Dumb question about a raise or call. (2 Viewers)

[allforcharity]

At one of our home games, this would for sure be a call, since there is a cash game house rule that a valid raise must be at least double the value of the last bet.

 

[WedgeRock]

I would put two chips out and make this nerdy gesture. Would this get me insta banned from your game?
View attachment 1386421

What the skibidi rizz, Sigma?

 

[Kentucky]

At one of our home games, this would for sure be a call, since there is a cash game house rule that a valid raise must be at least double the value of the last bet.

Don’t start that again

 

[Pokerdweebz]

 

[BPTDirector]

View attachment 1386423

But he put out 2 chips. If he could have put out a $5 and a $1, then two $5’s would be a raise since he could have called with two chips. If he does not have tha capacity to call with a $1 chip then 2 $5 chips would constitute a call. It’s very simple.

 

[UniLover]

I would think it's a straight up raise.

Did he have any smaller chips? If yes then raise. If no then call.

I mean, his definition of a raise changes based on whether there are smaller chips behind. The possibilities are wide open here.

Did he have any $1 chips? If he did it’s a raise, if not it’s a call.

But he put out 2 chips. If he could have put out a $5 and a $1, then two $5’s would be a raise since he could have called with two chips. If he does not have tha capacity to call with a $1 chip then 2 $5 chips would constitute a call. It’s very simple.

@BPTDirector Thank you! That’s exactly what I was getting at to interpret their action! But noooooo, the possibilities are apparently “wide open”!

 

[BGinGA]

It's a crazy misguided rule.

Scenario: A bets $2 bet, B raises $4 to $6 total, C tosses out two $5 chips (totaling $10, a legal re-raise amount of $4 more).

• if C first says 'call', it's a call
• if C first says 'raise', it's a raise
• if C remains silent, it's a call... wait, wat?

That last one seems nuts to me. C put in a legal raise amount, and it should not matter if it consisted of ten $1 chips, two $5 chips, or a $5 chip and five $1s. It's still a multiple-chip bet totaling a legal raise amount.

The TDA gang got this one wrong, imo.... mostly because there is no need for their rule in the first place.

 

[drdr]

It's a crazy misguided rule.

Scenario: A bets $2 bet, B raises $4 to $6 total, C tosses out two $5 chips (totaling $10, a legal re-raise amount of $4 more).

• if C first says 'call', it's a call
• if C first says 'raise', it's a raise
• if C remains silent, it's a call... wait, wat?

That last one seems nuts to me. C put in a legal raise amount, and it should not matter if it consisted of ten $1 chips, two $5 chips, or a $5 chip and five $1s. It's still a multiple-chip bet totaling a legal raise amount.

The TDA gang got this one wrong, imo.... mostly because there is no need for their rule in the first place.

Exactly how it appears to me also. If sufficient chips for a raise have been pushed (beyond a single chip) then it looks like raise. Opens angling attempts. Chips speak (normally) but if a call is intended in this scenario that should be verbalised.

 

[drdr]

But he put out 2 chips. If he could have put out a $5 and a $1, then two $5’s would be a raise since he could have called with two chips. If he does not have tha capacity to call with a $1 chip then 2 $5 chips would constitute a call. It’s very simple.

IMO, shouldn't have to inspect a stack's composition to determine all the possible actions available, to then determine what the action is. That's more complicated than necessary. Should just be able to note the chips played to understand the action.

 

[Phoe9x]

honestly if you’re finding people who min raise over a min raise in a no limit game then you let them do whatever they want and just ask them what they meant

 

[MrRossKeys]

But he put out 2 chips. If he could have put out a $5 and a $1, then two $5’s would be a raise since he could have called with two chips. If he does not have tha capacity to call with a $1 chip then 2 $5 chips would constitute a call. It’s very simple.

It doesn’t matter what chips a player has in their stack. There are no rules forcing a player to use certain denominations of chips when calling or raising.

 

[MrRossKeys]

It's a crazy misguided rule.

Scenario: A bets $2 bet, B raises $4 to $6 total, C tosses out two $5 chips (totaling $10, a legal re-raise amount of $4 more).

• if C first says 'call', it's a call
• if C first says 'raise', it's a raise
• if C remains silent, it's a call... wait, wat?

That last one seems nuts to me. C put in a legal raise amount, and it should not matter if it consisted of ten $1 chips, two $5 chips, or a $5 chip and five $1s. It's still a multiple-chip bet totaling a legal raise amount.

The TDA gang got this one wrong, imo.... mostly because there is no need for their rule in the first place.

Exactly. $4 in this specific case is a LEGAL raise amount from $6 during preflop action.

That is why I said earlier that this action would be a call post flop but a raise preflop.

 

[AcesUp907]

View attachment 1386423

what rules is this from?

 

[Pokerdweebz]

But he put out 2 chips. If he could have put out a $5 and a $1, then two $5’s would be a raise since he could have called with two chips. If he does not have tha capacity to call with a $1 chip then 2 $5 chips would constitute a call. It’s very simple.

The chips in someone's stack have no bearing here. This is always a call. It's the first sentence

 

[Pokerdweebz]

what rules is this from?

Dealer school documentation

 

[Jimulacrum]

It's a call. Minimum number of chips required to make the call, no additional chips, no raise announced. This is not materially different than if the bet was $1 and he'd thrown out a lone $5 chip.

Always best to verbalize, but the rules are clear about this and it's a call.

 

[WedgeRock]

This is not materially different than if the bet was $1 and he'd thrown out a lone $5 chip.

A single overchip without verbalization is a raise...

I think we all agree on that.

 

[glynn]

Opens angling attempts.

Again, you can eagerly defer to others on this. The purpose of the rule is to remove angling opportunities, to reduce multiple possible meanings down to one and create a shared understanding and a familiarity across markets.

You and others are thinking about it from the perspective of someone who intends to raise, but imagine a scenario where a player facing an $80 raise to $120. That player who is wanting to call can confidently throw out two black chips and know that it is a call, and the other players in the hand will know that it is a call. They are all protected by the rule.

Where you would be vulnerable is in the diminishingly rare room that follows the non-standard rule, but you would already be on high alert anyway because that is likely far from the only non-standard rule that they have.

 

[TheWhat]

$1/3 game.

Players raises to $6

Next player puts 2 $5 chips in without saying anything.

Call or raise?

I say raise because it’s not 1 chip and it’s enough for a legit raise.

What is the correct ruling?

That's just a call. A Raise would need to be $12 or higher.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

That's just a call. A Raise would need to be $12 or higher.

Min-raise is $9

 

[TheWhat]

Min-raise is $9

Raise needs to Double the previous amount, unless All In for less.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

Raise needs to Double the previous amount, unless All In for less.

Not even close

 

[Phoe9x]

Raise needs to Double the previous amount, unless All In for less.

A min raise is twice the previous raise.

BB = $3, someone raised to $6, therefore it’s a call and a $3 raise. A call plus a $3 raise on top of this would be a $9 min raise.

 

[TheWhat]

Guess we play the Canadian way like @allforcharity no half stepping here.

 

[BGinGA]

Guess we play the Canadian wrong way like @allforcharity no half stepping here.

Fyp, and absolutely correct.

 

[TheWhat]

Fyp, and absolutely correct.

Beauty of House Rules, people can come, or not.

 

[allforcharity]

Beauty of House Rules, people can come, or not.

At the home game I speak of, min-raising is considered a sign of profound hand weakness and will be jumped upon.

 

[WedgeRock]

At the home game I speak of, min-raising is considered a sign of profound hand weakness and will be jumped upon.

Seat open?

 

[TheWhat]

At the home game I speak of, min-raising is considered a sign of profound hand weakness and will be jumped upon.

I am a bit tilted, 25+ years, online or Live, both sides of the border; have never played anywhere that didn't have to double as a min raise.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Min-raise is $9

This is one of my favorite misconceptions to have to spell out for everyone in the middle of a hand.

Most players don't seem to understand when I say that each raise has to be at least the last increment of raise. Even if I use the current situation's numbers as a concrete example, I'm pretty sure half the people nodding their heads are just pretending to get it.