Cash Game One chip rule (3 Viewers)

[Poker Zombie]

I hate joining a thread late, but...

"Call" is one of the more difficult words to hear in a busy casino. Monosyllabic, and... dull? (looking for a proper term here). It can be said without moving your teeth or lips.

It can be even more difficult to hear if the player is reluctant to call, is looking down at his stack, and perhaps a little choked up with indecision. A cough at the same time could completely hide the caller's intent.

Raise, on the other hand, is a word that buzzes over the drone of a casino. The jaw moves. Unless you physically are trying to remain motionless, your lips move to expose the teeth. the "z" sound carries over a brief cough.

Defaulting to call instead of a raise when unheard does the least amount of damage when the dealer misses the true intent. Therefore, the one oversized chip rule should default to a call.

 

[grebe]

Do you see what I mean? The 1-chip rule is the only exception to "chips speak". Without it, there is no exception.

Well actually.........verbal declare takes precedence. If you say $15 and put in $20, the bet is $15.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Before you read this: I am for the 1-chip rule!

TDA rule #40 says that "chips speak" unless you verbalized the bet.

Hence, without the 1-chip rule the lone 500 would be a 500, i.e. a raise if the BB is 200. Zero ambiguity.

My responses below are the dealers reaponses in a world were TDA rule nr 41 doesn't cover the use of an overchip to call.

• 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 re-raises to T2k
• Player 2 (who was bluffing) says oh wait that was just a call, you can't raise.

Dealer: Sorry, according to rule #40 the chips speak.
Angle status: Failed

Without #15, there is no rule that clearly indicates that player 2 has either called or raised. It's ambiguous - and until it's clarified player 2 can use that to his advantage.

In the TDA world, rule #40 covers this. Chips speak. No ambiguity. Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with rrop to know if it has something similar.

• 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 checks
• Player 2 (who has aces) says no no no no I raised to T500!

Dealer: Yes player 1, player 2 raised according to rule #40.
Angle status: not applicable. Player 2 wanted to raise and that's what he did. No way he could return.

Game is 1/2 in a casino/card room. blinds are $1 and $2. UTG sits with 2 stacks of $5 chips. He slides a red bird out in front of him without saying a word. What does this mean? Is it a call? Is it a raise? What shall we do? Stop the game and ask him? What if the next guy says "call" and also slides out a fiver? What if the next gal says "call" and slides out 5 whites? Now where are we?

Dealer: sliding out a red bird is a raise to $5 according to rule #40. No need to stop and ask.
Ambiguity factor: zero.


With rule 41 as it stands today, there are still no angling possibilities nor any ambiguity.

Which is my point. The 1-chip rule is a good rule that speeds up the game, but it doesn't remove ambiguity nor angles.

 

[Irish]

I just meant that it doesn't remove any angling possibilities. If it does, please give me an example.

Expanded my original example here: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/one-chip-rule.83251/post-1705793

I can't offer anything clearer than that.

Actually, what it sounds like you're looking for is a rule setup like what @LeLe describes here: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/one-chip-rule.83251/post-1705885

where your chips always speak, regardless of what you say. Personally this sounds horrible to me, but to each their own.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Well actually.........verbal declare takes precedence. If you say $15 and put in $20, the bet is $15.

Yes if course. See my latest post, I'm referring to silent bets. I thought we were all talking about silent bets here!

 

[Mr Winberg]

Actually, what it sounds like you're looking fo

Looking for?? C'mon, how many times do I have to type this: I'm happy with the rule! I just want to know its history! How can that not be clear after all my posts!?!

where your chips always speak, regardless of what you say

Where have I ever in any way alluded that I want chips taking precedence over verbalizations?? C'mon!

 

[Mr Winberg]

Expanded my original example here: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/one-chip-rule.83251/post-1705793

Yes, thanks, I responded to both

 

[Irish]

Before you read this: I am for the 1-chip rule!

TDA rule #40 says that "chips speak" unless you verbalized the bet.

Hence, without the 1-chip rule the lone 500 would be a 500, i.e. a raise if the BB is 200. Zero ambiguity.

My responses below are the dealers reaponses in a world were TDA rule nr 41 doesn't cover the use of an overchip to call.

Dealer: Sorry, according to rule #40 the chips speak.
Angle status: Failed

In the TDA world, rule #40 covers this. Chips speak. No ambiguity. Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with rrop to know if it has something similar.

Dealer: Yes player 1, player 2 raised according to rule #40.
Angle status: not applicable. Player 2 wanted to raise and that's what he did. No way he could return.

Dealer: sliding out a red bird is a raise to $5 according to rule #40. No need to stop and ask.
Ambiguity factor: zero.


With rule 41 as it stands today, there are still no angling possibilities nor any ambiguity.

Which is my point. The 1-chip rule is a good rule that speeds up the game, but it doesn't remove ambiguity nor angles.

I post an example with all RRoP rules cited, and you reply with rules from TDA. I'm sorry but we're obviously speaking different languages, maybe someone with some TDA experience can help you out.

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

I post an example with all RRoP rules cited, and you reply with rules from TDA. I'm sorry but we're obviously speaking different languages, maybe someone with some TDA experience can help you out.

Actually Rule 41 says:
Standard and acceptable forms of calling include: A) saying “call”; B) pushing out chips equal to a call; C) silently pushing out an overchip;

So TDA has the one oversized chip rule as well. It specifically says silently. So no verbal declarations are always a call in TDA rules too.

 

[TheJack]

Conclusion of this discution should be: GET MORE CHIPS!!! and give it to the players

 

[Mr Winberg]

Actually Rule 41 says:
Standard and acceptable forms of calling include: A) saying “call”; B) pushing out chips equal to a call; C) silently pushing out an overchip;

So TDA has the one oversized chip rule as well. It specifically says silently. So no verbal declarations are always a call in TDA rules too.

I know! Did you even read what I wrote? Read again, please. I even cited that VERY rule in my posts!!

I post an example with all RRoP rules cited, and you reply with rules from TDA.

Well I did apologize for that. Are you saying there's no rule in rrop that says that chips speak? No need for facepalms, at the very least I showed that under TDA, the rule doesn't remove ambiguity or angling regarding silent bets with single chips. I have a hunch it's the same with rrop, though can't verify it.

Question to you: If rule 15 was removed from rrop, where is there any support that I can use to claim that a T500 chip doesn't speak, that it's just a call? Like if I'm angling and claiming "no, it's not 500, I called 200", which rule should I reference?

Forgot the disclaimer: I like and use the 1-chip rule and don't want it removed.

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

I know! Did you even read what I wrote? Read again, please. I even cited that VERY rule in my posts!!


Well I did apologize for that. Are you saying there's no rule in rrop that says that chips speak? No need for facepalms, at the very least I showed that under TDA, the rule doesn't remove ambiguity or angling regarding silent bets with single chips. I have a hunch it's the same with rrop, though can't verify it.

Question to you: If rule 15 was removed from rrop, where is there any support that I can use to claim that a T500 chip doesn't speak, that it's just a call? Like if I'm angling and claiming "no, it's not 500, I called 200", which rule should I reference?

Forgot the disclaimer: I like and use the 1-chip rule and don't want it removed.

I was just citing the rule for those who hadn’t read it or didn’t know it.

 

[TheJack]

Or.. Play Limit

 

[Mr Winberg]

Conclusion of this discution should be: GET MORE CHIPS!!! and give it to the players

One conclusion can be seen in post 6:

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.

People then added that it also speeds up the game because calling is more frequent than raising and that it makes a mistake less costly. I really liked @Poker Zombie 's take on it, that a loud casino environment needs an easy, non-verbal way of calling, whereas raises are more easily heard.

Now it's just a fun theoretical discussion on if it removes ambiguity or angling.

Not sure why, but some folks think I dislike the rule?

 

[JScott]

One conclusion can be seen in post 6:

People then added that it also speeds up the game because calling is more frequent than raising and that it makes a mistake less costly. I really liked @Poker Zombie 's take on it, that a loud casino environment needs an easy, non-verbal way of calling, whereas raises are more easily heard.

Now it's just a fun theoretical discussion on if it removes ambiguity or angling.

Not sure why, but some folks think I dislike the rule?

I’m with ya. Not every thread has to be an argument. It can be a productive discussion which I honestly think this has!

 

[CrazyEddie]

@Mr Winberg , I believe the main misunderstanding between you and @Irish is that @Irish contends that Rule #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....

... uses the word "chips", plural, and thus is completely silent on what happens if someone releases only one chip, singular, into the pot. Accordingly, @Irish contends (I believe) that if someone releases only a single chip into the pot, Rule #13 does not specify what, if anything, that means, since one chip is not "chips" and Rule #13 only talks about "chips", not one chip. And thus, according to @Irish (I believe), only Rule #15 can tell us what releasing a single chip into the pot means. Without Rule #15, releasing one chip (not "chips", not more than one chip) into the pot could mean nothing at all - Rule #13 doesn't apply, and thus the player is not bound by that action and is not required to make the amount of the wager correct. Thus Rule #15 is required to understand what releasing a single chip into the pot means.

I think this is a terribly strained interpretation of Rule #13, so strained as to be incorrect. I think that Rule #13 is intended to have the common-sense understanding that the word "chips" in this particular case means "one or more chips", and that the effect of Rule #13 is not altered one iota by doing so. Quite naturally, if you bet or call by releasing a single chip into the pot, you are bound by that action and must make the amount of the wager correct, which is what Rule #13 says. For example, if you open the betting on the flop by putting a single chip into the pot, but the chip you put into the pot was smaller than the minimum bet, you are bound by your action (betting) and must make the amount of the wager correct (you must increase your wager to the minimum bet).

Accordingly, to the extent that @Irish has been saying that only Rule #15 specifies how to interpret a single-chip bet because Rule #13 explicitly covers multiple-chip actions only (due to the use of the word "chips"), I'd say that his argument is untenable.

 

[TheOffalo]

I agree "chips" in the rule should mean "one or more chips" or "chips on the table" or something general, and not specifically more-than-one-chip.

There are rules about "cards" in RRoP and I don't think people would claim those rules wouldn't apply to a Turn (or a River) because it's one card and not multiple cards.

 

[Irish]

@Mr Winberg I was curious, so I read through the TDA rules, they read very differently than RRoP, so I better understand us speaking past each other now. There are actually like 5 different TDA sections (40-45) that cover the betting topics discussed in this thread, vs just 2 in RRoP, it's a very different approach.

Question to you: If rule 15 was removed from rrop, where is there any support that I can use to claim that a T500 chip doesn't speak, that it's just a call? Like if I'm angling and claiming "no, it's not 500, I called 200", which rule should I reference?

The main betting rule in RRoP is Betting #13, that's the provision I'd use to angle:

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....

Note that it says bets or calls, there's no distinction. There are no "chips speak" provisions in RRoP. Hence why you need the one chip rule to prevent angles, #13 & #15 are written to complement and work together.

TDA is structured totally different, you have different sections that specifically define what actions constitute either betting or calling. The provisions for betting (40) - where you're getting the "chips speak" notion, is only intended for betting (whereas they're mixed in one provision in RRoP). If you remove the one chip provisions from TDA (delete 41C and all of 45), you're essentially just deleting one method of calling:

TDA 41: Methods of Calling

Standard and acceptable forms of calling include: A) saying “call”; B) pushing out chips equal to a call; C) silently pushing out an overchip; or D) silently pushing out multiple chips equal to a call under the multi-chip rule (Rule 45). Silently betting chip(s) relatively tiny to the bet (ex: blinds 2k-4k. A bets 50k, B then silently puts out one 1k chip) is non-standard, strongly discouraged, subject to penalty, and will be interpreted at TDs discretion, including being ruled a full call.

It's an important one though, because by removing 41C, you're forcing someone who doesn't have "exact change" (B/D) to say "call", which as others have noted above, can be problematic.

So yes, if you're starting with TDA as the basis and deleting those one chip provisions, it looks like you can continue with rulings without the angle shooting problem. However you'd still have all the other issues noted above, that's why the rules are there. Slightly different reasons than with RRoP but still appropriate IMHO.

 

[Mr Winberg]

@Irish, I actually read through RROP as I was curious too!

I came to the same conclusion as you and @CrazyEddie did, i.e.

@Mr Winberg , I believe the main misunderstanding between you and @Irish is that @Irish contends that Rule #13:


... uses the word "chips", plural, and thus is completely silent on what happens if someone releases only one chip, singular, into the pot.

This really hit the nail on the head.

Irish, you reading TDA and thinking about it from that side just proved @JScott's point:

Not every thread has to be an argument. It can be a productive discussion which I honestly think this has!

@CrazyEddie, @TheOffalo, regarding the interpretation of the use of plural "chips" - I'm not touching that one with a 12 foot pole! As a Swede I have the luxury to stay out of grammatical analyses of your language. ;-)







Now....how about that Big Blind Ante, eh?

 

[TheOffalo]

Now....how about that Big Blind Ante, eh?

Well, according BRoP* rule #42, posting the BBA w/a single chip of at least twice the BBA amount means you're straddling the entire hand, taking position away from the button post-flop, unless the button verbalizes "dibs" to take back position.

*Bull$#!+ rules of Poker

 

[Mr Winberg]

Well, according BRoP* rule #42, posting the BBA w/a single chip of at least twice the BBA amount means you're straddling the entire hand, taking position away from the button post-flop, unless the button verbalizes "dibs" to take back position.

*Bull$#!+ rules of Poker

That's phrased slightly differently in TDA, but yeah, same ballpark

 

[JustinInMN]

In Canada we're just much nicer to each other than you Bostononians.

Unless your hockey team loses the Stanley Cup in 2011. (Edit to add: There was a riot in 1994 too.)

 

[Irish]

@Irish, I actually read through RROP as I was curious too!

I came to the same conclusion as you and @CrazyEddie did, i.e.


This really hit the nail on the head.

It's both the plural use of chip vs chips, plus overall language of the rule, rule #13 of RRoP doesn't distinguish action (bet vs call), that's why you need #15.

Bottom line: the rule is needed, and it's there (in both sets of rules) for all of the reasons given in this thread (be it slightly different if you're using TDA vs RRoP).

 

[CrazyEddie]

@CrazyEddie, @TheOffalo, regarding the interpretation of the use of plural "chips" - I'm not touching that one with a 12 foot pole! As a Swede I have the luxury to stay out of grammatical analyses of your language. ;-)

Dangblasted furriners!

 

[Mr Winberg]

Dangblasted furriners!

We terk yerr jerbs!

 

[upNdown]

Is language a factor here?
You discussed how if there was a single chip raise rule instead, a player would have to announce call every time they didn’t have exact change.
The existing single chip rule requires less speaking at the table, which is better for security cameras and for people who don’t speak the language.

 

[JScott]

Unless your hockey team loses the Stanley Cup in 2011. (Edit to add: There was a riot in 1994 too.)

Those were all Washingtonians traveling to Canada to cause trouble. Hooligans.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Is language a factor here?
You discussed how if there was a single chip raise rule instead, a player would have to announce call every time they didn’t have exact change.
The existing single chip rule requires less speaking at the table, which is better for security cameras and for people who don’t speak the language.

Possibly!

 

[JustinInMN]

So just because this thread needs one more comment...

I appreciate the point @JScott and @Mr Winberg are trying to make. Why can't every chip just mean what it says on the chip? This seems instinctive to players. What is the advantage to the oversize chip rule? There should be a good reason.

Now whether or not the oversize chip rule exists, some exception requiring a verbal declaration is required to accommodate players that don't have exact change. And while in theory verbal declarations should protect the actor (and for that reason, I suggest using them), if they are missed, rulings contrary to the intention of the player become possible.

So using the oversize chip rule shifts the requirement of a verbal declaration to the raiser, instead of what would otherwise be on the caller. They want to do know what the good reason for this would be, beyond "that's just the rule."

Personally, I am satisfied that @grebe made the best point in #102. It is much better for pace of play to assume a single chip is a call instead of needing verbal declarations from multiple players facing a $2 big blind. Everyone dropping a single $5 chip calls, anyone dropping a $5 plus any other chip is raising. Dealer can make change for everyone all at once. Also, I think there is rationality that since "call" is the lesser action to a "raise" that treating "call" as the "default" will do less damage in the event of a misunderstanding.

But those are two reasons that are good enough for me aside from "that's just the rule."

 

[JustinInMN]

Those were all Washingtonians traveling to Canada to cause trouble. Hooligans.

Yeah, sure it was.