NL Holdem action on flop:
Guy 1 bets $30
Guy 2 raises to $60
Guy 3 tanks for a second says "I min raise" and as he says this he slides out $120 about a second later in one motion.

Guy 2 says bet has to be $90 since he said 'min raise' floor is called and gives decision. What should have been the call. No, I wasn't in the hand, I've just never seen this situation come up before.

Bet should be $90 imo. It's the same as saying "I raise 30"

I think that "I min-raise" is definitive enough to make the bet binding at $90. (Suppose the guy has said "I min-raise" and then slid out $600?)

If the guy said "I raise" and threw out $75 he'd be required to make it $90 because that's the minimum legal raise. Not sure how saying "min raise" would mean anything other than the minimum legal raise.

Bet is 90, player is then educated why a min-raise is not always double the existing bet.

No harm, no foul. He wanted to raise to 120, thought that was a min-raise and didn't articulate himself correctly.

Verbal is binding, and in this case a min raise would be to $90. Probably everyone understands what the raiser was trying to do, but now he'll learn that doubling the amount of the previous bet isn't necessarily a min raise.

I think I disagree with the other people in this thread. I'm not sure "min raise" is "official" enough poker terminology to constitute a binding verbal bet. It is my impression that people who don't play on the internet might not know exactly what that means, and other players might just think it means a small raise. Obviously, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. What if he said "I click it back"?

I raise a ham sammich used to be a raise of $0.35 in our game. Not sure that it means the same in a casino.

Asking for clarification and allowing a player to legally bet what they intend is OK in my book.

What if he said "I'll pop you right back, pal", is it even a raise? lol

Let him bet what he wants normally, hold him to 90 if he's a douche.

Saying "min raise" is as clear as a person can get short of announcing an exact amount. it's actually a very specific announcement. It's his fault if he didn't know what a min raise meant.

Who exactly defines what "min raise" means? As far as I know, there is no official poker rule book that defines the term.

"Min raise" was not a commonly used in live poker until a few years ago. And clearly, there is enough disagreement about its meaning that one player at the OP's table thought it meant something different that what the OP thinks it means.

I would certainly agree that the OP's definition is both more popular and more sensible than the bettor's. But for something to be a verbally binding bet, its meaning has meet a higher standard than merely being more popular and sensible. I think it has to be almost universally acknowledged as unambiguous. "Min raise" has become a much more popular term recently, and I think it is close to meeting that standard. But it seems that the OP's example demonstrates that it is not quite there yet.

Intentions matter in poker. He's saying "I min raise" and it's clear that his intention is to raise the minimum amount. Verbal is binding.

When it's a player's turn to act and he waves his hand dismissively, that is a check. He doesn't have to tap the table or say the word "check". His intention is clear. The same thing goes with a nod. Or if a player says "go ahead" or "let 'em live". I'm not sure if those terms are in the official rule book either.

funny how this comes up a lot and people still don't see what constitutes a min raise...


... if there was clear intent to make a legal bet...I let action stand...when I'm dealing... UNLESS the player made a verbal commitment during his action...He said min raise...the minimum raise is 30... In this case the bet is 90 all day

It is unambiguous. A min-raise is a min-raise. In that cardroom, a minimum raise was exactly to $90, no other amount. The meaning was precise, even if the bettor didn't know what he was saying.
The problem wasn't a lack of verbal clarity, but the bettor's ignorance of what amount constituted a minimum raise.
The fact that the bettor apparently didn't know what his words meant, doesn't give him the latitude to bet some different amount.

It seems just as clear to me that his intention was the raise to $120, given that he pushed forward $120 in chips. Why would he do this if his intention was just to bet $90?