Cash Game One chip rule (3 Viewers)

[krafticus]

so, if the blinds are 200/400, and you are the BB. You only have a 1k chip, do you have to raise by default, or do you have to announce call when you put the blinds out?

According to your rule, that would be a forced raise.

 

[TheJack]

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....?

Thats my point. You say its ether raise or call. I say its not clear. Thats why we need a rule. If we say 1 big chip is a raise, then guy in 25/50 by small mistake just put 4950 at risk. So its a call.

 

[JScott]

Thats my point. You say its ether raise or call. I say its not clear. Thats why we need a rule. If we say 1 big chip is a raise, then guy in 25/50 by small mistake just put 4950 at risk. So its a call.

Why can’t they verbalize their intent in this case? Without the rule it’s a raise, with it, it’s a call.

Is it much more difficult saying “call” vs “raise”?

Why don’t we make them verbalize a call, rather than make them verbalize a raise. The rule is still unnecessary in this situation.

 

[moose]

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.


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.


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


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.


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!

Because there a tons of situations in tournaments and cash where a player does not have the chips to match a bet and must use an oversized chip. So you force the player to raise unless he verbally declares call?

Do you continue to drive on the left because you think it is better or do you follow accepted convention?

 

[TheJack]

Why can’t they verbalize their intent in this case? Without the rule it’s a raise, with it, it’s a call.

Is it much more difficult saying “call” vs “raise”?

Why don’t we make them verbalize a call, rather than make them verbalize a raise. The rule is still unnecessary in this situation.

Other situation. The bet is 5 black 100 chips. You want to call and take that 500 chip and say nothing because its clear you are calling. you just made the mistake and actualy put 5000 chip because its same collor as your homegame 500.
You did not get my point. Its not call or raise. Its call, raise and not clear. This rule makes "not clear" situations as a call. Its also harder to enforce action then regulate passive behavior.

 

[moose]

Why can’t they verbalize their intent in this case? Without the rule it’s a raise, with it, it’s a call.

Is it much more difficult saying “call” vs “raise”?

Why don’t we make them verbalize a call, rather than make them verbalize a raise. The rule is still unnecessary in this situation.

Which penalizes the player more, not saying call or not saying raise? Which influences the action more? Forcing a call or forcing a raise? Which affects the other players in the hand more?

Defaulting to a call is the obvious choice.

 

[TheDuke]

If the spirit of the rule is to make things clear for the dealer, it doesn’t make sense.

I think a standard set of rules is to make things clear for players as well.

You could change this rule at your own home game if you wanted. But then you're setting up your inexperienced players for conflict if they head to other home games or the casino.

I don't think this rule is confusing for most people once explained to them the first time. Same thing as string bets, acting out of turn, talking about their folded hand when others are still playing, looking thru the muck, etc, etc, etc, etc.

You may need to remind them a few times but eventually they'll get it and they won't slow down the game as much. It's about efficiency. Makes the game play smoother and reduces dumb arguments players may get into.

 

[ktran]

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....?

I think the rule is that it has to be at least twice the size of the bet to be considered a raise so at least 2400. This also prevent angling. So I don't get the rule of the single chip raise rule, there's angling either way. And it's clear that your at least calling if you put chips in regardless if it's under that what is supposed to be.

 

[TheOffalo]

I think the rule is that it has to be at least twice the size of the bet to be considered a raise so at least 2400. This also prevent angling. So I don't get the rule of the single chip raise rule, there's angling either way. And it's clear that your at least calling if you put chips in regardless if it's under that what is supposed to be.

Depends on if the 1200 was an original bet or a raise from 600.

If the original bet was 600, and someone raises to 1200 (an increase of 600) then the next raise can be as low as 1800 (another increase or 600), which works with the two-1000 chips example.

 

[Irish]

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

You're missing the point. If I only have a single T100 chip in my stack, how do I call a 200 chip bet without speaking, without the one chip rule in place? You can't. That's the reason for the rule.

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?

• 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.

If player 2 only had 1 T1k in this example, the example wouldn't work lol. If he only had say 1 T1k and the rest T5ks, any two chips he throws in would be a raise, the ruling would be the same. If he throws in one (of any denom), it's a call without verbal declaration.

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

No, it's because of all the other reasons I mentioned (physically don't have the chips, speed up the game, lazy).

...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.



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 ;-)

Of course the rules have had an impact on player behavior, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason to have the rule in the first place. And again, that reason is that it provides players with a means of either calling or raising without having to verbalize. 1 chip = call, 1+ chips = raise. The chips can do the talking if the player doesn't want to.

 

[Irish]

@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....?

Not sure, I'm not as familiar with TDA, I've always defaulted to RRoP as it covers both cash and tourneys and I'd prefer using the same rules all the time. But it sounds like a good reason not to use TDA Looking at it closer, it looks to be more a rule for determining "official" bet sizing when the bet amount is incorrect (undersized) - similar to the provisions in RRoP for limit games, but in a much more confusing fashion lol. RRoP FTW.

 

[grebe]

But I find so rare in my game does one need to make change that it would be a moot point.

Comparing your game to a card room 1/2 game would be exact opposites, where everybody brings $5's to the table and the dealer is constantly making change and dropping rake. Blinds and calls are routinely made with $5s. Without the one chip rule, the game would be a mess.

Also agree with @CraigT78 I think? Open your mouth and declare....this leaves no doubt.

 

[MatB]

Don’t think I did anything this time.

 

[grebe]

Don’t think I did anything this time.

crap, sorry. Edited to make it Craig

 

[MatB]

crap, sorry. Edited to make it Craig

Donkey and a fish are hard to tell apart

 

[LeLe]

Not everyone in Asia who play Poker know about the 1 chip rules, especially since that not a lot of Casinos opportunity here compare to US

We always encourage the person to speak up call / raise or flop whatever even if he just throw in the chip without saying anything ; we mostly play Home Cash Game that is on a more casual setting

 

[Mr Winberg]

so, if the blinds are 200/400, and you are the BB. You only have a 1k chip, do you have to raise by default, or do you have to announce call when you put the blinds out?

According to your rule, that would be a forced raise.

My rule? What's my rule? I use the 1-chip rule. So no, according to my rule it would definately be a call.

Without the 1-chip rule, you would have to speak when calling. So not really a forced raise, but I see what you're saying.

You say its ether raise or call. I say its not clear.

I think you're misunderstanding me. What I mean is: If you adhere to all rules of poker, but the 1-chip rule was removed, then how can this be an unclear raise? What paragraph is left that says anything about this being a call? I can't find one.

It's the same as if you want to call 300 with 3×T100 but accidentally take 3×T500. That's a raise clear as day, even if the player didn't intend it.

If you were asking about what the player intended, and not what the rules say the action is, then I need to change my response!

So you force the player to raise unless he verbally declares call?

That would be an implication of not having a 1 chip rule.

Do you continue to drive on the left because you think it is better or do you follow accepted convention?

I'm completely lost here. What are you trying to say?

Are you saying that if I asked the question "Why do some many countries drive on the right? Why is not left the convention?" your response would be "because it's convention"?

Because that's what I am doing here. I am not proposing to remove the rule. In my very first post I made the claim that the rule is there to speed up the game. Then I debunked claims that it was added to remove angling etc. So far, the only responses that can't be debunked are "it speeds up the game" and the somewhat related "you never have to speek when calling".

Are you saying I was correct?

If I only have a single T100 chip in my stack, how do I call a 200 chip bet without speaking, without the one chip rule in place? You can't. That's the reason for the rule

That's a reason. We're getting somewhere, now there are two reasons! Speed and to allow callers (but not always raisers) to stay silent.

If player 2 only had 1 T1k in this example, the example wouldn't work lol.

Read it again, I wrote 1 T100, not T1000. I wanted to make the point that the situation is identical: you can't call without speaking.


But then TDA's two-chip rule destroyed my example. Turns out you can, and 2×T1000 is a call!

it provides players with a means of either calling or raising without having to verbalize

Agreed! Although it sometimes removes the ability to raise without verbalizing. For e.g. BB is 200 and your lowest chip is a T500. Because of the rule you need to verbalize. But I understand that this is less frequent.

But it sounds like a good reason not to use TDA

Preach!

it looks to be more a rule for determining "official" bet sizing when the bet amount is incorrect (undersized)

I've reread it a few times now. I'm no expert, but it definitely looks like it's an expansion of the 1-chip rule, making several chips a call if removing 1 chip would make the wager less than the current bet.
TDA already covers undersized bets. To little and it's a call. If it's a raise of less than 50% of the allowed raise, it's a call. 50% or more and it's a raise.

 

[T_Chan]

At my games I often ask as 90% of the time it means raise.

Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to ask all the time? With the rule in place, you only have to ask if you aren't paying attention and a player asks if it's a raise or not (technically they should be paying attention too). Having dealt many 8+ hour long sessions, I wouldn't want to deal at a game that didn't have that rule in place.

As others have mentioned too, making an oversize /single chip as a call is the more passive approach. Turning it into an automatic raise while be more punitive imo.

 

[ktran]

You're missing the point. If I only have a single T100 chip in my stack, how do I call a 200 chip bet without speaking, without the one chip rule in place? You can't. That's the reason for the rule.

• 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.

If player 2 only had 1 T1k in this example, the example wouldn't work lol. If he only had say 1 T1k and the rest T5ks, any two chips he throws in would be a raise, the ruling would be the same. If he throws in one (of any denom), it's a call without verbal declaration.


No, it's because of all the other reasons I mentioned (physically don't have the chips, speed up the game, lazy).



Of course the rules have had an impact on player behavior, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason to have the rule in the first place. And again, that reason is that it provides players with a means of either calling or raising without having to verbalize. 1 chip = call, 1+ chips = raise. The chips can do the talking if the player doesn't want to.

I find it easier to announce a one chip a call rather than having to announce it as a raise. Either way the dealer has to clarify it.

 

[Irish]

Read it again, I wrote 1 T100, not T1000. I wanted to make the point that the situation is identical: you can't call without speaking.

??? Sure you can, you throw in just the T100 chip (or ANY 1 chip). Call.


Again, it's really simple, don't overthink it. The main betting rule is:

RRoP, 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....

Supplemented by:

RRoP, Betting, #15:
If you put a single chip in the pot that is larger than the bet, but do not announce a raise, you are assumed to have only called....

You need both. Without #15, anytime someone throws 1 oversized chip into the pot, their action is ambiguous unless verbalized. #15 is there to clarify action - it allows a quick, non verbal means of saying call and eliminates someone from throwing 1 chip out and trying to angle.


If you changed #13 to say releasing anything into the pot (1 chip or 1+ chips) above the call amount is considered a raise and deleted #15 (ie, eliminate the one chip rule), you've now forcing someone who doesn't have the EXACT call amount to say "call".

 

[ktran]

Depends on if the 1200 was an original bet or a raise from 600.

If the original bet was 600, and someone raises to 1200 (an increase of 600) then the next raise can be as low as 1800 (another increase or 600), which works with the two-1000 chips example.

Are you sure about that? I thought it was at least double of the previous bet.

 

[grebe]

Are you sure about that? I thought it was at least double of the previous bet.

It is double the bet. The bet is 600 (NOT 1200)

 

[ktran]

It is double the bet. The bet is 600 (NOT 1200)

I was referring to his post. He stated if the bet was 600 and then re-raised to 1200. The next re-raised/3-bet has to be at least 2400? And I'm referring to No-limit Hold'em. Or is it just matching the first raiser increments?

 

[Mr Winberg]

Sure you can, you throw in just the T100 chip (or ANY 1 chip). Call.

Actually, TDA rule 41 (same link as above):

"Silently betting chip(s) relatively tiny to the bet [...] is non-standard, strongly discouraged, subject to penalty, and will be interpreted at TDs discretion, including being ruled a full call."

The final part is no biggie since being ruled a full call is what you are after. But the other stuff is stuff you would like to avoid.

Again, it's really simple, don't overthink it.

I'm not overthinking it. I'm merely analyzing the reason for the rule. When people give reasons that are not logical, I speak up. I'm not in anyway against it!

You need both. Without #15, anytime someone throws 1 oversized chip, their action is ambiguous unless verbalized

This is where we disagree. If all rules where kept, but the 1-chip rule never ever existed (think about it. Try to visualize it. It never existed, nobody ever thought of it, nobody knows about it), then a single chip is not ambiguous. It's very, very clear what the action is.

it allows a quick, non verbal means of saying call

Yes, agreed. A good reason indeed.

and eliminates someone from throwing 1 chip out and trying to angle

Here we disagree as well. There is no way to angle (in this context, I should add) even without the rule. If I push a 500 chip forward (and there is no 1-chip rule, there has never been a one chip rule, nobody has ever even thought of it), people fold, I get raised and now I say "no, I was calling 200", that claim would get shut down. 500 was a raise, period. Trust me, I played several years being completely oblivious to this rule, with people who were completely oblivious to the rule. What you bet was what you bet.

I have yet to see a scenario where you could successfully angle like above, either with or without the rule. I would be very glad to hear one.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I was referring to his post. He stated if the bet was 600 and then re-raised to 1200. The next re-raised/3-bet has to be at least 2400? And I'm referring to No-limit Hold'em. Or is it just matching the first raiser increments?

This is perfectly legal:
Blinds 300/600
P1 raises to 1200
P2 raises to 1800
P3 raises to 2400
All are raising at least the previous raise.
P4 raises to 2600. That's a call, since it was less than half of the legal raise. The bet is still 2400
P5 raises to 2700. That's rounded up to a min raise, i.e. to 3000, since it's at least half the legal raise.

 

[Mr Winberg]

This is perfectly legal:
Blinds 300/600
P1 raises to 1200
P2 raises to 1800
P3 raises to 2400
All are raising at least the previous raise.
P4 raises to 2600. That's a call, since it was less than half of the legal raise. The bet is still 2400
P5 raises to 2700. That's rounded up to a min raise, i.e. to 3000, since it's at least half the legal raise.

P6 raises to 5000....or so he thought. He is a noob, and pushed out a 5k chip. I.e. it's a call. He protests, people look at him like he is the most stupid creature they have seen. How can he think a 5k chip means 5k? What a moron!!
P7 calls 3000 by pushing 1 T100 forward and gets a 1 round penalty.


(The P6 story is similar to how I learned the rule! )

 

[TheJack]

It better learn it this way then accidently raise 25k and Eli Elezra reraise you to 300k and you have to fold

 

[ktran]

P6 raises to 5000....or so he thought. He is a noob, and pushed out a 5k chip. I.e. it's a call. He protests, people look at him like he is the most stupid creature they have seen. How can he think a 5k chip means 5k? What a moron!!
P7 calls 3000 by pushing 1 T100 forward and gets a 1 round penalty.


(The P6 story is similar to how I learned the rule! )

Is there even a strategic reason to min raise like this? I can see it reasonable in tournaments?

 

[Mr Winberg]

Is there even a strategic reason to min raise like this? I can see it reasonable in tournaments?

That's a completely separate discussion.

In the last tourney I played, I 3 bet with a min raise simply to provoke a person at the table who was constantly (and unnecessarily) explaining rules etc. It worked, he said the bet is not allowed, I played dumb (which is very easy for me) and asked why. After a few iterations of this he finally realized his mistake. That shut him right up. Then I took the pot down showing 9 high like a BOSS

 

[JScott]

Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to ask all the time? With the rule in place, you only have to ask if you aren't paying attention and a player asks if it's a raise or not (technically they should be paying attention too). Having dealt many 8+ hour long sessions, I wouldn't want to deal at a game that didn't have that rule in place.

As others have mentioned too, making an oversize /single chip as a call is the more passive approach. Turning it into an automatic raise while be more punitive imo.

That's the thing, every single time they put out an oversized chip, they intend to raise. The one player who knows the "rules" in my game protests that it's just a call. This is what sparked my thread, I always explain the rule, but there's never been a good argument for it, and even after 3 pages of very logical posts, I still haven't seen one that makes really good sense.

What I really find funny is the player in my game that knows the 'rule' uses it more like an angle because he can "call" with a single oversized chip and other newer players assume it's a raise and will fold. I've seen the original bettor fold to this when they didn't realize it was just a call. It's also been used by him to try and force someone else to just call his bet when it was clear they were intending to raise (this is always the intent when someone uses a $25 chip and has stacks of $5's in front of them). I'd warn him, but technically he's playing by the rules. This is why I explain the oversized chip rule, but to be honest, it's detrimental to my game. And even though I can explain the rule, look at the examples above and you can see how it doesn't actually make sense.