Cash Game One chip rule (3 Viewers)

[JScott]

First of all, this is just a fun debate, not trying to change any minds here guys.

What I’m hearing is that the only reason for the one chip rule is the time a player needs to make change.

I’m with you @Mr Winberg , the rule existing is the only reason for the rule existing. @Marius L makes a good point, but it doesn’t justify the actual reasoning for the rule in the first place.

In fact I actually think that the rule can lead to further confusion because if somebody makes a better five dollars, and the next person throws in a $25 chip, it’s likely to cause confusion by somebody else who may think it was a raise. Now the argument here is that all the other players should be paying attention, which is true. But I find so rare in my game does one need to make change that it would be a moot point.

 

[Machine]

If the spirit of the rule is to make things clear for the dealer

It's not for the dealer, it's for the players. (Other than angle shooting...)

It's a standard that is used in the majority of games, it prevents confusion and in the spirit of the game, keeps the flow of the game going, sometimes dealer can't make change at the time the 'call' is made.

if you want to raise, use two equal chips or verbal, a consistent / standard of rules helps all players.

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

'make more sense' - this is your perception, not shared by all

Without the one chip rule there would be no takesies-backsies.

So help me out here, its not a paradox, if it is a rule that exists, is it there to keep you from purchasing girl scout cookies?
Do you think a whole culture / community adapted this 'standard' because it was no needed?
Everyone was like hey, we need to make it more restrictive for action.

It prevents arguments at the table, and keeps order.

 

[JScott]

It's not for the dealer, it's for the players. (Other than angle shooting...)



It prevents arguments at the table, and keeps order.

I’ve seen no explanation of how the rule prevents angle shooting, or how it prevents arguments. It’s not a logical rule, so I have to explain it to my players who don’t play in card rooms all the time. And I’ve found there is no explanation except that it’s a standard rule. But if the rule were to disappear tomorrow, it wouldn’t improve the game.

 

[moose]

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.

It is a call because when there is ambiguity, it influences the action the least if it is always ruled a call.

 

[inca911]

There is one sure-fire tell that an opponent is an experienced player: adding a tiny chip to an action that is dependent on a dealer’s attentiveness and ability to hear the stated action. You see many dealers and knowledgeable players simply add a chip. For example, adding a T25 chip to accompany a raise to 1k can be seen by the camera on replay even if the dealer doesn’t hear a player state “raise”. Or making a raise to $100.25. Very few tells are 100% accurate, but this one appears to be. When I see this at a table, there is usually a silent acknowledgment I give to the player to let them know I understand and appreciate what they are doing. A sneaky player can opt for a single chip call to see how an opponent reacts to what may be perceived as a raise. When I’m dealing, I verbally state “call” when a single chip is used to prevent this, but many dealers do not. I have seen players fold to a call before!

 

[Machine]

It’s not a logical rule

that's a big assertion, you've had two pages to prove that, and have yet to do so

But if the rule were to disappear tomorrow, it wouldn’t improve the game.

Typo? ', it would improve the game' ?

I’ve seen no explanation of how the rule prevents angle shooting

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.

did you not read this? or is it your opinion this isn't good enough?

or how it prevents arguments.

You just got done saying 'It's not a logical rule', citing logic but where is the follow through on seeing how a group of people would argue about an action over a rule (comical) , that is preventing arguments over an action ...

 

[ekricket]

Hey, why don’t you guys abolish this rule for a few weeks in your home games and report back on how it goes? There’s no police gonna make sure you enforce this

 

[Machine]

I think the intent was to question the validity of the rule, I'm sure the OP realizes this, and was looking for any 'gotchas' outside of the obvious, for this reason (discontinuing the rule locally)

 

[krafticus]

Let’s just add back in the “I call/see your bet, and raise”. I’m sure that wouldn’t cause any issues either.

 

[ktran]

I mean it could be use as an angle, but if it's a good dealer it should be dealt with on the spot. It should strictly dealt with on the spot. If it was at least 2x it should be a raise, if it wasn't a call without out any question. Yeah the one angler could sit there and argue to fish out any clues, but if it was dealt with and a common thing players wouldn't have to ask or say anything. It should be dealt with on the spot without any question by the dealer, but there are also not so great dealers. Given that it's probably good to have the one chip rule. If the dealer doesn't catch it or address it when it happen, the dealer can be questionable too as an angler helper. It does help if you accidentally do it. But if you intended to raise how often you confuse a chip color to raise. I think it complicates it more having the one chip, but but not by too much. Angling is going to happen regardless if it was one chip or not. One can try to angle with multiple chips too with a certain amount that is not 2x. Is having a raise to be at least 2x a rule? And is it a rule for limit games too? If it's not I can see why there's a one chip rule

 

[JScott]

that's a big assertion, you've had two pages to prove that, and have yet to do so


Typo? ', it would improve the game' ?





did you not read this? or is it your opinion this isn't good enough?


You just got done saying 'It's not a logical rule', citing logic but where is the follow through on seeing how a group of people would argue about an action over a rule (comical) , that is preventing arguments over an action ...

First of all, don’t take this too seriously. I’ve asked for a logical explanation of the rule, and I haven’t had what I consider a clear case of why it’s used, beyond it being standard across the board. There are many rules that make sense and prevent angling, this one seems to not have a good solid reason for existing. And of all the points made, I think @Mr Winberg and I have done a good job rebutting. Right now the only explanation is that somebody could misconstrue making change, but it seems to me that that misconception could easily be avoided with a verbal declaration and the rule wouldn’t need to exist.

Obviously it doesn’t make sense to change it now as it’s worldwide.. but I’m not a fan.

Let’s just add back in the “I call/see your bet, and raise”. I’m sure that wouldn’t cause any issues either.

That’s completely different, and that argument is a classic case of “whataboutism”. There’s a reason for that rule and it easily can be used to angle.

 

[JScott]

It is a call because when there is ambiguity, it influences the action the least if it is always ruled a call.

Good point.

I have a pretty simple solution in my game. I, as a dedicated dealer, can just clarify with the bettor/caller. But when a guy is clearly intending to raise, I will allow it.

I have one tournament player who gets tilted over the lack of enforcement of the oversized chip rule. Which is why this debate was started.

 

[Machine]

First of all, don’t take this too seriously.

I got that, I don't either, I typically enjoy discourse.

I also think the real motive behind @ekricket statement was you'll see how it fairs in the game and if it causes issues or not. I think it would show up once you have a baseline and then a new player shows up that has played before, and may argue the point, or ... they won't =D

I will say this, the rule is that if it is a raise, it must be declared prior to the chip hitting the table, I think it should only be prior to any other action. If the raiser says 'raise' prior to the next action, it should play, but alas, my perception isn't shared amongst the masses as far as I know...

 

[ekricket]

I got that, I don't either, I typically enjoy discourse.

I also think the real motive behind @ekricket statement was you'll see how it fairs in the game and if it causes issues or not. I think it would show up once you have a baseline and then a new player shows up that has played before, and may argue the point, or ... they won't =D

I’m just saying try it if you don’t see the need for it. The need will become pretty obvious the first time this situation arises. Just try it and quit what abouting it

 

[JScott]

I’m just saying try it if you don’t see the need for it. The need will become pretty obvious the first time this situation arises. Just try it and quit what abouting it

That’s the plan!

 

[Irish]

There are two things that work in tandem to make the one chip rule work. First and foremost as stated above, it takes the ambiguity/angle shooting out of tossing in an oversized chip. Second is the frequency that this action usually happens...

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.

What you're proposing is essentially the exact opposite of the one chip rule. You say no "takesies-bachsies", so it would follow that anytime any bet amount above a call gets tossed in - be it one chip or more - accidentally or not - it's always assumed to be a raise. While there's nothing inherently wrong with that approach, you're now creating the opposite environment for players, where they have to announce a call if they can't physically oblige to the rule:

I'm facing a bet of T100. I only have T500 chips and above in my stack. I want to call. With your approach to the rules, I now have to verbalize a call, otherwise it'll be considered a raise if I just toss in one T500 chip.

I would argue the situation above happens a lot more frequently than the case where someone is tossing in an oversized chip to raise. That frequency, combined with the initial purpose to help reduce ambiguity at the table, is the reason the one chip rule works.

At my home game, newbies or folks who haven't play in a while get a free pass their first time. "Per the one chip rule, that's usually a call. We'll let the raise stand now, but next time it's a call".

 

[Mr Winberg]

You're assuming here that without the one chip rule any bet is assumed not to need change without a verbal.

Yes, I am assuming that, and I think it's a pretty good assumption: If all poker rules were kept as-is, but the one chip rule didn't exist, then as far as I am aware there is no rule left that would allow you to place a single chip and expect everyone to know that you want change. It would be just like if you bet two chips in a casino today: Without verbal, the bet stands.

I was assuming it is a bet that would need clarification as without a verbal it is unclear the intention of the action

This is where you lose me. If the rule never existed, why would it be unclear? People only ever call with overchips because of the rule.

It is a call because when there is ambiguity, it influences the action the least if it is always ruled a call.

Same question: If the rule never existed, why would there be ambiguity? Honest question here.

So help me out here, its not a paradox, if it is a rule that exists, is it there to keep you from purchasing girl scout cookies?
Do you think a whole culture / community adapted this 'standard' because it was no needed?
Everyone was like hey, we need to make it more restrictive for action.

That's the point. The OP and I are trying to understand why it exists, there must be a good reason for it. We're not debating that it should be removed, we're simply asking for the reason behind it. It doesn't remove angling, it doesn't remove ambiguity (with it, an overchip is a call, without it, it's a raise, so both are equally unambiguous).

I don't see this as a debate, it's more a QnA session, albeit with answers being questioned.

Hey, why don’t you guys abolish this rule for a few weeks in your home games and report back on how it goes? There’s no police gonna make sure you enforce this

I do enforce the rule at my homegame (with some slack, people are allowed to clarify if nobody has acted). There is always confusion amongst those who don't know about it. Before I learned this rule, a single chip was always binding at my house. And guess what: No confusion at all! Whatever you placed in the pot is what you bet! So for us, the rule is causing confusion amongs the newbies.

As far as if the rule is logical/intuitive or not, I have mountains of imperical proof that it's not intuitive. If you don't believe me, just ask any non-poker player what it means to bet a 100 chip when the blinds are 25/50.

Guys, this is all in good fun!

 

[Mr Winberg]

The need will become pretty obvious the first time this situation arises.

Please elaborate.

There are two things that work in tandem to make the one chip rule work. First and foremost as stated above, it takes the ambiguity/angle shooting out of tossing in an oversized chip. Second is the frequency that this action usually happens...



What you're proposing is essentially the exact opposite of the one chip rule. You say no "takesies-bachsies", so it would follow that anytime any bet amount above a call gets tossed in - be it one chip or more - accidentally or not - it's always assumed to be a raise. While there's nothing inherently wrong with that approach, you're now creating the opposite environment for players, where they have to announce a call if they can't physically oblige to the rule:

I'm facing a bet of T100. I only have T500 chips and above in my stack. I want to call. With your approach to the rules, I now have to verbalize a call, otherwise it'll be considered a raise if I just toss in one T500 chip.

I would argue the situation above happens a lot more frequently than the case where someone is tossing in an oversized chip to raise. That frequency, combined with the initial purpose to help reduce ambiguity at the table, is the reason the one chip rule works.

At my home game, newbies or folks who haven't play in a while get a free pass their first time. "Per the one chip rule, that's usually a call. We'll let the raise stand now, but next time it's a call".

Thanks, you seem to get what I'm saying/asking! Just some clarifications:

With your approach

It's not my approach as I actually enforce the rule. It's more "a world without the one chip rule".

Also, please explain the ambiguity/angling part, I honestly don't get it. Why would 1 chip be unclear or angleable if the rule didn't exist?

As for the frequency when people are calling vs raising, that ties back to the only reason for the rule that I'm aware about: To speed up the game. (I mentioned it in my first post). It's a good reason, I just thought there'd be more?

 

[ekricket]

Please elaborate

No. Try it and see how it works, then elaborate back to us.

 

[MrCatPants]

Both situations cause problems - either one requires verbalizing to clarify an action - and as has been said by multiple people above, it's much more common for people to need change from a call of a single chip than be raising with a single chip.

The lesser of two evils is assuming the less aggressive action in the case of ambiguity. Neither option is great, but I agree the one chip rule is the better assumption.

 

[Irish]

Also, please explain the ambiguity/angling part, I honestly don't get it. Why would 1 chip be unclear or angleable if the rule didn't exist?

• Player 1 bets 200 with two T100 chips
• Player 2 throws a T500 chip into the pot, says nothing
• Players 3-6 all fold around to player 1
• Player 1 (who thinks it's a raise) re-raises to T2k
• Player 2 says oh wait that was just a call, you can't raise

You're the host, how do you deal with that situation?

 

[Mr Winberg]

No. Try it and see how it works, then elaborate back to us.

I have. I played in and hosted homegames a lot before I learned the rule. Here's my report:

Before I learned this rule, a single chip was always binding at my house. And guess what: No confusion at all! Whatever you placed in the pot is what you bet! So for us, the rule is causing confusion amongs the newbies.

Can you please tell me which situations I/we were lucky enough to have missed? Honest question, I'm not trying to be a d*ck, I'm actually trying to learn!

• Player 1 bets 200 with two T100 chips
• Player 2 throws a T500 chip into the pot, says nothing
• Players 3-6 all fold around to player 1
• Player 1 (who thinks it's a raise) re-raises to T2k
• Player 2 says oh wait that was just a call, you can't raise

You're the host, how do you deal with that situation?

Thanks for clarifying. In a world without the one chip rule (or in this world before the rule was invented) the answer is simple:

Me: "Sorry player 2, the bet was 200 and you repopped it to 500. Case closed."

2: "But...I meant to call!"

Me: "Then you should called."

My point is: If the rule didn't exist, why would this even be a question?

Queation to you, how would you handle this?

• BB is 600
• Player 1 raises to 1200
• Player 2 throws two T1000 chip into the pot, says nothing
• Players 3-6 all fold around to player 1
• Player 1 (who thinks it's a raise) re-raises to T5k
• Player 2 says oh wait that was just a call, you can't raise.

Since there is no 2-chip rule, my question is equivalent to your question (which had the stipulation that there was no 1-chip rule).

 

[Mr Winberg]

You're the host, how do you deal with that situation?

(Since I enforce the rule, in reality I would of course say it's a call)

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

I hate the offsides rule in soccer. If I want to give up some defense to gain an offensive advantage why can’t I do that. Because it’s the rule. That’s why! Same with the one chip rule. Somewhere sometime people who made the rules of the game saw a need for it and enacted it.

Most of you have made some good points both ways. I will still enforce it in my game solely for the fact that it is a standard rule at most casinos and card rooms and I like continuity of rules as much as possible.

 

[Machine]

2: "But...I meant to call!"

at this point its a bit of a strawman argument

2: "But...I meant to call!" - He never meant to call, he did call, and again, because of the rule, this is the very reason to abide by the rule. This is a paradox and irrelevant to the actual reason for the rule regardless of if the rule existed or not, as it does.

This is a product of the rule, not the reason the rule exists. It exists because of the ambiguity of the action of tossing in a single chip.

Its not helping player 2 angle shoot which is what is happening in your example, its there to protect player 3 from the ambiguity of if its a call or a raise, prior to it ever getting back to player one.

If you think through it, it would never get to player 2 to say 'I meant..' because the rule prevents that ... /micdrop

 

[Mr Winberg]

He never meant to call, he did call, and again, because of the rule

Actually, he didn't call. The context of the question was "How would you handle this situation [if there was no one-chip rule]" . @Irish didn't spell out the part in the brackets, but if you read a few of the previous posts it becomes clear. Without the 1-chip rule, why would this be anything but a raise?

This is getting out of hand with all the misunderstandings of my intentions and my posts. We need to clear things up!

1. I am not suggesting abolishing the rule in any way, I am merely asking for the reason behind it.
2. The answer "because it's the rule" is not a good answer. I know it's the rule, or I wouldn't be asking.
3. To understand why a rule (any rule) came to be, one must put oneself in the hypothetical situation of being without the rule. E.g. without off-side in soccer, the game would probably be more defensive.
4. Without the 1-chip rule, a single chip is treated as any number of chips. Or an I missing anything?
5. Because of (4), there is still no ambiguity. Just like there is none if betting 2 chips. Or three. So ambiguity can be removed from the equation.
6. Since there is no ambiguity, one cannot angle by saying "I meant to call", just like one cannot angle by saying "those 5 $100 chips where a call of $200". So angling can be removed from the equation.

For me it seems like speeding up the game by making calls an easy flip of a chip is the only reason left, albeit a good reason. Am I missing something?

 

[Irish]

Thanks for clarifying. In a world without the one chip rule (or in this world before the rule was invented) the answer is simple:

Me: "Sorry player 2, the bet was 200 and you repopped it to 500. Case closed."

2: "But...I meant to call!"

Me: "Then you should called."

My point is: If the rule didn't exist, why would this even be a question?

Ok, what if player 2 only had one T100 chip in his stack?

Queation to you, how would you handle this?

• BB is 600
• Player 1 raises to 1200
• Player 2 throws two T1000 chip into the pot, says nothing
• Players 3-6 all fold around to player 1
• Player 1 (who thinks it's a raise) re-raises to T5k
• Player 2 says oh wait that was just a call, you can't raise.

Since there is no 2-chip rule, my question is equivalent to your question (which had the stipulation that there was no 1-chip rule).

Per Robert's Rules v11:

Betting, #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.

As such, unless there was a verbal declaration prior to releasing those chips (call, raise to 1800), player 2 raised to 2k. Done. Personally at my game, if they were a new player and I was convinced they truly didn't understand the rule, they'd be given the option of folding and only needing to pay 1200 into the pot. But they'd also get a warning that next time their action would stand.

This second case is actually the perfect example showing why the rule exists. Players throw out one chip to call all the time, especially when you're at odd blind levels early in a tourney (ie call a T75 bet with a T100 chip). Most of the time it's because they physically don't have the chips to post the exact amount, but sometimes it's to speed up the game (ie one player bets T75, 3 call with T100s and grab the T25 change instead of splashing 12 more T25s), other times it's simply because they're lazy. It's poker sign language - betting 1 chip vs 1+ chips is a non verbal indication of action for those who would prefer not to verbalize everything. There are lots of reasons for it - like it's noisy in the room or maybe you just don't want to give off a verbal tell. @inca911 's example of adding a small chip to an oversized bet is perfect - it 100% clearly tells everyone at the table your intent.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Ok, what if player 2 only had one T100 chip in his stack?

I don't see how this makes a difference? Without the 1-chip rule, a 500 is still a 500, i.e. a raise.

I could ask you the same: What if player 2 only had 1 T100 in the example I gave you? It doesn't make a difference, does it?

Players throw out one chip to call all the time

Because of the 1-chip rule, right? I hardly think they would do that without it! I know I wouldn't! ;-)

It's poker sign language - betting 1 chip vs 1+ chips is a non verbal indication of action for those who would prefer not to verbalize everything

...or has it become poker sign language? Ya know, because of the rule?

I don't think players behaviors formed this rule since the behaviours wouldn't have worked without the rule in the first place.

...unless! Are you perhaps saying that players frequently placed a single overchip and said "call", until someone one day finally put the foot down and said "You know what? This is silly! Let's just agree that 1 chip is a call!"? That would actually make sense, that the sign language finally formed the rule.

@inca911 's example of adding a small chip to an oversized bet is perfect - it 100% clearly tells everyone at the table your intent

Yes, I do it myself a lot. I wouldn't have to, though, if there wasn't a rule in place that 500 is not always 500 ;-)

 

[TheJack]

Tournament. 1 level. 25/50. I am after rebuy. Dealer gave me 2 T5000 chips. Im first to act. I put T5000 chip, dont say nothing. Is that clearly a 100BB open raise?

 

[Mr Winberg]

Tournament. 1 level. 25/50. I am after rebuy. Dealer gave me 2 T5000 chips. Im first to act. I put T5000 chip, dont say nothing. Is that clearly a 100BB open raise?

As per the 1 chip rule, that's clearly a call.

Without the 1-chip rule (hypothetical scenario), that's a raise.


@Irish, I swear this was not a setup!! I did some googling and it turns out that the TDA says the answer to the question I gave you is actually a call!! Like WTF!!

45: Multiple Chip Betting

A: If facing a bet, unless raise or all-in is declared first, a multiple-chip bet (including a bet of your last chips) is a call if every chip is needed to make the call; i.e. removal of just one of the smallest chips leaves less than the call amount.

https://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/

So apparently, sliding in 2 T1000 chips when facing a bet of 1200 is actually a CALL!?!?






So.... does anyone know the reason for rule #45....?