Cash Game One chip rule (3 Viewers)

[ekricket]

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.

Yaddah, yaddah, yaddah,….the players in my group don’t know the rules,…… yaddah, yaddah, yaddah…. The players in my game don’t want to know the rules, blah, blah, blah

That’s all I hear. No good argument against the rule except “my players don’t know the rules of the games they play” so they must be stupid rules.

 

[Irish]

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.

If you keep the full breadth of RRoP and just remove rule #15 in Betting (1-chip rule), there is no other language in that rule book that distinguishes betting a single chip would constitute a raise or a call. Perhaps I'm missing something, feel free to post that rule if I missed it.

If you're trying to say that if rule #15 was never in there in the first place, that poker players would have simply never tried to use the rules to their advantage and never angle shoot, than I have a bridge to sell you.

* everything I've posted is based on RRoP, you have to stick with one set of rules at a time - you can't mix RRoP with TDA, they're very different. I honestly don't even know if the 1 chip rule exists in TDA.

 

[Irish]

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.

This is the issue is right here. You're playing with casual players who have a very loose understanding of the rules. Which may be fine for your casual home game. In a game with players who understand the rules and will use every last one to their advantage, this style of play just doesn't hold up.

 

[TheJack]

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.

I do agree that you can still angle shoot with this rule. Thats why i put this rule in my home game rules sheet. Also to avoid this dealer should say that this is a call right away.

 

[JScott]

Yaddah, yaddah, yaddah,….the players in my group don’t know the rules,…… yaddah, yaddah, yaddah…. The players in my game don’t want to know the rules, blah, blah, blah

That’s all I hear. No good argument against the rule except “my players don’t know the rules of the games they play” so they must be stupid rules.

First of all, everyone else is having a nice cordial discussion, so no need to be a dick.

Second, if you actually read the posts I've made, it's much deeper than that. I'm looking for a reason for the rule, and so far they've been pretty lacking in logic. Speeding up the game is one of the best ones, but still it's not the best argument for.

I do agree that you can still angle shoot with this rule. Thats why i put this rule in my home game rules sheet. Also to avoid this dealer should say that this is a call right away.

Not a bad idea.

This is the issue is right here. You're playing with casual players who have a very loose understanding of the rules. Which may be fine for your casual home game. In a game with players who understand the rules and will use every last one to their advantage, this style of play just doesn't hold up.

This still doesn't really explain why the rule should exist. I've heard numerous times it's to prevent angle shooting... but no example of where it could be used to angle without the rule existing.

 

[raynmanas]

This still doesn't really explain why the rule should exist. I've heard numerous times it's to prevent angle shooting... but no example of where it could be used to angle without the rule existing.

i mean, the rule has to exist one way or the other - either one overchip is a raise or a call, but either way it's a rule that needs to be clarified. and the poker community has overwhelmingly settled on the latter.

 

[ekricket]

First of all, everyone else is having a nice cordial discussion, so no need to be a dick.

First off, typically you are what you read into things.
I’m not trying to be a dick, you just keep saying the same things over and over and it seems to me you don’t want to hear any discussion that doesn’t agree with you. If you want to say three pair is the nuts in your game go ahead. It’s just a rule that some games use, just like some blackjack games let you win if you have five or more up cards and still haven’t busted.
We use it because it makes our game go smoother and eliminates any ambiguity and helps reinforce trust in a gaming environment.

 

[Irish]

This still doesn't really explain why the rule should exist. I've heard numerous times it's to prevent angle shooting... but no example of where it could be used to angle without the rule existing.

Again....

• 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.

The two main betting rules in place are (assuming RRoP):

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....

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....

With both of them in place, it's an easy ruling - it's a call because of #15. 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.

Same series of events:

• 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!

Again, without #15, player 2 can angle either way, depending on the responses he sees. There is no rule that you, as the host/tourney director, can point to tell player 2 he's wrong. #13 clearly states chips. He didn't bet chips, he bet a chip.

 

[T_Chan]

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.

"making an oversize /single chip as a call is the more passive approach. Turning it into an automatic raise while be more punitive imo." Doesn't make good sense?

With the rule:
25/50
A calls
B calls
C throws in 500 single chip, says nothing
D declares call and puts in 50
etc.

Nothing was verbalized, so it's just a call. If C meant to raise, too bad.

If the rule doesn't exist:
25/50
A calls
B calls
C throws in 500 single chip, says nothing
D declares call and puts in 50
etc.

Dealer: Tells D it's 500, not 50.
C says: No, it's just a call.
With no single chip rule, then C has to put in the full 500. Is it's a bit more harsh to force a player to put in an extra 450, or to make a player call instead of raise. D also has to now put in 500 since he verbally declared call, so now you're forcing 2 players to put in more money than they want.

Irish's point is even better, which is why I've always understood why the rule is in place. Throw in a single chip and see what other players do, then afterwards make the declaration if it's a raise or call. Without the rule, it's very easy to do it just like his example.

 

[grebe]

I'm looking for a reason for the rule, and so far they've been pretty lacking in logic. Speeding up the game is one of the best ones, but still it's not the best argument for.

-I personally think that you are not acknowledging that you are on an island here....the rule is there to clearly define what it means when somebody puts a single chip in that does not equal the cost of a call. It prevents confusion, and prevents somebody from gaining more information from other players before having to declare what the single chip means. It is a VERY NECESSARY rule that most players are on board with.

This still doesn't really explain why the rule should exist. I've heard numerous times it's to prevent angle shooting... but no example of where it could be used to angle without the rule existing.

There are multiple examples in this thread where undeclared actions with one chip are hazy without the rule. I think you should go back and read those.

 

[JScott]

First off, typically you are what you read into things.
I’m not trying to be a dick, you just keep saying the same things over and over and it seems to me you don’t want to hear any discussion that doesn’t agree with you. If you want to say three pair is the nuts in your game go ahead. It’s just a rule that some games use, just like some blackjack games let you win if you have five or more up cards and still haven’t busted.
We use it because it makes our game go smoother and eliminates any ambiguity and helps reinforce trust in a gaming environment.

I've been responding to posts with arguments well beyond "well it's a stupid rule".

Again....

• 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.

The two main betting rules in place are (assuming RRoP):



With both of them in place, it's an easy ruling - it's a call because of #15. Without #15, there is no rule that clearly indicates that player 2 has he either called or raised. It's ambiguous - and until it's clarified player 2 can use that to his advantage.

Same series of events:

• 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!

Again, without #15, player 2 can angle either way, depending on the responses he sees. There is no rule that you, as the host/tourney director, can point to tell player 2 he's wrong. #13 clearly states chips. He didn't bet chips, he bet a chip.

So if #13 was "chip" into pot then we wouldn't have #15? If the rule didn't exist in the second situation it would be assumed that the raise was 500 correct? There would be no recourse for player 2 to say he just called.

Good arguments, but it seems like the rule existing, is still the reason for the rule existing.

Dealer: Tells D it's 500, not 50.
C says: No, it's just a call.
With no single chip rule, then C has to put in the full 500. Is it's a bit more harsh to force a player to put in an extra 450, or to make a player call instead of raise.

Without the rule this would never happen though right? You wouldn't put in 500 if you meant to call. I mean, I agree, there's NO WAY we're changing this rule back because it would cause loads of confusion. Which I'm not advocating for at all. I'm looking for the reason for why it exists in the first place.

-I personally think that you are not acknowledging that you are on an island here....the rule is there to clearly define what it means when somebody puts a single chip in that does not equal the cost of a call. It prevents confusion, and prevents somebody from gaining more information from other players before having to declare what the single chip means. It is a VERY NECESSARY rule that most players are on board with.


There are multiple examples in this thread where undeclared actions with one chip are hazy without the rule. I think you should go back and read those.

It's definitely not a hill I intend to die on. @Irish and his last post is the best explanation I've seen, but it's still a self fulfilling prophecy.

I've read all the posts, I don't see any "gotcha" moment on the reason for the rule.

Either way guys, this is just a fun debate. we're not going to change the world here.

 

[grebe]

CLEAR example of this rule in every day play:

-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?

All this nonsense is stopped by the one chip rule. EVERYBODY is on board with the UTG player calling. Because the rule says so.

 

[JScott]

CLEAR example of this rule in every day play:

-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?

All this nonsense is stopped by the one chip rule. EVERYBODY is on board with the UTG player calling. Because the rule says so.

Without the rule we'd ask them to say "call" right?

So the rule, and I will accept this btw, is to speed up play when players have to make change.. and that's it right? All other scenarios are examples of this rule being in place because of this reason.

 

[grebe]

Either way guys, this is just a fun debate.

29 people yelling the answer at you and you proclaim "it's a fun debate"!

I like your style at least, we would get along just fine.

 

[realcdn]

i mean, the rule has to exist one way or the other - either one overchip is a raise or a call, but either way it's a rule that needs to be clarified. and the poker community has overwhelmingly settled on the latter.

Isn’t this the answer?

Without the rule, if someone were to accidentally puts in a single large chip, you can’t pull chips back after moving them past the betting line, a rule has to exist what to do in this situation. And as others have stated, it makes sense to treat it as a call rather than a raise.

 

[grebe]

Without the rule we'd ask them to say "call" right?

So the rule, and I will accept this btw, is to speed up play when players have to make change.. and that's it right? All other scenarios are examples of this rule being in place because of this reason.

It is to clearly define the action...which speeds up play and prevents confusion which COULD lead to players gaining an unfair advantage on future action before declaring their intent. Example that has been given before: Bet is $5, I slide out a $25, then somebody calls the $5....I now have information based on their action that they have a middle strength hand at best....now I can say, "no, that's a raise". If they raise, I can now say "fold, I need $20 back". Once again, using the ambiguity to my unfair advantage.

 

[JScott]

29 people yelling the answer at you and you proclaim "it's a fun debate"!

I like your style at least, we would get along just fine.

I enjoy a challenge and honestly, I love being proven wrong. I just can't live with illogical things.

And yes, I did read that posted earlier. It was a good argument that I didn't respond to, I was thinking in the world of $1/$3 it still doesn't make sense because you'd never need to overcall with a single chip. But with your scenario you would. If that's the domino that makes the rest fall... I can accept it.

It is to clearly define the action...which speeds up play and prevents confusion which COULD lead to players gaining an unfair advantage on future action before declaring their intent. Example that has been given before: Bet is $5, I slide out a $25, then somebody calls the $5....I now have information based on their action that they have a middle strength hand at best....now I can say, "no, that's a raise". If they raise, I can now say "fold, I need $20 back". Once again, using the ambiguity to my unfair advantage.

Again, this is just a situation that can only exist BECAUSE of the rule. So basically what we're saying is this: the rule exists because of your post above, and the rule has to be enforced because of situations like this one. Which is fair.

Isn’t this the answer?

Without the rule, if someone were to accidentally puts in a single large chip, you can’t pull chips back after moving them past the betting line, a rule has to exist what to do in this situation. And as others have stated, it makes sense to treat it as a call rather than a raise.

I think @grebe has the best answer.

 

[grebe]

I think @grebe has the best answer.

I win! Thanks for playing, the rest of you.

 

[Irish]

So if #13 was "chip" into pot then we wouldn't have #15? If the rule didn't exist in the second situation it would be assumed that the raise was 500 correct? There would be no recourse for player 2 to say he just called.

Good arguments, but it seems like the rule existing, is still the reason for the rule existing.

No, you have to read the rule dude. #13, all on it's own, actually doesn't distinguish between calling and betting:

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....

You need #15 to distinguish the specific action.

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....

Throwing in one chip - ANY ONE CHIP - is a call. If you're betting with multiple chips and the value is above the call, it's a raise.

Without the rule this would never happen though right? You wouldn't put in 500 if you meant to call. I mean, I agree, there's NO WAY we're changing this rule back because it would cause loads of confusion. Which I'm not advocating for at all. I'm looking for the reason for why it exists in the first place.

It happens all the time at my tourneys. Player 1 bets 75 with three T25 chips - players 2,3,4 all call with a T100 chip and grab a T25 as change. Same with @grebe 's example above in a cash game.

So the rule, and I will accept this btw, is to speed up play when players have to make change.. and that's it right? All other scenarios are examples of this rule being in place because of this reason.

Only Robert can say for sure, but I would argue (as a host/tourney director) the reason for the rules are (in order of importance):

1. Define action - call vs raise - and thus prevent angle shooting
2. Help clarify action to all at the table to reduce confusion (it's easy to see 1 chip go in vs many chips, or hear the verbal "call" at a noisy table)
3. Help speed up the action (@grebe example above)
4. Provides the least punishment for player mistakes (@T_Chan 's example)

 

[JScott]

I win! Thanks for playing, the rest of you.

I was going to say that whoever made the card room comments back on page 2 actually had the best post but I realize that was you as well.

 

[T_Chan]

Without the rule this would never happen though right? You wouldn't put in 500 if you meant to call. I mean, I agree, there's NO WAY we're changing this rule back because it would cause loads of confusion. Which I'm not advocating for at all. I'm looking for the reason for why it exists in the first place.

But you're assuming nobody's going make the mistake or not verbalizing their bet. Or maybe I throw in 500 looking to make change, but before I can the player after me acts. Or I'm in the middle of talking with another player and don't stop for a second to say raise and just throw it in. Having the rule in place makes everything clear. The rule is also in place to "fix" potential mistakes from players.

In the first example, it's a call if he says call or says nothing. In the second example, it's only a call if he says call, if he says nothing, it's a raise. For the first example, there's no way the player would have to put in more chips than they intended.

 

[Chipandchair]

Is this resolved yet??

 

[JScott]

Is this resolved yet??

It is. There are still the self fulfilling rule is good because the rule exists arguments. But I'm cool with it.

 

[upNdown]

First of all, everyone else is having a nice cordial discussion, so no need to be a dick.

FWIW, I honestly thought that was a fair response to your story about the guy at your game who uses the rule to angle, two different ways.

 

[JScott]

FWIW, I honestly thought that was a fair response to your story about the guy at your game who uses the rule to angle, two different ways.

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

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

For clarity, I want to say that I haven't read this whole thread yet. Wanted to post my thoughts as a relatively inexperienced live player first. I may come back and elaborate after I read everything.

I don't play in casinos or card rooms, and I don't play a lot of live poker yet either with experienced poker players. I have no idea what is "standard" other than what I have learned here on PCF. So from that perspective, if someone bets $5, and the next guy puts in a $25 chip and says nothing, I'm not sure how I would ever come to the realization that was a call, and not a raise. Absent stating the word "call" or "I need change" as you toss in the chip which is what I've always done, it sure looks like a raise to me. Just saying that I do what I can to make sure everyone understands what my intent is in that situation, and it seems like this rule benefits a person who may be intentionally trying to be deceptive and punishes those who are honest. Pretty backwards if you ask me. As someone said early on, it's just not intuitive.

 

[LeLe]

It didn’t matter as house rule / casino rule overrule the 1 chip rule

It depend whatever the house rules is.

I saying this is because the Only Casino in Singapore that have NLH don’t use the 1 chip rule, If you toss a $100 to a $5 bet that a $100 raise. If you say call and toss the $100 chip in it still a $100 raise, the only way to call is ask the dealer to break the $100 into smaller denom and call with $5 amount of chips

It’s one of the weirdest rule of MBS Singapore NLH

 

[Irish]

It didn’t matter as house rule / casino rule overrule the 1 chip rule

It depend whatever the house rules is.

I saying this is because the Only Casino in Singapore that have NLH don’t use the 1 chip rule, If you toss a $100 to a $5 bet that a $100 raise. If you say call and toss the $100 chip in it still a $100 raise, the only way to call is ask the dealer to break the $100 into smaller denom and call with $5 amount of chips

It’s one of the weirdest rule of MBS Singapore NLH

You have to ask for change in the middle of the hand?? Gross

 

[LeLe]

You have to ask for change in the middle of the hand?? Gross

You don’t have too you can always raise with $100 haha ; usually the regular will ask for changes from the dealer the moment they sat down

 

[Mr Winberg]

If you keep the full breadth of RRoP and just remove rule #15 in Betting (1-chip rule), there is no other language in that rule book that distinguishes betting a single chip would constitute a raise or a call. Perhaps I'm missing something, feel free to post that rule if I missed it

That's actually my point. The only rule that says that chips don't speak (i.e., that what you push in is not what you bet) is rule #15. That rule is what makes chips (or I should say, "a chip") mean something else than what's printed on them. So if you remove it, then chips ALWAYS mean what's printed on them.

Do you see what I mean? The 1-chip rule is the only exception to "chips speak". Without it, there is no exception. (I'm ignoring TDA's "many chip rule for now)

If you're trying to say that if rule #15 was never in there in the first place, that poker players would have simply never tried to use the rules to their advantage and never angle shoot, than I have a bridge to sell you.

Lol! No, that's not what I'm saying! Not buying bridges!
I just meant that it doesn't remove any angling possibilities. If it does, please give me an example.

everything I've posted is based on RRoP, you have to stick with one set of rules at a time - you can't mix RRoP with TDA, they're very different. I honestly don't even know if the 1 chip rule exists in TDA.

Agreed, you need one set, not several.