Floor ruling please

The blinds are $50-100.

On the river a player puts a $500 chip into the pot and says softly, "Four hundred."

His 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."

Comments

  • lol...can we win a hat if we guess right? jk.

    I believe that since the dealer heard the bet it stands.

    Sorry you lost $400, Dave.

    JohnnieH
  • Agree. Plus since the player put in a 500$ chip it wouldn't make sense that he was betting 100$...
  • No... it's for a guy I know. A cousin actually. Yeah. My cousin. That's who wants to know.

    What is the guy who announced "call" and shorted the pot with his $100 chip has the winning hand?
  • What's with directly quoting Robert's rules? :)

    My gut had said that due to the misunderstand of the bet size, the bettor had an obligation to not show his hand until the amount put into the pot seemed right.

    And whaddaya know...

    Robert's Rules:
    11. 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 $100 chip into the pot and says, “Call.” The bettor immediately shows the hand. The dealer says, “He bet four hundred.” The caller says, “Oh, I thought he bet a hundred.” In this case, the recommended ruling normally is that the bettor had an obligation to not show the hand when the amount put into the pot was obviously short, and the “call” can be retracted. Note that the character of each player can be a factor. (Unfortunately, situations can arise at big-bet poker that are not so clear-cut as this.)
  • Agree. Plus since the player put in a 500$ chip it wouldn't make sense that he was betting 100$...

    It could very easily make sense if he didn't have a $100 chip. A normal ruling is an oversize chip without declaration is a call. Since he indicated $400 and the dealer heard that and the other person said call, I think he has to put in the other $300.
  • Ya I mean it sucks for the guy who says call, but the honus is on him to make sure he matches the bet made. If he had any trouble hearing the bet he should be certain what it is before calling said bet.
  • If this scenario happened in my casino, I think I would rule this way:

    As it is the responsibility of the $400 bettor to make sure the pot is correct before showing his hand and assuming from the scenario that it is on the river that this takes place, I would allow the opponent to either A] Fold and surrender his $100 chip( as he clearly meant to add $100 to the pot) or B] Call the remaining $300 (this choice would only be taken if he has the winning hand, obviously, but is in line with the bettor's interest of having his $400 called). Others may disagree with me, but I think this is the fairest solution in the best interest of the game.


    As a slight hijack, this situation recently took place at my work....

    $1-$2 No Limit

    On the flop...

    SB bets out $10 (two $5 chips).
    BB calls.
    UTG calls.
    MP raises to $60 (two $25 chips and two $5 chips).
    Button calls.
    SB tosses one $100 chip in with his two $5 chips. He makes no motion to retrieve his two $5 chips and now has three chips sitting in front of his cards.

    Is SB considered to be just calling or is it a raise??
  • Isn't this a variation of the 1 chip rule, ie one chip with no declaration is considered a call? or does that only appky to limit. My gut feel is this should be considered a call without a declaration of raise.
  • Hey Dave. My interpretation of this is it was a gross misunderstanding of the bet. It is up to the dealer to correct the caller and the bettor to not show his hand until the dealer asks. I would allow the caller to take his 100 back or he can add 300 if he knows his hand is best. Of course he would not be allowed to raise!  :D
  • The problem is that the bettor HAS shown his hand.

    If the dealer catches it in time, it's a no brainer (I think) -- forfeit the $100 or call the $400.
  • The problem is that the bettor HAS shown his hand.

    If the dealer catches it in time, it's a no brainer (I think) -- forfeit the $100 or call the $400.
    you can argue the point, but the fact that the bettor has shown his hand is not the mistaken caller's fault - and he should not be punished for it. but he can be a man and forfeit the hundred anyway as he was prepared to do that in the first place.
  • pkrfce9 wrote:
    The problem is that the bettor HAS shown his hand.

    If the dealer catches it in time, it's a no brainer (I think) -- forfeit the $100 or call the $400.
    you can argue the point, but the fact that the bettor has shown his hand is not the mistaken caller's fault - and he should not be punished for it. but he can be a man and forfeit the hundred anyway as he was prepared to do that in the first place.

    As far as I can see the player announced his action (calling) and then the bettor opened his hand for a called showdown, I would assume the caller was forced to toss in the entire $400.
  • 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.)

    I agree with the Robert's ruling on this one, and I'd take it as a call of $100.

    The player who is trying to bet $400 makes two errors during the hand: making an unclear/inaudible verbal bet and not verifying that the pot is correct before exposing his hand. It is debatable whether or not the other guy has even made one error.

    The player who is calling $100 deserves the benifit of doubt here, and if you think that the $100 call is some kind of an angle shot, I don't see how you wouldn't see Mr. Quiet $400 as angle shooting twice.
    $1-$2 No Limit

    On the flop...

    SB bets out $10 (two $5 chips).
    BB calls.
    UTG calls.
    MP raises to $60 (two $25 chips and two $5 chips).
    Button calls.
    SB tosses one $100 chip in with his two $5 chips. He makes no motion to retrieve his two $5 chips and now has three chips sitting in front of his cards.

    Is SB considered to be just calling or is it a raise??

    This seems to be an application of the "one chip rule", and should be taken a call. The one chip rule applies regardless of the amount of chips previously put into the pot during the betting round.

    Whether the original $5 chips are retrieved or not makes no difference here. As soon as a single $100 chip is moved fowards in a clear betting motion with no words spoken, the action is call $60 (total).

    ScottyZ
Sign In or Register to comment.