It seems that most here reached the correct conclusion that this is a raise by the big blind. Foxwoods is no authority on rulings, and their savage procedures shouldn't be used for any standard of comparison.

Action towards the pot by the big blind when he can check should always be a raise.

In general many people think rules should be based on immaterial factors, such as the physical motions of the player, his mannerisms, and his intent. There should exist in every self-respecting poker room a comprehensive set of rules which clearly dictate a precise course of action for every possible scenario, and these rules should only be based on the facts, i.e. the situation as it happened. Not based on what some dealer or floor thinks is going through a player's head. This is the only foolproof way to ensure that no one shoots any angles, a seemingly perpetual source of concern to many. Almost every argument that erupts regarding a rule is when the floor has no rule to go by, i.e. the situation isn't covered by the rules (in which case the management is to blame), or the rule exists but the floor doesn't know the proper procedure. In this case the big blind's money is not his anymore (even though it's still in front of him), the action is on him, and any money thrown in at that time is a bet.

What is his action if he puts back his two $1 chips instead and pats the table?

This was pretty much what I thought for the 'other' thread.

What if the player tosses in 2 $5 chips, and then takes back the 2 $1 chips without comment?

If there is a delay in removing the chips, then I think they stay and the raise is now to $12.

At Mohegan Sun the Dealers will typically call out a raise when the BB takes his BB back and puts out a single large chip that would qualify for a raise. However just to make sure I called over a Floor who told me that once the player takes back his chips and replaces them with a larger chip it indicates intent to raise. In other words it doesn't matter what the BB says at that point.

This is the exact argument I lost at Foxwoods. The ambiguity is apparently that I might have wanted change from the larger chip and did not intend to raise.

Foxwoods considers it a Check. Unless BB says "Raise" out loud.

The fact that they can recite a stupid possible explanation does not make it a reasonable explanation.

Now if the player did this when the action wasn't on him, I wouldn't consider it acting out of turn and would not enforce a raise ... because this very reasonably could be a player changing his mind about which chip(s) he wants to post.

But once the action is on him I no longer consider that a reasonable interpretation. And if that is what the player is thinking I have no problem saying tough **** ...

Its not that I disagree with you. Its just that it doesn't matter what your opinion is (or mine either). I found that out the hard way.

This is a classic protect your hand/action situation. If you want to avoid the uncertainty of house rules either:
1) replace your blind with enough chips such that the single chip rule can't be applied
2) Or, announce your intent to raise out loud.
3) Or, ask the house how they apply the single chip rule as it relates to this situation. But honestly I wouldn't bother with this. It comes up so infrequently just protect your action and do 1) or 2) above...

Why can't everyone just verbalize raise in this spot? It still 100% should be a raise IMO

In a WSOP circuit event, the first one I ever played, the person to my right called bet. I went all in with a pair of KKs or AK can not remember exactly. It came back to me, the guy pushed or jerked like he put his chips in but did not say anything. I showed my hand which got me a 1 round penalty. I was stacked well probably would have made it to the paid round but just because I thought he pushed his stack in I showed my hand.

I will never ever do that again and have not in any other tournaments I play in.

+1. Gets rid of this whole situation.

+1

Thank you for everyone for the contribution.

I did not (nor our floor I guess) see the "two chips involved" side of the "single oversized chip" rule. This with the casinos written out amendment regarding 'one chip' when blind is already out dose cover the situation (and multitude of variations).

Yes, SB == BB here.

I rarely bring this up any more because I think I'm the only one who actually thinks this any more, but I hate the overemphasis on the "single chip" element supposedly being required for an oversize chip ruling. It is rare, but fairly trivial to construct an example of multiple oversize chips being a call when they could also ambiguously be a raise.

It is not the single chip aspect that makes it a call, it's the oversizeness and the ambiguity between call and raise which makes it an oversize chip situation.

I agree with you about this ... but the way I reconcile it is to say that in the muti chip scenario only one of the chips is oversized, that is to say that removal of of the "oversized" chip leaves the rest of the chip(s) short of a call.

Say for example the bet is $6. A player throws out to $5 chips. I say that one of the $5 chips is oversized (its $5 when all you needed was $1) therefore this is a single oversized chip (however I do not say this at the table because it would only confuse more people)

I think this is a problematic way of looking at it. If the bet is $5 and somebody throws out three $1 chips and a single $5 chip - in your example this would qualify as an oversized chip "call" because when removing the $5 chip the remaining $3 is too small for a $5 call.

The way I look at it is, if the smallest denomination chip can be removed and it is still at least a call, then we have a raise (assuming the total amount of chips would make it a legal raise). In my example taking out a $1 chip would leave $7 which is sufficient for a call. Now with $8 we have a valid raise because it is more than halfway to $10 from $5 (it is more than $7.50).

It becomes more obvious with three $1 chips and a $25 chip. If the bet is $5 the $28 is obviously a raise because without a single $1 chip we have put in $27. In your way, we take out the $25 chip so we are left with $3 and an oversized chip making it a call...

I always think of it as 1 rule, but the TDA actually has it separated into 2 separate rules.

the exact wording of the "multiple chip betting rule" is "When facing a bet, unless a raise is declared first, a multiple-chip bet is a call if there is not one chip that can be removed and still leave at least the call amount"

"not one" is the key term, you can't say you are going to remove the 5 in a 1 red, 3 white bet because to make it a call, because you can't "remove the 5 and make it a call" because the rule says, "not one". There's no real difference in thinking of it your way mr. rick because the smallest chip is the easiest chip to remove to figure this out, but the way the rule is written is ok from a grammar nit POV.

I wasn't trying to rewrite the rule as much as give the way I mentally reconcile the working of the rule. While I talk about removal of the "oversized" chip in the multi-chip examples you give I would be using the smallest of the chips (I know that doesn't seem intuitive when I talk about oversize you would think I mean the largest). So we get to the same place

Can you provide any such examples? I can't think of a scenario in which multiple chips can be legitimately be ambiguous in determining a raise or a call.

Blinds are 100 200. Player 1 raises to 600. Player 2 puts in 2 500 chips.

With nothing said...CALL all day long AINEC.

You pull one of the chips back and the call is not complete. Second chip only completes the call. Yes the two together are a large enough amount it could be a raise. It just isn't. And it is not ambiguous. It is clearly a call.

Now if you want to make it closer say the player 2 is the SB with 100 already in the pot. If he pulls back that 100 and tosses in two 500's the May be a question. But it is really the same question OP posted. Now it is a raise to 1000 unless P2 says call.

This is an unambiguous call, and I'd be shocked if there existed even a semi-civilized place on Earth where this is a raise.





This is a call as well. The situation is identical to the one above, although there may exist ostensible differences to the uninitiated.

In general, determining whether or not oversized/multiple chips is a raise is quite a simple task. Any time an action can somehow be interpreted as a call the action is a call. A raise occurs only when it is a completely unambiguous action which can in no way be interpreted as a call.

Examples: A single oversized chip, no matter how large, is always a call in the absence of any verbalization. In a $15-$30 game on a $30 street, a player facing a bet of $30 who tosses in two $25 chips will be universally held to a $30 call, and if three $25 chips are used the action is a raise to $60.

The foregoing should be straightforward but there appears to be some confusion out there.

I think you may be overlooking the reason the poster sees this second situation as ambiguous. Actually I think the argument that it is unambiguously a raise may have some merit. In this case there is 100 chip out there. if the player wanted to call all he would have to do is put out a 500 chip. So the act of pulling back the 100 and putting out 2 500 chips would seen to me to indicate the player intended to raise. Why else would he put out a full extra chip beyond what he needed to put out?

Now I would actually expect this to be ruled a call...... but I think that the argument that it is a raise has merit.

U are not even consistent with yourself in this ITT. First it is a raise when BB tosses in single oversized chip after pulling out his BB. Then u say any single chip is always a call and can never be anything else. Plus u could make a case for the BB action to be a call. So per u it must then be a call.
Please explain how why the SB putting in two 500's and pulling back his two hundred out there is any different than the OP which u already called a raise.

My head is spinning.

What you describe is exactly what I was referring to earlier when I said that rules should be based on what actually occurs, not on what may or may not be going through a player's head at the time an action is taken. We can't consider this a raise simply because the player could have called with a single $500 chip. The bet is $600 to him and he put in two $500 chips. This is a call.




When the action is on the BB preflop and he is not facing a bet, i.e. the bet to the BB is $0, any action towards the pot is a raise. In this situation with the SB facing a bet of $600, two $500 chips is a call because one chip alone isn't sufficient to call and one more $500 chip is a single oversized chip. Again I emphasize that it doesn't matter what the SB does with the $100 chip. Pulling it back or not pulling it back is irrelevant.

Something similar happens often to the SB in a limped pot. In $1-$2 NL, say, the SB tosses in a $5 chip. This is not a raise to $6, and neither is it a raise to $26 if a $25 chip is used. This is a call regardless what the player does with the $1 small blind.

What about the fact that 2 500 chips equals a valid raise. I'm ruling it a raise all day. Maybe they'll learn to use there words in the fiture