Cash Game One chip rule (2 Viewers)

[JScott]

This one has always bothered me. One chip being a call without a verbal declaration.

If the spirit of the rule is to make things clear for the dealer, it doesn’t make sense. If you put in one $25 chip after someone raised $5, it’s technically a call as per RROP and TDA. I understand it being a call if you put one smaller chip after someone went all in. But a large chip being a raise in the situation above is the clearest action I could see.

Basically, I think one large chip put in after a prior bet can be considered a raise if that’s the intent. Thoughts?

 

[SlowPokeTony]

If it wasn’t standard then you’d have an issue. But it’s standard in every card room and casino so that makes it very easy. I’ve found it to be an issue at home games though.

 

[Josh Kifer]

We enforce If your playing sloppy. If you just toss a chip out quietly that's a call. If you throw a single chip and have a obvious breakdown behind and say raise a few seconds later, generally we are fine with it. It's more about making clear communication somehow with me with what the action is.

 

[Marius L]

Just say raise when you toss the one chip in, and it's not a problem. Since this is the standard pretty much everywhere, there's no point in complicating it ny making special rules in different home games (IMO of course).

Your logic of course make sense, but it's just better if the rules are the same everywhere.

 

[upNdown]

If somebody tosses out one chip and says nothing, what happens? Does somebody have to ask him if he's raising? Because then that opens up the whole angle shooting can of worms.
I like the rule as is - it's simple and most people are well aware of it.

 

[Mr Winberg]

The rule is extremely unintuitive, but standard. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the reason behind the rule is to increase the pace. It's faster for people to just toss a chip in than to have the dealer make change.

 

[grantc54]

The rule is extremely unintuitive, but standard. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the reason behind the rule is to increase the pace. It's faster for people to just toss a chip in than to have the dealer make change.

As @upNdown says above, it's more to prevent an angle. If you don't have this rule you can throw a single chip in, gauge reaction from players still in the hand and then clarify if it is a call or raise.

 

[Mr Winberg]

As @upNdown says above, it's more to prevent an angle. If you don't have this rule you can throw a single chip in, gauge reaction from players still in the hand and then clarify if it is a call or raise.

No, not necessarily. If the rule was the same for one chip as for any other amount of chips, i.e. that what you toss in is what you bet, then there's no takesies-backsies and therefore no possible angle.

 

[Mr Winberg]

To clarify what I mean:

If somebody tosses out one chip and says nothing, what happens?

Without the one chip rule, the bet would stand, subject to the 50% rule if not a legal raise.

 

[upNdown]

To clarify what I mean:

Without the one chip rule, the bet would stand, subject to the 50% rule if not a legal raise.

So now we have to do math for this guy??

 

[Mr Winberg]

So now we have to do math for this guy??

"Pot!" [then leans back in his chair]

 

[ArielVer18]

Because it’s not called the “one chip rule.” Once you realize it’s the “oversized chip rule,” then everything makes sense

 

[raynmanas]

if that’s the intent

herein lies the problem - nobody knows the intent until it is verbally confirmed. hence, if there is no verbal clarification with the bet, then it's the minimum allowable bet (a call). belated verbal bets are rife for angle shooting.

it's a solid rule IMHO and i would never play any other way (friendly home games aside).

 

[CraigT78]

The objection to people using their words at a poker table baffles me.

Open your mouth. Announce your action.

Simple.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Ok, last time I'll push this, I promise!

herein lies the problem - nobody knows the intent until it is verbally confirmed.

I don't get where everyone is getting the "verbal" thing from. If, hypothetically, there was no one chip rule, then there would still be no need for a verbal confirmation.

Example: BB is 50
Villain raises to 200
Hero tosses in a single 500.

Without the no chip rule, that's a raise clear as day. No verbal confirmation needed, just as there wouldn't have been if it had been 5×100 chips instead.

It's the rule that makes it a call. My hypothesis is that's it's about casinos wanting a faster pace to increase profit.

 

[JScott]

If the goal is to avoid angling, why is it legal to place a barrel of chips over the line, and without releasing, bring back the majority of them only leaving 1 or 2. Fully legal as per rrop.

Sorry, so far I haven’t seen a legitimate reason for this rule. If we allow non verbal checks, why not a non verbal raise. I understand it’s a standard rule, but it’s not a good one imo.

 

[JScott]

The objection to people using their words at a poker table baffles me.

Open your mouth. Announce your action.

Simple.

Imo this argument is irrelevant. If verbal was the only legal way to complete an action, Why is it legal to check by knocking the table?

 

[phaze12]

It’s a single chip rule so even if you throw a smaller chip out it’s a call.

Like stated before. To prevent angle shooting.

 

[JScott]

Ok, last time I'll push this, I promise!

I don't get where everyone is getting the "verbal" thing from. If, hypothetically, there was no one chip rule, then there would still be no need for a verbal confirmation.

Example: BB is 50
Villain raises to 200
Hero tosses in a single 500.

Without the no chip rule, that's a raise clear as day. No verbal confirmation needed, just as there wouldn't have been if it had been 5×100 chips instead.

It's the rule that makes it a call. My hypothesis is that's it's about casinos wanting a faster pace to increase profit.

100% this. That’s my point.

Now if someone makes an all in bet for $500 and someone tosses in a $5 chip, that’s a call, I get it and it makes sense.

But if I have a $5 bet before me, I’m sitting with 300x$5 chips and I toss in a $25 chip, can that be any more clear of an action?

It’s a single chip rule so even if you throw a smaller chip out it’s a call.

Like stated before. To prevent angle shooting.

I don’t see how one can possibly use this (the situation I’ve mentioned above) to angle.

 

[raynmanas]

Ok, last time I'll push this, I promise!

I don't get where everyone is getting the "verbal" thing from. If, hypothetically, there was no one chip rule, then there would still be no need for a verbal confirmation.

Example: BB is 50
Villain raises to 200
Hero tosses in a single 500.

Without the no chip rule, that's a raise clear as day. No verbal confirmation needed, just as there wouldn't have been if it had been 5×100 chips instead.

It's the rule that makes it a call. My hypothesis is that's it's about casinos wanting a faster pace to increase profit.

ok, so what if the opposite happens? blinds are 25/50, guy only has a 500. throws it in clearly meaning to call, but says nothing. should that be a raise?

this is kind of a silly conversation as it has obviously already been widely discussed and decided.

 

[JScott]

ok, so what if the opposite happens? blinds are 25/50, guy only has a 500. throws it in clearly meaning to call, but says nothing. should that be a raise?

this is kind of a silly conversation as it has obviously already been widely discussed and decided.

Best argument for the 1 chip rule yet. That’s kind of what I was looking for.

 

[TheJack]

OP say 25$ chip without saying anything is clearly a raise. What if i only have 25$ chips in my stack? Is it clear what im doing? No. So in that situation we see it as less agressive action, because we play for money. Rules needs to be clear, thats why it also applies in the situation where player have a stack with small denomination chips.

 

[Mr Winberg]

this is kind of a silly conversation as it has obviously already been widely discussed and decided.

Yes, I agree. It's 100% hypothetical!


But anyway

ok, so what if the opposite happens? blinds are 25/50, guy only has a 500. throws it in clearly meaning to call, but says nothing. should that be a raise?

"Clearly meaning to call" wouldn't really apply if there wasn't a one chip rule. Without the rule, nobody would ever just silently throw in a 500 chip (unless by mistake).
Think about it: If this rule didn't exist, and 500 means 500, would you just throw in 500 if you wanted to call? No! You would say "call" and then push the 500 forward. (Verbal bets are binding if said before or simultaneously as the chips are moved).

Compare it to this similar situation: If the BB is 600, someone raises to 1200, and you want to call but you only have two T1000 (apart from higher denoms). Throwing both in would be a raise with 800 to 2000, instead you'll probably say "call" and then push em forward. Same thing.

So yes, without the one chips rule the 500 is a raise.

Best argument for the 1 chip rule yet.

Sorry to mess it up!

 

[allforcharity]

Misperceptions and misinterpretations of physical betting actions should be immediately clarified by a verbal confirmation. At our cash games, it happens lots of times that someone tossing in a single high value chip is meaning to raise to that chip value, and its so easy to confirm just by saying "raise" (or "reraise", or whatever). If nothing is said then default interpretation is a call, and dealer can make change when the action is finished.

 

[JScott]

Misperceptions and misinterpretations of physical betting actions should be immediately clarified by a verbal confirmation. At our cash games, it happens lots of times that someone tossing in a single high value chip is meaning to raise to that chip value, and its so easy to confirm just by saying "raise" (or "reraise", or whatever). If nothing is said then default interpretation is a call, and dealer can make change when the action is finished.

At my games I often ask as 90% of the time it means raise. I explain the rule to them, but to be honest, I don’t like it.

There was one good answer to my question and @Mr Winberg poked a hole in it. If not for the rule as is, it would be very clear: Oversized chip means raise to that amount unless specifically verbalized as a call.

So yeah, I still don’t see the point of the one chip rule, or how it reduces angle shooting opportunities.

 

[MrCatPants]

It's to prevent angle shooting as players often need change off an oversize chip.

Otherwise, one could always stick out an oversize chip to induce folds, and if called on the larger amount just say they were waiting for change.

It's necessary.

 

[JScott]

It's to prevent angle shooting as players often need change off an oversize chip.

Otherwise, one could always stick out an oversize chip to induce folds, and if called on the larger amount just say they were waiting for change.

It's necessary.

See that’s the thing, the rule would make more sense if they had to say “call” when putting the oversized chip out.

I’m still not convinced it’s A good rule.

 

[Marius L]

See that’s the thing, the rule would make more sense if they had to say “call” when putting the oversized chip out.

I’m still not convinced it’s A good rule.

We're in too deep at this point. The rule could theoretically go either way (always a call unless stated otherwise, or always a raise to the actual amount put in the pot unless stated otherwise). However the simple fact that it is now a standard ruling pretty much anywhere to make it a call makes this whole discussion pretty pointless IMO. Changing it up in ones home game only creates confusion for the players when they "leave the nest".

 

[Mr Winberg]

Otherwise, one could always stick out an oversize chip to induce folds, and if called on the larger amount just say they were waiting for change.

No, one couldn't. Without the one chip rule there would be no takesies-backsies. The bet would stand. Sticking out 1×500 would be just like sticking out 5×100.

In your scenario, if the villain got called and said "I was waiting for change" the dealer would say "sorry, I never heard you say call, your bet stands".

However the simple fact that it is now a standard ruling pretty much anywhere to make it a call makes this whole discussion pretty pointless IMO

Pointless?? But we're having so much fun! I love a good hypothetical discussion!

I just wish that we could stop using the one chip rule as an excuse to why the one chip rule is needed. It muddies the waters in this discussion. If we want to get to the bottom of why the rule was made and why it's needed, then making arguments like "we need X because of Y", where Y is caused by X, just causes confusion.

I would love to hear a real reason for it, where it solves a problem that we would have if "a bet of one chip was treated the same as any other amount of chips".

The only reason I can think of is to speed up the game, i.e. calling is an easy, non-verbal flip of a chip.

Changing it up in ones home game only creates confusion for the players when they "leave the nest".

Agree. But for the homegame, I've found that whether we use this rule or not it causes confusion. So our rule is
"If someone bets 1 chip, ask their intention before acting. Then, if necessary, explain the 1 chip rule".

 

[MrCatPants]

No, one couldn't. Without the one chip rule there would be no takesies-backsies. The bet would stand. Sticking out 1×500 would be just like sticking out 5×100.

In your scenario, if the villain got called and said "I was waiting for change" the dealer would say "sorry, I never heard you say call, your bet stands".


Pointless?? But we're having so much fun! I love a good hypothetical discussion!

I just wish that we could stop using the one chip rule as an excuse to why the one chip rule is needed. It muddies the waters in this discussion. If we want to get to the bottom of why the rule was made and why it's needed, then making arguments like "we need X because of Y", where Y is caused by X, just causes confusion.

I would love to hear a real reason for it, where it solves a problem that we would have if "a bet of one chip was treated the same as any other amount of chips".

The only reason I can think of is to speed up the game, i.e. calling is an easy, non-verbal flip of a chip.


Agree. But for the homegame, I've found that whether we use this rule or not it causes confusion. So our rule is
"If someone bets 1 chip, ask their intention before acting. Then, if necessary, explain the 1 chip rule".

You're assuming here that without the one chip rule any bet is assumed not to need change without a verbal. I was assuming it is a bet that would need clarification as without a verbal it is unclear the intention of the action.