This was event 30 at the wsop. The format of this tournament requires the first player in must raise to enter the pot, including the small blind. So, the one chip rule is modified for the player first in to a min raise.

Day two, 150 ante, 300-600 blinds. The first player in puts out three t500 chips for 1500 total. Another player at the table says that has to be 1200 since the player that raised said nothing. Floor gets called, says it's 1200 to go.

I just don't understand how the burden in this spot is on the player to specify an otherwise legal raise amount, regardless of the tendency in floor calls to go with the lesser amount.

Thoughts?

You're confused. I don't know if it's because you think of 1200 as a raise here (even though he's only limping in), and preflop limps are treated as calls, according to the first sentence in your post.

Or maybe your confused by the oversized chip rule being applied to a three-chip limp? If the player had thrown in a 5000 chip instead, would the 1200 ruling surprise you? Because in this example, as far as the oversized chip rule goes, he essentially threw in a single 1500 chip.

Just to be the devil's advocate, it is a raise to 1200, not a limp. If it was a limp the next aggressive action would have to be to 2400, when in fact the player could 3bet to 1800, no?

Because the player did not specify a raise, I would assume it was a call to 1200.

Remove any one chip, is it a legal bet? In this case no, therefore it is a min. raise based on the rules of this tournament.

The one-chip rule has been standard since forever. It's up to the player to be clear with his actions, because he's the one with money at risk.

Protect your hand.

It can't be a call to 1200. This is not 300 - 600 1200 to call. This is 300 600 mandatory raise to come in ..... those are different things.

The reason its a 1200 bet is because of the modified the oversized chip rule for this structure and the application of that modified rule makes this a min raise.

Wow, I'm having a bit of a time wrapping my brain around this. I thought I had it till this post.

Is it because a "limp" (the minimum action) is 1200 and this amount wasn't raised? In other words, from the perspective of a MP player, the hand plays like a T600/1200 hand (with the caveat that a "min-raise" is 1800 instead of the standard 2400 if it really was 600/1200), and since this amount wasn't raised it reverts to the minimum?

This is what I figured the reasoning was, but I think the "over-sized chip rule" talk is what's confusing me. I mean, if he threw out 1000+500+500 (same # of chips), that would be a raise to 2000, right (since the "min-raise" requirement has been met)?

Yes. Two of those chips satisfy the opening requirement. Therefore, more chips make it a raise.

Don't get too hung up on the terminology of limp, raise, open, etc. Otherwise you become that guy who gets irritated when people say "raise" when opening a street, or refer to trips as a set. And you certainly wouldn't want to be at a stud table where practically everybody refers to the completion as a raise.

Right.

Even a 1000+100+100+100 would be a raise to 1300.

(Sorry if introducing "limp" to the conversation added confusion instead of diffusing it.)

It's not the limp/open talk that stumped me. Actually, I fully get it in that context. To my mind, the least amount UTG is able to play is a limp. This should also keep straight # of raises in FL games where it caps at 3 raises (I'm assuming the opener doesn't count toward that).

It's the "oversized chip rule" talk that threw me, because he used 3 chips.

Good thread. Being a product of the poker boom, where there's basically NLHE vs. everything else, "first player in must raise to enter" is a bit foreign. Like any other change, it requires a bit of adjustment in thinking.

Let me propose a slightly different scenario. Same tournament, different blinds; 600-1200. Player first in announces raise, puts out a 5,000 chip. My real problem with both scenarios is making a differentiation between what could be a limp, or could be a raise, when either amount in both examples is a raise. One chip rules are only in effect for a player facing a bet, who are not satisfying the raise requirement, and forcing a different amount when it is a raise either way as an exception just seems wrong to me.

That would be a raise to 5000.

Don't think of the double-blind bet as a raise, think of it more as an "open".

Just an aside about the 3 raises is limit. 4 is also a common number of raises and in single draw games 6 raise cap is pretty common.

yeah, basically all of Vegas is 4 raises and most of the east coast is 3.