Cash Game Weird situation in cash game (1 Viewer)

[Mike Wells]

Every time I think I've seen it all...
Playing 1-2NL a couple days ago. I'm in a hand where I've limped in middle position and action in on the button. The $1 from the SB is sitting almost right in front of him and he is confused...thinks he must be the SB. He has a green chip in his hand. He picks up the $1 from the small blind and places it out together with his quarter. Dealer isn't following the action...looks over and announces a raise to $26. As SB is mucking A4o, I tell the dealer what happened. Button acknowledges his mistake. Dealer changes the bet to $2. SB is irritated because he would have called $2. Was quite mad afterwards, as he would have made aces full. I never put any more money in. The button ended up betting and taking down a small pot.
So...obviously the dealer fucked up. First of all, he was distracted and wasn't following the action. Second, he should have called the floor. Decision on the bet was not his to make.
My question is this: Should the bet have been $26, or $2...and why?

 

[WedgeRock]

Thread 'Is this a call or a raise?' https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/is-this-a-call-or-a-raise.114685/

 

[WedgeRock]

Given that button only put out a single chip (and the other was the SB's chip), I would rule that it was a call by the button (one chip rule).

I hate it when the person whose job it is to avoid confusion isn't paying attention and causes confusion. Tell the floor it's time for dealer's break.

 

[Sparkynutz]

Sounds like the dealer owes some guys some money.

 

[Frogzilla]

Dealer got this one wrong. Button raised to $26 (clear intent, clear action). Putting two chips together when betting is same as saying “raise”. It’s a raise.

For the $1 mistakenly stolen from the SB, that needs to be replaced. Raise to $26 stands, $1 to the SB.

 

[WedgeRock]

If the button announced, "Raise," I would rule it a raise to $25.

Button didn't use two chips from his stack. He didn't have a $25 and a $1 in his hand. Perhaps he intended to raise 12.5x, but I wouldn't rule that be grabbing another player's pot-committed chip he somehow raised the 13x. He's the button. In what world would he have a chip already out in front of him? Button is guilty of not paying attention and not verbalizing raise, if that's why he intended to do.

Does a single chip, added to another player's pot-committed chip without saying anything over ride the one chip rule? Can you use another player's pot-committed chip to size the amount of your raise?

 

[Frogzilla]

If the button announced, "Raise," I would rule it a raise to $25.

Does a single chip, added to another player's pot-committed chip without saying anything over ride the one chip rule? Can you use another player's pot-committed chip to size the amount of your raise?

putting a $25 and a $1 together, then putting those two chips into the pot together, is unambiguous action and intent to raise to $26. That raise is binding and should have stood.

You cannot bet another persons chip which is why the $1 from the SB needs to be corrected/replaced.

 

[WedgeRock]

If you are letting him use SBs chip to circumvent the one chip rule and to size the raise, then you can bet another person's chip (you just have to pay him back). If he didn't pick up the SB's chip, this is a call all day.

Perhaps the button intended to announce, "Raise to $25" when he had the $25 chip in hand, perhaps he thought the $1 toppled off his stack and thought, "$26 is as good as $25 and I'm using two chips, so I don't need to announce." That's on him for not paying attention.

He committed one chip to the pot, that's a call.

 

[Rakrul]

If you are letting him use SBs chip to circumvent the one chip rule and to size the raise, then you can bet another person's chip (you just have to pay him back). If he didn't pick up the SB's chip, this is a call all day.

Perhaps the button intended to announce, "Raise to $25" when he had the $25 chip in hand, perhaps he thought the $1 toppled off his stack and thought, "$26 is as good as $25 and I'm using two chips, so I don't need to announce." That's on him for not paying attention.

He committed one chip to the pot, that's a call.

But he placed two chips in (even though he stole one of them) so it's no one chip rule in effect here.

Lets say he was SB and the $1 was his. He picks it up, adds a $25 and put both in. We agree that this is a legit raise, I assume.

What if SB wants to change e.g. a $5 with BTN, BTN starts taking out $1s and then it becomes BTNs turn, he raises to not hold up the action. Now the SB says that one of those $1s was his because he already gave BTN the $5 and he took out $1s to give to SB but used one of them in the raise instead. Still a call?

What if a $1 rolls off from CO to BTN but he doesn't see and use it for his raise. Now CO and MP says it was CO's chip. Still a call?

Do you really want to open the door for these discussions?

 

[WedgeRock]

But he placed two chips in (even though he stole one of them)

He didn't place two chips in; one was already committed to the pot. He added one chip. He doesn't get the advantage because he thought he was committing two chips. He needs to pay attention.

Lets say he was SB and the $1 was his. He picks it up, adds a $25 and put both in. We agree that this is a legit raise, I assume.

Agreed, that's a raise, because both chips are his. Totally different situation.

Your hypotheticals, though interesting, are not relevant here. Button put a single chip in the pot. That's what happened. That's a call.

Look, a mistake was made and someone is going to be unhappy. Button took one chip off his stack. If he intended it to be a raise, he needed to verbalize it. If he thought he didn't need to because he was adding a $1 that rolled off his stack, that's the risk he runs.

Button should've asked whose $1 chips was in front of him. Dealer should've asked questions before announcing it as a raise. SB should've clarified that the $1 was his. OP should've spoken up immediately when he saw button bet with SB's chip. All these would've helped neutralize the mistakes. But none of these happened.

I prefer the solution that is unambiguous and closes the door on potential angle shooting: button added one chip to the pot, it's a call.

 

[WedgeRock]

What if the error was caught and corrected before anything else happened. Do you allow button to add a $1 from his stack to complete the raise to $26, then carry on with SB's action?

If no, then we agree it's a one chip rule call.

If yes, you're allowing the button to get all sorts of information on the strength of other live hands. What if other hands act particularly strong and button insists he was only placing one chip in the pot (and recommitting SB's chip)? Are you going to let that standv as just a call? Or are you going to tell button that he intended to raise and it's $26 to go (and in addition to the $25 you took from your stack, you have to add more chips that you didn't already add to the pot)? There are all kinds of problems that follow if you go down this path: angle shooting button, dealer enforcing his subjective determination of what a player intended, etc. Maybe this button was an unscrupulous player who who never angle shoot. But if you allow it here, another player at the table can do the same thing and expect to announce what he intended after the table reacts to his "mistake"...

If button truly meant to raise (to $25 or $26), then he should have paid attention and/or verbalized his action. He didn't, he risks an adverse ruling.

Call $2. Small blind, it's your action.

 

[Frogzilla]

He stole the small blind then he raised to $26.

What if the error was caught and corrected before anything else happened. Do you allow button to add a $1 from his stack to complete the raise to $26, then carry on with SB's action?

I don’t understand…he should be compelled to replace $1 small blind he stole at whatever point it is caught. He can’t reduce his raise to $25 to go. Raise to $26 was binding. After it’s corrected he will have $26 of his chips in front of him, so no need to add $1 from his stack.

 

[Rakrul]

He didn't place two chips in; one was already committed to the pot. He added one chip. He doesn't get the advantage because he thought he was committing two chips. He needs to pay attention.

Just to make sure we're on the same page here;

You know that BTN physically picked up SB's $1 added his own $25 and threw in both, right?
Assuming that, I think you claim that the $1 already "belongs to the table (pot)" so he can't use it in his bet. Therefor only one of the two chips he threw in counts and he's hit by the one chip rule? If I understand correctly that this is your argument then I see your point but vociferously disagree.

 

[WedgeRock]

I don’t understand

Button takes the SB's $1 and his $25 and puts it in front of him without saying anything. The error is identified immediately.

Do you put the SB's $1 back and allow/require the button to put in an additional $1 from his stack?

Answer 1: No. One chip rule. Its a call. SB, action?

Answer 2. Yes. I don't care if button is angle shooting, or if someone else at the table will create a similar mistake to later angle shoot. I also think the dealer's subjective determination of what the button intended should stand. Raise to $26. Or $25.

 

[WedgeRock]

You know that BTN physically picked up SB's $1 added his own $25 and threw in both, right?
Assuming that, I think you claim that the $1 already "belongs to the table (pot)" so he can't use it in his bet. Therefor only one of the two chips he threw in counts and he's hit by the one chip rule? If I understand correctly that this is your argument then I see your point but vociferously disagree.

Well, yes, we're on the same page.

Why do you disagree? Because the player thought he was putting two chips in the pot? Too bad, pay attention or verbalize your action.

If the dealer rules this a raise, what happens when the button says, "No, that was SB's $1, it was just in front of me. I only intended to call (with my one overchip). I was just putting the SB's $1 in with my bet." You're giving the button a freeroll and he can make a case to go either way, depending on how the live hands react. That's never a good thing. Again, even if the button is an upstanding person who was not angling, anyone else at the table can create the same "mistake," fully intending to angle, and expect the same ruling.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, button took one $25 off his stack and had it in his hand before he saw SB's $1 sitting in front of him. He DID NOT have two chips in his hand until he picked up SB's $1 chip. Perhaps he intended to verbalize "Raise" with just the $25 chip but when he thought he was putting in two chips, he didn't think he had to verbalize. Too bad, pay attention or verbalize your action.

 

[Rakrul]

Well, yes, we're on the same page.

Why do you disagree? Because the player thought he was putting two chips in the pot? Too bad, pay attention or verbalize your action.
[...]

Well, he actually WAS putting in two chips. Not just (all) his chips. Then again possession is 9/10s of the law, so you could always argue that it is now his chip as he stole it. When later discovered he should replace it and possibly get a penalty on top.

I will find it much easier to rule consistently if a player puts in two or more chips even if he grabbed someone else's chip(s), rather than the myriad of situations where there's a discussion about the ownership of a chip used.

Another interesting aspect here is that Dealer says $26 to SB, SB acts, then dealer is made aware. Now someone has already acted on the incorrect info. Obviously SB can't take the cards back, but shouldn't the raise stand because of this alone?

I can understand that if in another situation, BTN raises to e.g. 15 and dealer announces the wrong amount, SB folds, dealer is corrected there's no real recourse, but that's a different beast.

 

[WedgeRock]

If the button put in $26 (his $25 and SB's $1) and the action was immediately stopped by the dealer before anyone else could do anything and the dealer asked the player what his intention was, if the button said "I meant to raise to $26," then I would let it stand, and make him give the SB his $1 back and take another $1 from button's stack. Now its a raise to $26 and action is on SB. For that matter, if action was stopped before anyone else did anything, I would let the button declare what he intended (one overchip call, raise to $25, raise to $26) and that action would stand. The dealer should not be declaring action with such ambiguities, then changing his determination of action.

As played, its a call. Small blind, its your action.

 

[WedgeRock]

Then again possession is 9/10s of the law, so you could always argue that it now his as he stole it.

The law of possession has no bearing here, and you're misconstruing it.

Spoiler: Legal example

Possession being 9/10ths of the law usually refers to criminal law, where you have possession of something illegal, but say it's not yours.

In a civil situation, only the owner can transfer title. If you take your watch in to be repaired and the watch store inadvertently sells it, you still own the watch, even though someone else possess it, and despite the fact that someone else PAID to possess it. Here, the small blind never transferred ownership of his chip to button.

I will find it much easier to rule consistently if a player puts in two or more chips even if he grabbed someone else's chip(s), rather than the myriad of situations where there's a discussion about the ownership of a chip used.

Is there any question that the $1 was SB's? I don't think so. That's what makes this an easy ruling.

 

[spookycord]

Talk about "stealing the blinds".
Although I don't like WedgeRock's ruling, because I think 9/10 the button is intending to raise with 2 chips, I can't fault his logic. The rules are there to protect players from the other 1/10 times it's an angle. There can be no ambiguity.

 

[Frogzilla]

What’s the angle with forcing the unambiguous raise to $26 to stand as a binding raise to $26?

and Isn’t there a much bigger angle if you somehow go with this weird logic that you can change the action after the fact by denying the chip is yours. Toss in a chip to call, see the bad news, oh actually that wasn’t my chip.

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

I love the entrenched positions here.

 

[WedgeRock]

Talk about "stealing the blinds".

What’s the angle with forcing the unambiguous raise to $26 to stand as a binding raise to $26?

He had one chip in his hand, from his stack, when action came to him. He committed one chip to the pot.

It is not an unambiguous raise when he puts his one chip + SB's one chip in the pot.

Did he mean it as a raise to $25? I think everyone agrees this is not viable. If he was just moving SB's chip in, his one chip without verbalization makes it a call.

Did he mean it as a raise to $26? Maybe.

Did he mean it as a call? Maybe.

Because there is ambiguity, I would not allow the raise. And I would not give the button more info to decide whether he wants to claim it a raise or a call.

The potential angle is addressed above. Also stated above is that if action was stopped and button clarified his intent before any additional action, fine. Raise to $26 or call (whatever button said he intended). But as played, nope. No advantage for button. Too bad, pay attention or verbalize your action.

 

[Jimulacrum]

If I'm the dealer, I'm calling floor on this every time, but this is my take on the action.

Button raises $26 (and has to replace the $1 with one of his own). SB gets his posted $1 back, and action is on him for $25 more.

Button threw out two chips and clearly intended to raise; this would be ruled a raise without question if it were actually his posted $1, as he picked up the posted chip and threw it out together with his $25. Bonehead error of picking up the SB's posted $1 does not change the player's intent. (Think about what the rule would be if he had picked up $1 from someone's stack and had bet with it. Basically the same case here.)

With regard to claims of potential angle-shooting: If this is not the first time button has done this, or if he does it again, he can take a walk. Otherwise it's probably just a stupid one-time mistake. There's very little to potentially gain from an angle here.

Also, SB gets a smack on the back of the head for whinging about what his hand would have been. No one wants to hear it.

 

[Machine]

So regardless of who’s property the $1 chip is, the intent of the bet was to use it for its value, so the bet should stand at $26.

The button will square up the pot by adding $1.

Once there is significant action ( which is typically laid out by the casino rules - and typically deemed by 2 actions ) in this case the SB mucking and I would guess someone else acted before the dealer changed the action. The $26 raise should stand and you are correct, it’s not his call once he moves off of the raise as the action.

 

[Machine]

Then again possession is 9/10s of the law

I have always heard possession is “9 points the law”, and I think it’s like 18 points total.

It also varies by state, and I recognize @WedgeRock as an authority, along with like 6 other high posting Members

 

[KHarp1]

I'm calling Bullshit

 

[Mike Wells]

I've asked a few people, including a couple TDA certified floor guys. (They gave me 2 different answers. lol.)
My take is that it should have been $26. Even though the chip didn't belong to him, he pulled it back and put out two chips.
Rules should always discourage angles. What if the button had a speculative hand he didn't want to call a raise with, and he knew the ruling would always be a call. This incentivizes him to try the move when he wants to see a cheap flop. Yeah...probably only works once / session, but still.

 

[Machine]

Yeah...probably only works once / session, but still.

My fav thing to do is in the big blind, is to not post it, then say 'Raise' loudly, someone corrects me and says 'you can't raise yet, you're the big blind', they catch on by like the 4th or 5th time I do it, and that's when its the most fun to do.

 

[Jimulacrum]

My fav thing to do is in the big blind, is to not post it, then say 'Raise' loudly, someone corrects me and says 'you can't raise yet, you're the big blind', they catch on by like the 4th or 5th time I do it, and that's when its the most fun to do.

 

[JustinInMN]

We saw two chips come out of the raisers hand, and the next player acted on the reasonable assumption that this is a raise, there is no compelling reason to retroactively apply the one chip rule once it is discovered. The ruling is in error and the small blind's complaint from the original post that "he would have called $2" is 100% correct, this ruling completely screws him. (Regardless of the runout mind you.) He has lost his hand irretrievably based on bad information.

The only reasonably fair ruling is the raise to $26 stands and the raiser owes pot an additional $1 as soon as it's discovered.

To recap...

You rule the $26 raise stands
*The SB then acted on correct information
*The dollar owed to the pot is easily correctable

You make the ruling to apply the one chip rule
*The SB then lost his hand irretrievably based on incorrect information through no fault of his own.

There is no way the second ruling is possibly better for the game. Not to mention it opens up way more avenues for abuse. This shouldn't even be a discussion, the dealer screwed up the action, sure, but screwing up the ruling is far worse.