Hi there,

this situation occured in a NL Hold'em tournament (I'll try to reconstruct it as best as I can, but I can not guarantee that every word is correct):

Blinds 400/800

Player A raises to 15,000 (fifteen-thousand)

Dealer announces: "Raise to 15,000!"

It's folded to Player B who moves 800 over the betting line.

Dealer says: "The bet is 15,000."

Player B says: "Oh, sorry, I thought it was 800."

Player C says: "No, what's in the pot stays in the pot."

I ask the dealer: "What's the ruling?"

Dealer says: "Well, in this case, it is obvious that Player B wasn't aware of the raise. He may retrieve 800 and rethink."

Player C says: "No, that's not correct. Last week, the other dealer ruled that my bet was to stay in the pot..."

Dealer says: "Yes, technically, you are correct, but in this instance it was an honest mistake, in my opinion."

I say: "Maybe we should call the floorman on that one."

Player B says: "Oh, never mind. It's ok. I'll just fold." Tosses is cards over the betting line and leaves the 800 out there.

Dealer leaves it at that, mucks Player B's cards and puts the 800 in the pot.

Player C goes on beating the dealer for not making a clear descision.

After a while the dealer says: "If you don't stop the harassment, I will ask the floorman to give you a penalty."

Player C gets up and leaves cursing.

Your thoughts on this?

Your description sounds like this is a casino game, but assuming it's a home game then I agree with the dealer, based on the "gross misunderstanding" rule from RRoP:

It seems pretty obvious that B was not aware of the raise, and he should be given a chance to reconsider his action.

I believe the player should be allowed to take back his chips at that point.

RROP

However there is a common practice in tournaments (and I think it is awful) that the player is not allowed to remove these chips but may fold and forfeit them. I believe this is the worst of all decisions from a logical standpoint. I see no poker principle that supports the idea that a player can put in less than a full bet and fold. It seems to me his actions available are fold, call, or raise. If his action of putting chips into the pot does not constitute a call, fold, or raise then it is niot an action and he should get his chips back and then have to act. If his action constitutes a call then he should be obligated to put the full call into the pot.

And even more importantly in tournament play it appears to me to be the equivalent of chip dumping when a player is allowed to just hand chips over to another player without actually making or calling a bet.

Lastly Player C's behavior is out of line after the matter was resolved. He probably should not be invited back.

I think the idea is to prevent an angleshooter from putting less than a call in the pot to get a read, then having the option to change his mind.

That said, I agree with you 100%. Forcing chips to be left in the pot like this is a crappy rule. I'd bet that for every time this practice stops an angleshoot, there are at least 100 times where an inattentive player gets burned by a technicality. That's never good for the game.

And this is another good argument against the practice.

Player C is a dick?

I mean, he was wrong, acted like a jerk, got his way, couldn't get over it, and leaves.

Keep in mind that if he causes action behind him ... he will be held to the call.
So for this player to pull this move off "to get a read" he has to get his read and react before the next player acts.....

And I don't believe "getting a read" is really an angleshot. Nor do I melieve there is much value to this particular move.

Absolutely, and for that reason I don't think this angleshoot is particularly useful, which makes having a rule to prevent it even more idiotic.

I never said that. I said that putting in an intentionally small call with the intent of getting a read is an angleshoot.

My thoughts exactly.

Poker players can be the whiniest twits outside a kindergarten.

a bit of dime-store psychology: people spend a huge amount of time/energy establishing dominance relationships. [This may be one of the main reasons we like games like poker: we establish who's top dog, and also ritualize the process of establishing who's top dog. You won this match, so I acknowledge your superiority right now. If I win the next match, you acknowledge my superiority. Repeat. Don't we all feel better now that we have this orderly process in place?]

Anyway, player C is asserting a bit of dominance. "I know the rules, so ______ needs to happen. Listen to me and do what I say". But dealer doesn't take the instruction, so C is offended. It doesn't help at all that B surrenders, because the dealer hasn't submitted, which is what C is after. Calling the floor won't help, because then dealer is under the floorperson, but still above C. Since C was forced to submit to this rule in the past, he looks especially dominated.

C's logical and interpersonal skills suck ("he's being a dick"), but the psychology is plain enough.

And thus, eneely establishes his superiority over this thread.

Ha! No, just trying to illustrate gedanken's post. A little dog trying his damnedest to look like a big dog.

I agree with psandman, no surprise. In a tourney, this is usually a sacrifice of 800 chips. I also don't like this rule, but I can understand a bit the reasoning and context. If I see someone about to call with the wrong chips, I'll repeat, "Pot's been raised!" But I'm probably the only dealer left in the world who doesn't state the value of the raise until prompted.

In a cash game, I let the player take back the bet.

Player C needs time away from the table. Waaaaah, life is unfair. Okay, so a fellow player got a break this time. Who gives a crap? You're not even in the hand. Get over it, or go home.

In the weekly tournament home game I play in we play "if the chips are put in the pot they stay in the pot". This is to act as a penalty for people not paying attention (there are a lot of people *smoking*, drinking, and generally not paying attention).

If it's someones first time playing with us we will usually give them 1 warning stating that next time their money will stay in the pot.