concerned about slow-rolling him at this point.  If he says call and we don't immediately turn our hand over and get into a debate about the extra then do we get accused of slow-rolling?  How can we assume that he doesn't know how much we have bet?

[Vinodh]

As you're not obligated to verbally announce the size of the bet, in the position of the villain I would certainly want to know how much the bet was before announcing call.  As soon as he says call I would have thought the villain has to pay the full amount.

Based on this ruling, if the villain goes all in do I just have to not ask for a count and only pay the amount of chips I thought he had?

The other way to look at this is from the point of view of the villain.  We're effectively holding the nuts and when he says call I would be more concerned about slow-rolling him at this point.  If he says call and we don't immediately turn our hand over and get into a debate about the extra then do we get accused of slow-rolling?  How can we assume that he doesn't know how much we have bet?

Villian never asked whats my bet, he said he assumed 1500 was my bet and called 1500 when actually I bet 6k, again without declaring 6k.

[ButtonClicker]

A one round penalty could be good value for a cheap showdown.

[theprawnidentity]

Exactly, but you certainly don't have to verbally declare your bet size when you put two or more chips in anyway.  Theres no way that you can be expected to a) confirm the villain understands the size of the bet (responsibility of the villain / dealer) AND b) not turn your cards over quickly once the villain says call.

The all in analogy certainly works for this situation.  You push your stack forward, villain says call and throws out some chips.  The chips he threw forward don't cover it so he can refuse to pay any more because he didn't ask how much the bet was?  Something doesn't sound right about this.

The short of this is you have legally bet 6000, and the villain has verbally declared call.  I fail to see how you can't get paid from here.

[Boba Fett]

Dunno how the bettor can be culpable for anything in this situation. He shouldn't want to alert the player he is massively overbetting by announcing the bet size also. Mistake is fully on the caller for not checking the bet size correctly and I don't think there should be a rule to protect them. If they announce call or flick in at least 1 chip they are on the hook for 6k. Unlucky, clarify the bet size in future

[doubleup]

Based on this ruling, if the villain goes all in do I just have to not ask for a count and only pay the amount of chips I thought he had?

The ruling I referred to would apply if for instance you said allin and hid the high value chips in your stack.

I think a lot of you are overlooking that villain put in the 1500 chips when he said call.  It seems very likely that he thought the bet was 1500 and that it was a gross misunderstanding of the kind refered to in that rule.

[FUN4FRASER]

hmmm its obv reasonable that he thought your bet was 1500 rather than the large overbet.  There is a rule that covers this kind of thing in nl games:

 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 needs some protection. 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.)

Good balance there.

There is no doubt that the Hero has SOME culpability here. It is wrong to automatically assume (I am aware of the modern fashion which Guy mentioned, but it is not enshrined in the rules afaik) ) that when the guy chucked 1,500 in, he was calling the full bet. Always best to clarify first, & we must accept SOME responsibility here.

All a bit unfortunate really, but no big deal. The blame is not wholly with the villain, imo.

Thanks for the post doubleup! it does sums up the situation I totally agree Tikay,  that the mistake on my part is not saying "6k" when I bet the amount. Lesson learnt! Still dont understand this concept of "not understanding the bet wagered"

I dont think its lesson learnt as you did nothing wrong ....you dont need to announce "6K"

As long as you put /push your chips over the line in one fluid motion your job is done ,its then down to the dealer to announce your bet.

The villain then has 3 options Pass ,Call , Raise  , any questions with your bet or pot size etc can be directed towards the dealer

[77dave]

Id be interested to hear Tom's opinion on this as a neutral to add balance.

Lets look at this from the other angle. If villain had made the call with the 1500 chips and revealed the winning hand would he of received all of your 6000 bet?

[RED-DOG]

Id be interested to hear Tom's opinion on this as a neutral to add balance.

Lets look at this from the other angle. If villain had made the call with the 1500 chips and revealed the winning hand would he of received all of your 6000 bet?

I was at the table but was distracted at the crucial moment, nevertheless I was so surprised by the ruling that I questioned the TD about it in private.

I'll tell you what he said when I get a minute.

[celtic]

Lol @ vinodh should announce his bet. You are not obligated to announce bets if you are putting the exact amount you want to bet. As described, seems a ridiculous ruling, if he shoved 30k and the guy puts in 300 and says call, and then says oh, I thought it was 300, he is therefore getting to showdown for 29700 less than he wants to pay. And that seems fair to people?

[77dave]

hmmm its obv reasonable that he thought your bet was 1500 rather than the large overbet.  There is a rule that covers this kind of thing in nl games:

 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 needs some protection. 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.)

Good balance there.

There is no doubt that the Hero has SOME culpability here. It is wrong to automatically assume (I am aware of the modern fashion which Guy mentioned, but it is not enshrined in the rules afaik) ) that when the guy chucked 1,500 in, he was calling the full bet. Always best to clarify first, & we must accept SOME responsibility here. I bet 6,000, is that a 6,000 call?

All a bit unfortunate really, but no big deal. The blame is not wholly with the villain &/or the TD, imo.

What would you rule if villain won the pot? 6k? 1500? still give an orbit penalty?

[Vinodh]

Id be interested to hear Tom's opinion on this as a neutral to add balance.

Lets look at this from the other angle. If villain had made the call with the 1500 chips and revealed the winning hand would he of received all of your 6000 bet?

I was at the table but was distracted at the crucial moment, nevertheless I was so surprised by the ruling that I questioned the TD about it in private.

I'll tell you what he said when I get a minute.

Looking forward to what the TD has to say Tom! cheers

[doubleup]

Lol @ vinodh should announce his bet. You are not obligated to announce bets if you are putting the exact amount you want to bet. As described, seems a ridiculous ruling, if he shoved 30k and the guy puts in 300 and says call, and then says oh, I thought it was 300, he is therefore getting to showdown for 29700 less than he wants to pay. And that seems fair to people?

Did you read the rule I quoted?

It clearly states the circumstances where the rule applies and that it is up to the TD to assess whether he thinks it is a genuine misunderstanding - obv there is no way that your example would be treated in the same way as OPs situation.