Dumb question about a raise or call. (7 Viewers)

[Pokerdweebz]

I am a bit tilted, 25+ years, online or Live, both sides of the border; have never played anywhere that didn't have to double as a min raise.

I promise this isn't true

 

[Jimulacrum]

I am a bit tilted, 25+ years, online or Live, both sides of the border; have never played anywhere that didn't have to double as a min raise.

This is true preflop, with the blinds. Min raise is always double the big blind unless there's an overriding rule (e.g., mandatory $5 or $10 open in a $1/2 game).

During other rounds, the next raise always has to increase by the last increment. Sometimes that's double the bet, like when it's just a bet and a raise, because that's incidentally the same as the last increment. Once there are multiple layers of raising, it changes.

You may have seen this "double the last bet" rule employed in live home games doing their own thing, but I guarantee you did not see it on any mainstream online poker site. Maybe in a public cardroom if it was an amateur-hour kind of place or they had inexperienced dealers working, but it should have been far from the norm, because it is absolutely not how NL and PL betting work.

Part of the problem with this rule is that it comes up so infrequently that people just aren't accustomed to it. People tend not to raise the min in NL and PL games, particularly not when there are multiple raises in one round.

 

[allforcharity]

Seat open?

If you're in town, most probably. But I ain't the host.

 

[ekricket]

At the home game I speak of, min-raising is considered a sign of profound hand weakness and will be jumped upon.

I know you guys play cash, but min raising in tournaments, especially in the early rounds can be a strategy to bloat pots and induce chip swings among your opponents. I’m always trying to get the big stacks/agressive players to fight each other in a tournament setting, and this is one tool that works sometimes.

 

[TheWhat]

I promise this isn't true

Don't doubt it, I am just shocked this is the first time I am seeing. Went back and read the Robert's Rules, which we've referenced for a number of situations over the years, and even in the same section for capped raising on All Ins; but never noticed.

 

[allforcharity]

Part of the problem with this rule is that it comes up so infrequently that people just aren't accustomed to it. People tend not to raise the min in NL and PL games, particularly not when there are multiple raises in one round.

^^^This, and it just so happens that raising by doubling the previous bet is *always* a legal raise, with a bare minimum of math.

The only time I have seen min raises happen with any regularity is in tournament play when blinds are high, like in the last 3-4 levels before the expected end.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I promise this isn't true

"But I've seen it this way a million times!"

"Dave just did it the way I'm saying last week!"

"I've been playing for 100 years and never seen it any other way!"

 

[BGinGA]

The purpose of the rule is to remove angling opportunities, to reduce multiple possible meanings down to one and create a shared understanding and a familiarity across markets.

You and others are thinking about it from the perspective of someone who intends to raise, but imagine a scenario where a player facing an $80 raise to $120. That player who is wanting to call can confidently throw out two black chips and know that it is a call, and the other players in the hand will know that it is a call. They are all protected by the rule.

Players are just as protected if the opposite rule exists; i.e. it's always a raise unless verbally declared as a call.

Biggest difference is that the 'always a raise' rule makes more sense.

 

[Frogzilla]

This is a call at literally every cash/tournament game I have played at at every single home game/casino.

What is going on in this thread?

I was on tilt reading the first comments

Still glad to see some correct answers but disappointingly looks like they are outnumbered 1 to 2.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

Players are just as protected if the opposite rule exists; i.e. it's always a raise unless verbally declared as a call.

Biggest difference is that the 'always a raise' rule makes more sense.

I actually disagree here. It's much less new player/game friendly because I guarantee someone new/bad is not going to remember to say call each time before throwing out the smallest amount possible each time to call if they don't have the smallest denom and forcing a raise seems way too harsh on that spot

 

[glynn]

Right. How does it make more sense to default to the more aggressive interpretation when every other rule defaults to the least aggressive? I'd expect that to be the controversial position, especially outside of PCF.

 

[varoadstter]

If I'm dealing a home game, any time the action is ambiguous, I ask the player to clarify. No one in the game is trying to angle so it seems best to me to get the player's intention correctly and then move on. I probably have this scenario happen 20 times in a six hour game.

YMMV.

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

Raise needs to Double the previous amount, unless All In for less.

Dead horse. Sorry. Didn’t mean to pile on.

 

[Santa123]

It is a raise... stop trolling. People might take you serious!

If you want to call in that spot without saying call than just throw in the 5s one by one and not in one motion.

 

[BGinGA]

I actually disagree here. It's much less new player/game friendly because I guarantee someone new/bad is not going to remember to say call each time before throwing out the smallest amount possible each time to call if they don't have the smallest denom and forcing a raise seems way too harsh on that spot

Not sure that assuption is accurate; newbie players are more likely to bet exactly what they mean (and be concerned if putting in more chips than necessary). One common example is tossing in a single higher denom chip expecting it to be considered a raise, and being surprised that it's just a call unless verbalized. But they are a lot less likely to throw in 'extra' chips. And we're also talking min-raises here; it's never going to be a huge amount in error.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

It is a raise... stop trolling. People might take you serious!

If you want to call in that spot without saying call than just throw in the 5s one by one and not in one motion.

A little late to the thread to be trolling

 

[Pokerdweebz]

Not sure that assuption is accurate; newbie players are more likely to bet exactly what they mean (and be concerned if putting in more chips than necessary). One common example is tossing in a single higher denom chip expecting it to be considered a raise, and being surprised that it's just a call unless verbalized. But they are a lot less likely to throw in 'extra' chips. And we're also talking min-raises here; it's never going to be a huge amount in error.

I understand your perspective, but I do agree with this rule. Without requiring verbal there's no 100% answer either way though

 

[upNdown]

Not sure that assuption is accurate; newbie players are more likely to bet exactly what they mean (and be concerned if putting in more chips than necessary). One common example is tossing in a single higher denom chip expecting it to be considered a raise, and being surprised that it's just a call unless verbalized.

I think that’s fair. When I was new, I was terrified of verbalizing my bets for fear of giving off tells.

 

[ekricket]

I think that’s fair. When I was new, I was terrified of verbalizing my bets for fear of giving off tells.

lol you have to practice your tells for them to be effective. I realized that they were inevitable so may as well put them to use.

 

[WedgeRock]

Not sure that assuption is accurate; newbie players are more likely to bet exactly what they mean (and be concerned if putting in more chips than necessary). One common example is tossing in a single higher denom chip expecting it to be considered a raise, and being surprised that it's just a call unless verbalized. But they are a lot less likely to throw in 'extra' chips. And we're also talking min-raises here; it's never going to be a huge amount in error.

I don't disagree.

I'm fact, boobs are the ones making immediate change and fucking up things when a re-raise occurs.

 

[WedgeRock]

When I was new, I was terrified of verbalizing my bets for fear of giving off tells.

Even online?!

 

[BGinGA]

Even online?!

Playing online poker is when I first started taping over my laptop camera, just in case....

 

[AcesUp907]

So are we saying it’s a call or raise?

Using the 2 best examples…
$1/3, raise to $6, puts 2 $5 chips
And
$40 bet, raise to $120, puts 2 $100 chips

I’m leaning more towards call now.

 

[Machine]

Man, I hate to go against the group. Instead I'll just post the TDA rule...


In the OP's case, a single $5 chip was not enough to make the call, so two $5 chips without declaration is a call.

TDA primarily handles tournaments, but unless cash rules are different I'd have to go with this. Show me a different ruling.

So this is what got me to reply to this post.

In lieu of a written rule, published publicly or house rule written down, I will typically defer to the TDA for cash games where there is an absence of a ruling, BUT ...

In this very specific instance, I disagree and would call this a raise.

Here is why:
1) Cash game
2) Two (2) chips with a full raise value (3) included (9)
3) along with no verbal declaration

That being said, I would deliver the ruling sternly, and likely explain it, then I would offer these apologetics - If your intention was to call, you may call, however for anyone here or not here going forward the ruling is a raise.

Personally, I value Cooke's rules over Roberts Rules but I still value Bob and what he has done. Though that is not my go to.

Its not as likely to happen in higher stake games due to chip value. Because this is a lower stakes game, the ruling and execution should be ruled for the spirit of the game, and lower stakes *should* be customer / player friendly

 

[Phoe9x]

In this very specific instance, I disagree and would call this a raise.

Doesn’t the ruling you pointed out literally says that it’s a call, but can be interpreted as a raise?

 

[Poker Zombie]

So this is what got me to reply to this post.

In lieu of a written rule, published publicly or house rule written down, I will typically defer to the TDA for cash games where there is an absence of a ruling, BUT ...

In this very specific instance, I disagree and would call this a raise.

Here is why:
1) Cash game
2) Two (2) chips with a full raise value (3) included (9)
3) along with no verbal declaration

That being said, I would deliver the ruling sternly, and likely explain it, then I would offer these apologetics - If your intention was to call, you may call, however for anyone here or not here going forward the ruling is a raise.

Personally, I value Cooke's rules over Roberts Rules but I still value Bob and what he has done. Though that is not my go to.

View attachment 1386737

Its not as likely to happen in higher stake games due to chip value. Because this is a lower stakes game, the ruling and execution should be ruled for the spirit of the game, and lower stakes *should* be customer / player friendly

As I read that, it is the same as the TDA rule. Because more than one chip was necessary to call the bet and the second $5 chip might be construed as a raise, the Oversized chip or bill rule (also) applies. The Oversized chip or bill rule states he has deemed to have only called.

 

[Machine]

Doesn’t the ruling you pointed out literally says that it’s a call, but can be interpreted as a raise?

Yes, my point is this: In a cash game, it could be a call or it could be a raise.

I think in this instance it fits raise better, but because of the stakes I would have some leniency, after a stern talking to.

again, because the value of 2 chips exceeds the call, raise, and even the reraise, which is only really possible due to the stakes.

If you're not going to verbally make a declaration, a better option for a call here, is to simply put in one chip, making it a string call, or toss in a 20/25 chip making it a call.

Edit: I also would double down on it being a raise so that the player understands that while they don't have to verbally make a declaration, it invites interpretation, and begets angling

 

[upNdown]

Even online?!

Nobody needs to hear the profanities I verbalize when playing online

is to simply put in one chip, making it a string call,

Such an under utilized move. I do it all the time. It should speed things up. - you can go now; no need to wait for the other chips because they're on their way. And yet, people wait for me to finish.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

you can go now; no need to wait for the other chips because they're on their way. And yet, people wait for me to finish.

This is becoming a pet peeve with my newbies. We already play painfully slow, just move on after I say call, I promise the 40 cents will make its way into the pot.

 

[Poker Zombie]

No doubt you play more than me, but that hasn’t been my experience.
I suppose this is more likely to occur in a min-raise situation?

Yes - New players and min-raises go hand-in-hand

It's a crazy misguided rule.

Scenario: A bets $2 bet, B raises $4 to $6 total, C tosses out two $5 chips (totaling $10, a legal re-raise amount of $4 more).

• if C first says 'call', it's a call
• if C first says 'raise', it's a raise
• if C remains silent, it's a call... wait, wat?

That last one seems nuts to me. C put in a legal raise amount, and it should not matter if it consisted of ten $1 chips, two $5 chips, or a $5 chip and five $1s. It's still a multiple-chip bet totaling a legal raise amount.

The TDA gang got this one wrong, imo.... mostly because there is no need for their rule in the first place.

While I won't argue if the TDA got it right or wrong, I will say that their decision was probably biased because of the incredibly few number of chips used in tournaments. Casino players frequently don't have enough small chips to cover even the blinds. Throwing out 1xT1000 to cover a T400 BB is insanely common. In that noisy casino atmosphere it is better for the game to default the player to "call" than it is to force them pot-committed or all-in. You want to shove, make it known. You want a timid little call, make no sound like the timid little mouse that is calling.