You are MISSING the point, you are pointing to OPINIONS, where is the rule that states whether this is a call or a raise? I want to know the official answer.
You are MISSING the point, you are pointing to OPINIONS, where is the rule that states whether this is a call or a raise? I want to know the official answer.
+1. No disrespect but an answer from a person who doesn't bring ID into a casino isn't exactly Bob Ciaffone.
I have raised an amount that justifies a raise. I put more than one chip in. This is a raise, and I would raise such fucking hell if someone didn't accept that.
Mark
Using my example....what if you wanted to call, but only had quarters....do you need to announce call as you put 2 chips in? As you've explained it, this has to be a raise, unless announced otherwise.
You are MISSING the point, you are pointing to OPINIONS, where is the rule that states whether this is a call or a raise? I want to know the official answer.
Interpretation is the key. Rules may be written "badly" or communicated "incorrectly". If there can be consensus, especially by recognized "authorities" (NOT me!!), these interpretations should be the accepted rule...
If the bet is $110 and someone throws out one black and three green, totaling $175, then that's a raise, because if you remove the smallest chip thrown out you still have an amount above the call, .... But if the bet is $110 and someone throws out two blacks, totaling $200, then that's a call, because if you remove the smallest chip thrown out you do NOT have an amount above the call.
It's a bit confusing, and not very well explained by the rules, but all trusted sources I've encountered (RR, Matt Savage, et al) support this interpretation. Once you get your head around it, it does make sense, and it can be consistently applied 100% of the time without contradicting itself.
The way it should be determined is if you have any additional chips after the required amount to call.
For example 2 $5 chips is the required amount to be able to call $6 hence it is a call.
However, 3 $5 chips is too many and should be ruled a raise whether you announce it or not.
Using my example....what if you wanted to call, but only had quarters....do you need to announce call as you put 2 chips in? As you've explained it, this has to be a raise, unless announced otherwise.
Rule #55. Even though this is tournament rules, and is written explicitly to override the tournament "50% rule", in combination with the other cites, it illustrates my point and backs my "interpretation" of the Oversized Chip Rule.
Rule #55. Even though this is tournament rules, and is written explicitly to override the tournament "50% rule", in combination with the other cites, it illustrates my point and backs my "interpretation" of the Oversized Chip Rule.
You just contradicted yourself . . . the player in the OP proffered enough chips for a legal raise, but did not verbally say "raise". If you want to say that is a "call", fine. But you cannot then state that putting out two $100.00 chips (without verbalizing your action) would be "different". Both situations were/are legal raises, and should be counted as such.
raise was $30, one chip is not enough to call , therefore you must put in two $25 chips to call (or raise); if no verbal raise, then I would interpret this as a call.
If you put in two $100 chips, then the first chip exceeds the amount required to call, and by throwing out two $100 chips, this is a clear indication of a raise. No contradiction IMO. Do you understand now??
If the player threw out a single $100 chip, would this be a raise or a call based on the same logic (probably falls into the single chip situation)? Does it matter whether the player had $5 and $25 chips in his stack for either situation? I would say it doesn't matter what is in his stack.
raise was $30, one chip is not enough to call , therefore you must put in two $25 chips to call (or raise); if no verbal raise, then I would interpret this as a call.
If you put in two $100 chips, then the first chip exceeds the amount required to call, and by throwing out two $100 chips, this is a clear indication of a raise. No contradiction IMO.
Already dealt with it, Jah . . . you're correct, no contradiction.
Sorry don't see where that is the same at all.. This seems to be one of those real grey areas..
All of my cites make two points that are hard to argue:
1. Without verbal declaration, the least aggressive option should always be assumed. If it could be a call or a raise (and you didn't say anything!) always assume a call.
2. If by removing the smallest chip, there is not enough to make up the call, then REGARDLESS of how many chips, and without verbal declaration, assume a call only.
I figured many/most would not see things this way. I also figured I would get berated (as usual). I expect more of the same...
Actually, I can see the logic of it. And, based on my point about the only person getting upset by a ruling being the person who started the problem, I can accept that reasoning.
The berating comes from the sense of superiority engendered in your responses in these "Gotcha" threads . . . nothing more, nothing less.
Actually, I can see the logic of it. And, based on my point about the only person getting upset by a ruling being the person who started the problem, I can accept that reasoning.
The berating comes from the sense of superiority engendered in your responses in these "Gotcha" threads . . . nothing more, nothing less.
Gotcha!!!
But I would have written "Gotchya!!!" instead. LMAO!
All of my cites make two points that are hard to argue:
1. Without verbal declaration, the least aggressive option should always be assumed. If it could be a call or a raise (and you didn't say anything!) always assume a call.
unless you put in a chip that covers the bet....and then another one...then its a raise.....?:-[
its not a related example but the philosophy he stated might help
WSOP-2006, I made a ruling on John Phan's play. It was NL Hold'em event. Level 1, blind was 25-50. John Phan was on big blind, pre-flop action, every body folded to small blind, small blind called, John Phan took back 2x25 chips toss a 500 chip in the pot. This looked like such obvious raise. But the person at small blind asked dealer to called floor whether the one chip rule will be applied or not. I made quick ruling "this is a call, the 500 chip equals to 50 at this point.". My ruling made John Phan really unhappy. I'm a poker player too. I know this is an obvious raise, but player could also use the TDA and WSOP rules to take a shot on this case:
1) If the small blind fold, the big blind would takes the pot.
2) If the small blind call or even raise, the big blind could claim he just need use the 500 chip to get change, he need save the 25 chips for the small blind. He wants to fold and get change back.
The philosophy of the poker rules are stop or avoid players take shots on their play.
I made this ruling according the TDA-Tournament Director Association rule as well as WSOP-2006 rule #10: In limit games, an oversized chip will be constituted to be a call if the player does not announce a raise. In no-limit, an oversized chip before the flop is a call: after the flop, an oversized chip by the initial better put in the pot will constitute the size of the bet. In pot-limit and no-limit, if a player states raise and throws in an oversized chip, the raise will be the maximum amount allowable up to the size of that chip.
A string raise, basically, is when a player puts in the chips for a call and proceeds to put out more chips for a raise, without having declared "raise". If you declare that you are raising verbally, you are allowed to put out the chips for a call, and then cut out more to determine the amount of your raise.
Similarly, if you say something like, "I'll call your raise, and raise you . . ." that is a verbal string raise, and is verboten.
I have raised an amount that justifies a raise. I put more than one chip in. This is a raise, and I would raise such fucking hell if someone didn't accept that.
Mark
Then say raise you woman...otherwise it's a call almost universally.
its not a related example but the philosophy he stated might help
WSOP-2006, I made a ruling on John Phan's play. It was NL Hold'em event. Level 1, blind was 25-50. John Phan was on big blind, pre-flop action, every body folded to small blind, small blind called, John Phan took back 2x25 chips toss a 500 chip in the pot. This looked like such obvious raise. But the person at small blind asked dealer to called floor whether the one chip rule will be applied or not. I made quick ruling "this is a call, the 500 chip equals to 50 at this point.". My ruling made John Phan really unhappy. I'm a poker player too. I know this is an obvious raise, but player could also use the TDA and WSOP rules to take a shot on this case:
1) If the small blind fold, the big blind would takes the pot.
2) If the small blind call or even raise, the big blind could claim he just need use the 500 chip to get change, he need save the 25 chips for the small blind. He wants to fold and get change back.
The philosophy of the poker rules are stop or avoid players take shots on their play.
I made this ruling according the TDA-Tournament Director Association rule as well as WSOP-2006 rule #10: In limit games, an oversized chip will be constituted to be a call if the player does not announce a raise. In no-limit, an oversized chip before the flop is a call: after the flop, an oversized chip by the initial better put in the pot will constitute the size of the bet. In pot-limit and no-limit, if a player states raise and throws in an oversized chip, the raise will be the maximum amount allowable up to the size of that chip.
It is a bad ruling IMHO. The Oversized Chip Rule should only be used in instances where a CALL is a valid option. Pre-flop, the Big Blind can NOT call an unraised pot; the options are to check or raise. Therefore, Phan placing an oversized chip into the pot can NOT be a call, it can ONLY be a raise and, without verbal declaration, should be assumed to be the maximum raise or value of the oversized chip. The philosophy, if it leads to a bad ruling, is flawed and needs to be changed to better apply the PROPER rule the PROPER way.
Wow, one of the worst threads on this site and I bothered to read most of it.
13 Cards can we just play HU4ROLLZ so I can spank your tired bitch ass?
1. I don't play.
2. I don't teach.
3. I don't Floor.
4. I don't have a roll.
5. I AM TIRED.
6. I am no bitch.
7. Spanking my ass is restricted to certain people.
8. You are not one of those people.
9. Stop reading my threads.
10. Bye
Wow I guess it's never too early in the day to be a giant fucking cunt to the people who tried to answer your question?
Everybody else is wrong, you're the greatest ever! Congratulations on doing your job properly, you're a real hero to all us employed morons. Next time I do something correctly at my job I'll make sure to let everybody else know.
Nice Call Buddy. LMFAO. If you didn't say it I would've . Bonus Marks for PINHEAD
Maybe Dalton and his gang has this rule.
I would say if he did not verbalize raise or call it would be considered as a call and the extra 20 stays in the effing pot........
Comments
+1. No disrespect but an answer from a person who doesn't bring ID into a casino isn't exactly Bob Ciaffone.
Using my example....what if you wanted to call, but only had quarters....do you need to announce call as you put 2 chips in? As you've explained it, this has to be a raise, unless announced otherwise.
Interpretation is the key. Rules may be written "badly" or communicated "incorrectly". If there can be consensus, especially by recognized "authorities" (NOT me!!), these interpretations should be the accepted rule...
From 2+2: Two Plus Two Poker Forums - View Single Post - Whats the correct ruling for this?
And I like this wording/reasoning:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=291906&postcount=16
Yes. You have to announce call.
Mark
http://www.wsop.com/pdfs/wsop.tournament-rules.08.pdf
Rule #55. Even though this is tournament rules, and is written explicitly to override the tournament "50% rule", in combination with the other cites, it illustrates my point and backs my "interpretation" of the Oversized Chip Rule.
And from RR himself...
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=8993424&postcount=19
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=8996660&postcount=21
Sorry don't see where that is the same at all.. This seems to be one of those real grey areas..
raise was $30, one chip is not enough to call , therefore you must put in two $25 chips to call (or raise); if no verbal raise, then I would interpret this as a call.
If you put in two $100 chips, then the first chip exceeds the amount required to call, and by throwing out two $100 chips, this is a clear indication of a raise. No contradiction IMO. Do you understand now??
If the player threw out a single $100 chip, would this be a raise or a call based on the same logic (probably falls into the single chip situation)? Does it matter whether the player had $5 and $25 chips in his stack for either situation? I would say it doesn't matter what is in his stack.
Already dealt with it, Jah . . . you're correct, no contradiction.
All of my cites make two points that are hard to argue:
1. Without verbal declaration, the least aggressive option should always be assumed. If it could be a call or a raise (and you didn't say anything!) always assume a call.
2. If by removing the smallest chip, there is not enough to make up the call, then REGARDLESS of how many chips, and without verbal declaration, assume a call only.
I figured many/most would not see things this way. I also figured I would get berated (as usual). I expect more of the same...
The berating comes from the sense of superiority engendered in your responses in these "Gotcha" threads . . . nothing more, nothing less.
Gotcha!!!
But I would have written "Gotchya!!!" instead. LMAO!
unless you put in a chip that covers the bet....and then another one...then its a raise.....?:-[
Isn't what you described a string raise?
Read more: One Chip Rule (oversize rule) on John Phan at WSOP | Forum | PokerNews
1) If the small blind fold, the big blind would takes the pot.
2) If the small blind call or even raise, the big blind could claim he just need use the 500 chip to get change, he need save the 25 chips for the small blind. He wants to fold and get change back.
The philosophy of the poker rules are stop or avoid players take shots on their play.
I made this ruling according the TDA-Tournament Director Association rule as well as WSOP-2006 rule #10: In limit games, an oversized chip will be constituted to be a call if the player does not announce a raise. In no-limit, an oversized chip before the flop is a call: after the flop, an oversized chip by the initial better put in the pot will constitute the size of the bet. In pot-limit and no-limit, if a player states raise and throws in an oversized chip, the raise will be the maximum amount allowable up to the size of that chip.
Read more: One Chip Rule (oversize rule) on John Phan at WSOP | Forum | PokerNews
Stopped reading right there . . . if it is not related to the question at hand, then I do not care.
The action you described in your earlier comment seems like a "string raise to me".
anything i can find on string bets says the guy declared raise but didn't say the amount and started to string chips out.....
Similarly, if you say something like, "I'll call your raise, and raise you . . ." that is a verbal string raise, and is verboten.
OK then...quite the opposite out west and Vegas.....you'd have to announce raise, not call.
Kind of disturbing I'm in agreement with and unlucky number of cards.
No. However, I assume the OP has some common sense. Why are you troll posting?
Then say raise you woman...otherwise it's a call almost universally.
13 Cards can we just play HU4ROLLZ so I can spank your tired bitch ass?
It is only loosely related but I'll bite.
It is a bad ruling IMHO. The Oversized Chip Rule should only be used in instances where a CALL is a valid option. Pre-flop, the Big Blind can NOT call an unraised pot; the options are to check or raise. Therefore, Phan placing an oversized chip into the pot can NOT be a call, it can ONLY be a raise and, without verbal declaration, should be assumed to be the maximum raise or value of the oversized chip. The philosophy, if it leads to a bad ruling, is flawed and needs to be changed to better apply the PROPER rule the PROPER way.
1. I don't play.
2. I don't teach.
3. I don't Floor.
4. I don't have a roll.
5. I AM TIRED.
6. I am no bitch.
7. Spanking my ass is restricted to certain people.
8. You are not one of those people.
9. Stop reading my threads.
10. Bye
Maybe Dalton and his gang has this rule.
I would say if he did not verbalize raise or call it would be considered as a call and the extra 20 stays in the effing pot........