Need a ruling! Anyone a TD? (1 Viewer)

[stumc51]

Hi All,

At our local 'Pub' game last night we had a strange action and ruling that no one could agree on. I also looked at the 2022-2023 WSOP Tournament rules and nothing seemed to answer the question!

If anyone has a good idea and is able to give a view, or even better if you are or know a Tournament Director (TD) that would be amazing!

Here goes:
Playing NLHE, 6 players, 50/100blinds
EP Opens for 225, next player folds.
MP (who was on his phone and not paying attention) says 'raise to 300' and throws 300 in the middle.
At this point action stops and the decision was that it was a call, as his raise was not the minimum amount.
He was forced to call and wasn't happy.

What is the correct action here:
- It is a call as the chips weren't enough for a correct sized raise
- Its a raise of the minimum amount regardless of his verbal declaration

Any help much appreciated!

Also for the following 10 mins he acted like a child and went all in out of turn every hand and kept behaving badly for a while lol!

Many Thanks

Stu

 

[Gunnar]

It’s a min raise as he verbally commits to raise. As 300 is not a legal raise we go min raise

 

[raynmanas]

once he stated his action as "raise" he was committed to a raise. if he attempted an illegal raise, then he must raise the minimum. the decision made was wrong.

A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over a differing physical action.

If a player tries to bet or raise less than the legal minimum and has more chips, the wager must be increased to the proper size (but no greater).

 

[Beakertwang]

It's a min-raise to 350.

 

[buzzmonkey]

Min-raise of 225 125 more. He has to raise because he declared raise. It has to be a min-raise because he put an incorrectly small number of chips in to make a complete raise.

 

[ArielVer18]

Not a TD at a cardroom, but I like pretending to be one at home games

Like everyone else said, it's a min-raise to 350. Using the word "raise" binds the player to a raise. Since the amount declared is less than the legal amount, it must be corrected to 350. Gone are the days where we pause the action to ask the player to clarify their action. It is the player's responsibility make their intentions clear and follow the action.

If you're looking for a 2023 WSOP source, check rule 90 (Methods of Betting), specifically d (Verbal Declarations / Action in Turn) and e (Incorrect Bets, Underbets & Underraises)

You can also check the more general TDA poker rules: https://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/

 

[T_Chan]

Agreed with above, it's a min raise since the amount he declared was less than a full raise, but he must raise.

The amount of the raise may depend on the rules of the establishment, but typically if the blinds are 50/100 and someone raised $125 to $225 total, then the next incremental raise must be to $350. Some places will say he must double the last bet so it might vary, though the former is more common.

The subsequent acting like a child is also a very good indicator that you should bring pacifiers with you to the games and toss them to these kind of players when they act accordingly, and tell them to "just chill". They calm down 100% of the time, I guarantee it

 

[moose]

Min-raise of 225 more. He has to raise because he declared raise. It has to be a min-raise because he put an incorrectly small number of chips in to make a complete raise.

125 more. Original raise amount was 125.

 

[BGinGA]

Player announced 'raise', but to an illegal amount. Player must correct his action to the minimum raise amount. In this example, the previous raise amount was 125 (225 over 100), so the minimum raise amount is 125 more (225+125), or a min-raise to 350.

If his action was ruled as just a call, he is justified in being unhappy with the ruling (although he could easily have prevented the situation by paying attention and making a legal action).

However, the player is not justified responding like an ass, and hopefully the other players were able to profit from his childish antics.

 

[stumc51]

Player announced 'raise', but to an illegal amount. Player must correct his action to the minimum raise amount. In this example, the previous raise amount was 125 (225 over 100), so the minimum raise amount is 125 more (225+125), or a min-raise to 350.

If his action was ruled as just a call, he is justified in being unhappy with the ruling (although he could easily have prevented the situation by paying attention and making a legal action).

However, the player is not justified responding like an ass, and hopefully the other players were able to profit from his childish antics.

Amazing, thanks for this. Are you an actual TD, just noticed the badge?

 

[stumc51]

Also, thanks to everyone who answered, its much appreciated.

I am sure there will be questions in the future.

Thanks again - Stu

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Was the player cute?

 

[buzzmonkey]

125 more. Original raise amount was 125.

I stand corrected.

 

[allforcharity]

I seem to remember a 'Get Off Your Phone' chip which would be aptly thrown in this sort of situation?

 

[JustinInMN]

Here goes:
Playing NLHE, 6 players, 50/100blinds
EP Opens for 225, next player folds.
MP (who was on his phone and not paying attention) says 'raise to 300' and throws 300 in the middle.
At this point action stops and the decision was that it was a call, as his raise was not the minimum amount.
He was forced to call and wasn't happy.

What is the correct action here:
- It is a call as the chips weren't enough for a correct sized raise
- Its a raise of the minimum amount regardless of his verbal declaration

I think I join the chours here, because he used the word "raise" before stating a number, the word "raise" is binding and the number should have been corrected to the minimum required. Since the open was from 100 -> 225, the minimum increment is the difference of those amounts or 125. Meaning the minimum raise should be to 350 total (125 + 225).

If he had just thrown 300 in the middle without any verbal declaration, ruling this a call would have been correct per the ovesized chip rule. (removing the smallest chip from the wager whether 3*100 or 2*100, 4*25 leaves less than the half the raise increment)

Interestingly, if he had stated "300" verbally even without the word "raise," I think you would rule a raise here as 300 is more than half the raise increment, so again, this amount should have been corrected to 350.

Verbal BEFORE chips is binding.

 

[JustinInMN]

Amazing, thanks for this. Are you an actual TD, just noticed the badge?

He's one of PCFs most experienced hosts. Full of great advice. (Even if we have the occasional disagreement, but we are in lock step on this ruling.)

 

[JustinInMN]

Min-raise of 225 more. He has to raise because he declared raise. It has to be a min-raise because he put an incorrectly small number of chips in to make a complete raise.

Just to clarify why the raise is 125 more and not 225 more. Subsequent raises must be the amount of the difference between the total of the last raise and the total before the last raise. It's not automatically a double like many players think.

With the big blind at 100. The initial raise must be to at least 200. With a big blind we consider the previous amount to be zero, so the increment is 100 - 0 = 100. So you add the increment to the current amount and get the new minimum 100 + 100 = 200. So in this case with the big blind amount, it is true that the minimum is double the previous amount to raise. But subsequent raises go by the increment only, not doubling the total. To use the example in this thread. Since there was a legal raise to 225 over the BB of 100, we find the increment by subtracting the previous total, 225 - 100 = 125. Add the increment to the current total to get the new minimum to raise, 225 + 125 = 350.

So it's the increment that always counts when determining the legal minimum of the next raise. It just happens to be true that the rule of doubling works on raising the the first bet/blind of a given round. But on all streets and for all raises it's always the differences in the amounts that counts.

 

[JustinInMN]

Also for the following 10 mins he acted like a child and went all in out of turn every hand and kept behaving badly for a while lol!

I would point out, an all in out of turn is binding if no one bets or raises before it's his turn. You could (and perhaps should) have forced his stack into a pot in such a situation.

 

[CraigT78]

It's a min raise.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Agree with everyone who's saying it's a min raise, and the amount has to be 350, because 100 + 125 = 225, so min raise is 225 + 125 = 350.