How would you rule...?
NAPC
Blinds are 100/200 (level 3).
Button is chair 7. SB is chair 8. BB is chair 9.
UTG raises to 1250 (10 black and 10 green).
Chair 2 throws in 2 orange 1000 chips and 3 black 100 chips. No verbal declaration. She then immediately pulls back 1 orange chip.
Chair 3 now puts in 1 orange, 2 black and 2 green chips. No verbal declaration. In turn.
Another player speaks up and says that Chair 2 raised. Chair 3 pulls back his chips. The dealer now calls "Floor" and presents you with all of the preceeding information. In addition, Chair 2 says s/he intended just to call the 1250 and Chair 3 says s/he only was calling if Chair 2 was calling (if Chair 2 was raising, Chair 3 was folding). Also, the dealer did not announce anything after the original raise to 1250 by UTG nor did the dealer "move the action".
#1. What are Chair 2's options?
#2. What are Chair 3's options?
Blinds are 100/200 (level 3).
Button is chair 7. SB is chair 8. BB is chair 9.
UTG raises to 1250 (10 black and 10 green).
Chair 2 throws in 2 orange 1000 chips and 3 black 100 chips. No verbal declaration. She then immediately pulls back 1 orange chip.
Chair 3 now puts in 1 orange, 2 black and 2 green chips. No verbal declaration. In turn.
Another player speaks up and says that Chair 2 raised. Chair 3 pulls back his chips. The dealer now calls "Floor" and presents you with all of the preceeding information. In addition, Chair 2 says s/he intended just to call the 1250 and Chair 3 says s/he only was calling if Chair 2 was calling (if Chair 2 was raising, Chair 3 was folding). Also, the dealer did not announce anything after the original raise to 1250 by UTG nor did the dealer "move the action".
#1. What are Chair 2's options?
#2. What are Chair 3's options?
Comments
Cameron
I am a pylon and didn't read the question right.
The whole thing is what constitutes a valid re-raise. My understanding of a valid re-raise is doubling the amount of the first raise (1050 x 2 + the 200 blind) not doubling the original bet of 1250. As for chair 3, they need to be more cognizant of tye action to them and if they're not clear, ask before taking action. Not sure if this is a clear explanation or not.. lol.. That's why I prefer to play and not run tournaments...
3 had a substantial misunderstanding of the bet to him, but did not announce raise. He may call, or fold and take back his chips.
I'm with Moose on this one but I would give #2 AND #3 a slap anyway.
I'd smack the dealer upside the melon for not controlling their game first (I can say that, I'm a dealer). Seeing as seat 2 came out with a deliberate set of chips, and was looking for a reaction, the raise stands. Smack upside the head for angle-shooting as well, by seat 3. Seat 3 can then either call the raise, or fold. Smack upside the noggin' for not paying attention to the action. PAY THE F#^%$$@^ ATTENTION PEOPLE, AND SHIAT like this doesn't happen in the first place! Rant over, game on.
I am not as sure as others on here that #2 was angle shooting. Due to the immediate removal of the additional chip it looks more like someone who grabbed the wrong chips. If they kept it there and then tried to ask for it back after a while THEN I would think it was angle shooting.
If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet they will be required to make a full raise of exactly the minimum raise required.
Chair 3's 1,250 chips has to stay in the pot. Assuming that 13CARDS/Fallsview made the same ruling as me above, then Chair 3 now has the option of calling the reraise to 2300 (1050 more), or giving up his 1250 and folding; he does not have the option of raising.
If Fallsview/13CARDS went around smacking and slapping the players and dealers for every little error, there would have been a lot of bruised faces at the WPT!
An interesting ruling did come up early in my table. Just before the start of the WPT, a few of the house rules were announced. This included a warning against exposing live cards, and I think the penalty announced was being dealt out for at least one orbit. In the second hand, I bet some green chips. The small blind shockingly folded by exposing his cards face up with the big blind still to act. The nearest floor person was summoned, but interestingly, no penalty was imposed.
Other than this I agree with your analysis, as per my post earlier...
Besides, I said upside the melon, not in the mush...maybe a flick of the ear...(should go for some players too!)
ANYWAY...Back to the question at hand...13Cards, what's the verdict?
you cited niagaras' house rule & tda for seat 2's raise being binding.
which rule are you using for saying that seat 3's call of 1250 staying in the pot?
Betting and Raising Rule 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. At pot-limit or no-limit betting, if there is a gross misunderstanding concerning the amount of the wager, see Section 14, Rule 8. [sic, should be Rule 12]
Section 14, Rule 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.)