Tourney Surprised by local casino raise ruling (2 Viewers)

[MemphisFats]

I played a tournament at a local casino tonight when this situation came up and I was surprised by the ruling.
Pre flop and post flop action not really important. I am in the pot with one other player and I’m first to act.
Turn comes, I check, villain bets 1300, without saying anything I put out 2500 chips.
Dealer says that’s just a call, I never said raise and didn’t bet the full raise amount.
I say obviously I made a mistake as the minimum raise is to 2600 and I’m 100 short, but it should be classed as a raise as I have committed over 50% of the necessary raise amount.
Floor comes over and says unless 100% or more of the raise is put out, it’s just a call.

This was a surprise to me.
I was always under the impression 50% or more would class as a raise, specially when it was clearly an honest mistake.
Is this ‘anything less than the full raise is not a raise’ now the rule, or was I wrong in the first place? Was the previous rule 50% or more committed to the raise and I would need to add to make it the full amount.
I don’t play live much anymore so I am interested to find out.
Thanks
Memphis

 

[Josh Kifer]

‘anything less than the full raise is not a raise’

That's how it's been handled at most tourneys I've been in. If you bet under the min, it's a call.

 

[MemphisFats]

That's how it's been handled at most tourneys I've been in. If you bet under the min, it's a call.

Really, wow. I’ve never heard of this before!
I even used to deal in a small poker club in London England back in 2007-8. We always played 50%+ of a raise had you committed to it.

 

[RagingAZN]

I’m also with you @MemphisFats

The TDA talks about the 50% min rule too unless I’m looking at an outdated version.

 

[Josh Kifer]

Really, wow. I’ve never heard of this before!
I even used to deal in a small poker club in London England back in 2007-8. We always played 50%+ of a raise had you committed to it.

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).

Yeah. Roberts put it that way. So generally that's how it should go. I could be remembering wrong as it's been a while since I've played anything but home games.

 

[MemphisFats]

Thanks @RagingAZN, nice to know I’m not totally out to lunch here! Lol
Maybe @casinochipper22 could chime in? I know he’s just finished dealing for the WSOP, I’d like to hear his 2 cents.

 

[MemphisFats]

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).

Yeah. Roberts put it that way. So generally that's how it should go. I could be remembering wrong as it's been a while since I've played anything but home games.

If this situation came up in your home game you would say just a call and the player takes back the 90% ‘non raise’ chips?

 

[Josh Kifer]

If this situation came up in your home game you would say just a call and the player takes back the 90% ‘non raise’ chips?

In my home game, I would first berate them (because it's a player named Bill). Then tell him to pay fucking attention and make a raise that made sense, or I'm taking away half his stack until he makes a full orbit showing responsibility and not staring at his phone.

Amirite @BigLumber

 

[CraigT78]

In my home game, I would first berate them (because it's a player named Bill). Then tell him to pay fucking attention and make a raise that made sense, or I'm taking away half his stack until he makes a full orbit showing responsibility and not staring at his phone.

Amirite @BigLumber

This is the way.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I played a tournament at a local casino tonight when this situation came up and I was surprised by the ruling.
Pre flop and post flop action not really important. I am in the pot with one other player and I’m first to act.
Turn comes, I check, villain bets 1300, without saying anything I put out 2500 chips.
Dealer says that’s just a call, I never said raise and didn’t bet the full raise amount.
I say obviously I made a mistake as the minimum raise is to 2600 and I’m 100 short, but it should be classed as a raise as I have committed over 50% of the necessary raise amount.
Floor comes over and says unless 100% or more of the raise is put out, it’s just a call.

This was a surprise to me.
I was always under the impression 50% or more would class as a raise, specially when it was clearly an honest mistake.
Is this ‘anything less than the full raise is not a raise’ now the rule, or was I wrong in the first place? Was the previous rule 50% or more committed to the raise and I would need to add to make it the full amount.
I don’t play live much anymore so I am interested to find out.
Thanks
Memphis

The TDA rule is that if you've raised at least 50% of the minimum raise it's ruled as a minraise. However, casinos can have their own rules.

For example, when playing a cash game in a London casino around 2015 it was checked to me on the turn and I tried to buy the pot in position but was called. River went check check. Everyone stared at me like "show your cards". I say that the other guy has to show first. Everyone says I'm wrong. The dealer confirms, says that since I made the last aggressive action (my turn bet) I had to show first.

 

[casinochipper22]

Thanks @RagingAZN, nice to know I’m not totally out to lunch here! Lol
Maybe @casinochipper22 could chime in? I know he’s just finished dealing for the WSOP, I’d like to hear his 2 cents.

This is a rule that varies from room to room. Is either 50%+ is good enough for a raise, or the full min bet only. I'm drawing a blank for wsop. If have to look at the rule book again.

 

[glynn]

WSOP (who follow TDA) is 50%+ (normal).

The vast majority of rooms in North America follow this rule. It is much much much more likely that the floor in this story does not know their own rule than that the room actually requires 100% of chips to effect a raise. It happens!

 

[MemphisFats]

Thanks everyone for chiming in. Glad to know I wasn’t way off and my thinking was correct.
Memphis

 

[BigLumber]

In my home game, I would first berate them (because it's a player named Bill). Then tell him to pay fucking attention and make a raise that made sense, or I'm taking away half his stack until he makes a full orbit showing responsibility and not staring at his phone.

Amirite @BigLumber

 

[JustinInMN]

There is one element not yet discussed, but I think this also should have been a raise and the player forced to correct to 2600.

The "multiple-chip betting" rule (45 A and B in TDA) applies in a wonky way here.

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. Ex-1: Player A opens for 400: B raises to 1100 total (a 700 raise), C puts out one 500 and one 1000 chip silently. This is a call because removing the 500 chip leaves less than the 1100 call amount. Ex-2: NLHE 25-50. Post-flop A opens for 1050 and B puts out his last chips (two 1000’s). B calls unless raise or all-in was first declared.

B: If every chip is not needed to make the call; i.e. removing just one of the smallest chips leaves the call amount or more: 1) if the player has chips remaining, the 50% standard in Rule 43 governs the bet. 2) A bet of a player’s last chip(s) is an all-in bet whether reaching the 50% threshold or not. See Addendum.

And Rule 43 for good reference

43: Raise Amounts

A: A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior full bet or raise of the current betting round. A player who raises 50% or more of the largest prior bet but less than a minimum raise must make a full minimum raise. If less than 50% it is a call unless “raise” is first declared or the player is all-in (Rule 45-B). Declaring an amount or pushing out the same amount of chips is treated the same (Rule 40-C). Ex: NLHE, opening bet is 1000, verbally declaring “Fourteen hundred” or silently pushing out 1400 in chips are both calls unless raise is first declared. See Illustration Addendum.

B: Without other clarifying information, declaring raise and an amount is the total bet. Ex: A opens for 2000, B declares “Raise, eight thousand.” The total bet is 8000.

If enough chips are used in the wager to constitute 50% of the raise while ignoring one chip of the smallest value used, the raise then needs to be completed to a proper amount.

IN @MemphisFats ' case I would assume the bet was 2*T1000 and 1*T500, so ignoring the smallest chip, 2000 still constitutes more than 50% of the raise increment, therefore the bet should be completed to the full increment or 2600.

 

[OfficerLovejoy]

The TDA rule is that if you've raised at least 50% of the minimum raise it's ruled as a minraise. However, casinos can have their own rules.

For example, when playing a cash game in a London casino around 2015 it was checked to me on the turn and I tried to buy the pot in position but was called. River went check check. Everyone stared at me like "show your cards". I say that the other guy has to show first. Everyone says I'm wrong. The dealer confirms, says that since I made the last aggressive action (my turn bet) I had to show first.

They enforce that same stupid "last aggressor from one or two streets ago shows first"-rule in Germany as well.
It took me a while to get used to everyone at the table staring at me and waiting for me to show my cards when I'm checking back the river.

 

[GetUrShineBox]

I agree with OP that this should be a raise but This is why I always verbally announce “raise” or the exact amount I’m betting.

 

[JustinInMN]

They enforce that same stupid "last aggressor from one or two streets ago shows first"-rule in Germany as well.
It took me a while to get used to everyone at the table staring at me and waiting for me to show my cards when I'm checking back the river.

I actually do think that's the superior rule except for the exact reason that no one ever remembers who it was . Suppose that's as good a reason as any to change.

 

[ekricket]

They enforce that same stupid "last aggressor from one or two streets ago shows first"-rule in Germany as well.
It took me a while to get used to everyone at the table staring at me and waiting for me to show my cards when I'm checking back the river.

I’ve played there where they rule out of turn betting is binding. I mean if someone bets out of turn, like the button when action is on SB, then it counts as a valid bet but the button can’t raise. So if the button put in $150 out of turn, everyone that acts now in turn had to put in the $150 at least, but they could raise. Money in the pot has to stay was their reasoning. Maddening. Saw it happen 5-6 times.

 

[Machine]

They enforce that same stupid "last aggressor from one or two streets ago shows first"-rule in Germany as well.

For the record - This is Bullshit, sloppy, runny, fucking bullshit ... so tilting

 

[MemphisFats]

I’ve played there where they rule out of turn betting is binding. I mean if someone bets out of turn, like the button when action is on SB, then it counts as a valid bet but the button can’t raise. So if the button put in $150 out of turn, everyone that acts now in turn had to put in the $150 at least, but they could raise. Money in the pot has to stay was their reasoning. Maddening. Saw it happen 5-6 times.

What is the normal rule here?
I seem to remember we played the out of turn action will stand, if the action is still the same when it reaches them. If the action has changed the out of turn better can do what they want.

Seat 1 check
Seat 3 bet 1000 out of turn
Action goes back to seat 2 to check or bet. If he checks seat 3 must bet 1000, if he bets seat 3 has the option to reassess and call, raise or fold.

Is this correct?

 

[Machine]

Cooke's Rules of real Poker:

 

[BGinGA]

Cooke's Rules of real Poker:

View attachment 1180595

Real poker needs real rules; Cooke's don't count any more than BGinGA's. And wtf is 'Machine'?

 

[ekricket]

What is the normal rule here?
I seem to remember we played the out of turn action will stand, if the action is still the same when it reaches them. If the action has changed the out of turn better can do what they want.

Seat 1 check
Seat 3 bet 1000 out of turn
Action goes back to seat 2 to check or bet. If he checks seat 3 must bet 1000, if he bets seat 3 has the option to reassess and call, raise or fold.

Is this correct?

Well, sitting on the button and being able to set the minimum action on every hand seems snarky.

 

[JustinInMN]

I’ve played there where they rule out of turn betting is binding. I mean if someone bets out of turn, like the button when action is on SB, then it counts as a valid bet but the button can’t raise. So if the button put in $150 out of turn, everyone that acts now in turn had to put in the $150 at least, but they could raise. Money in the pot has to stay was their reasoning. Maddening. Saw it happen 5-6 times.

the more I am thinking about it, the more I think this is actually a rule that punishes the out of turn action more harshly.

In our rulesets, the out of turn action is only binding if no player bets or raises in between the actual actor and the out of turn actor. So what this rule accomplishes the same thing as everyone checking in turn, action just immediately goes back to the person after the button and they have all options, instead of waiting for everyone to check in turn. However, this rule does not give the out of turn actor an "escape" if there is an intervening raise in turn, unlike our common rulesets in America.

So in short, I think rule hurts the out of turn actor more than our rules in two ways that I see.
1) The out of turn actor is denying himself position
2) The out of turn action no longer "benefits" from our provision that he may withdraw if someone makes a raise in turn

And I don't think one could argue the "skipped" players are at all damaged my missing their opportunity to check. They get to conceal their action longer because the player that made the mistake essentially forfeited his position.

I think I am actually warming to this as a good alternative.

 

[glynn]

Yep, it also protects Player B from being check-raised by Player A who knows that Player C will be held to an out-of-turn raise. It's an interesting answer to a notoriously difficult rules issue. I am struggling to find anything bad about the rule. It just looks weird because we are not used to it.

 

[ArielVer18]

I was always under the impression 50% or more would class as a raise, specially when it was clearly an honest mistake.

if the casino doesn't follow TDA, they probably have their own house rule. For example, RRoP has 80% as a "possible rule-of-thumb."

 

[Budha]

I agree with OP that this should be a raise but This is why I always verbally announce “raise” or the exact amount I’m betting.

This is the way

 

[Poker Zombie]

if the casino doesn't follow TDA, they probably have their own house rule. For example, RRoP has 80% as a "possible rule-of-thumb."

80% is just stupid.

If I raise $14, are we pulling out a slide rule to determine if it's the right amount?

 

[ArielVer18]

80% is just stupid.

If I raise $14, are we pulling out a slide rule to determine if it's the right amount?

It wasn't actually a rule under RRoP. He vaguely wrote, "because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker" and suggested 80% as a "possible rule-of-thumb"

A local cardroom used to (or maybe still have) a 75% rule. Dealers have an iPod Touch built into the table from early 2010s and they will switch to the calculator app to determine if the player called or min-raised. Not a slide rule, but still stupid.