2/5 NLHE, UTG straddles and I'm BB. All I have are green chips so I already have $25 in as my BB. It gets around to me and I throw another green chip in to make it $50 without saying anything. UTG tries to invoke one-chip rule cuz you know, i just threw in a chip. I state that my existing chip already exceeds the straddle amount so it cant be considered a call, otherwise I would just say call and leave the $25 in there. He was obviously just being a douche and wanted to see a free flop for his straddle, but just want to know what you think? He called the floor who quickly sided with me, but this guy kept insisting that other card rooms that would be a problem and he wouldnt shut up about it.

Pretty obvious that you/floor are right, but why not just say "raise?"

I moved this over to LCP, which is the right venue for rulings and has several floors/former floors who participate in rulings discussions.

I normally do say raise, just honestly didnt think it could possibly matter in this circumstance.

It is very possible that this player has seen a floor incorrectly rule this a call, and it's also possible that you could run into that incorrect floor so I would advice to say the word raise when you want to raise.

I was about to say you don't need to say raise here but...

I realized that I have been in rooms where this scenario happened and they held the guy to a call.

In my case it was a $5 chip out there for a small blind (probably 1/2 NL but could have been 2/5). The guy threw out another $5 chip and was held to a call because the first $5 chip represented $1 (or $2) so the 2nd $5 chip was the calling amount. I kid you not.

Most recently this came up at FW and they ruled it correctly as a raise. But the Floors did have to convene to come to the decision.

This is why I always throw out two chips when I intend to raise. Or if I don't have a small chip, I do say "Raise". And I am someone who hates to say anything when I am betting (because too often what I say gets mis-interpreted and I am held to what other people say they heard).

as above. clearly a raise, but this rule gets screwed up so much that you should protect yourself by verbalizing it.

In this particular case OP may be correct that it should be a raise, but I would never get too comfortable with the idea of silently throwing out a single chip and expecting it to be ruled a raise every time.

Expected this thread to involve the small blind, was essentially correct.

98. Previous Bet Chips Not Pulled In: If a participant faces a raise and has chips in front of him not yet pulled in from a prior bet, those chips (and any change due) may affect whether his betting response to the raise is a call or re-raise. Because several possibilities exist, participants are encouraged to verbally declare their bet before putting out new chips on top of chips from a prior bet not yet pulled in. If the participant facing the raise is either the small blind or big blind and this participant picks up his/her blind and combines it with other chips from his/her stack, the chips from the blind will be considered part of the participant’s current wager....

This is the only rule that even comes close to describing the situation (from WSOP) that I can find, however I do not think it can apply (even though it says "and any change due" because "several possibilities" do not exist, IMO there is only 1 possibility since existing chip out there already covers the straddle.


In this situation player is in the SB which is a different scenario, however, I still do not see what other possibilities could exist...though I wonder if we are missing information (call of a straddle or a raise?). If it was a $1-$2 game, and say someone raise to $6, then throwing out the other $5 is just a call. If it was a straddle or a raise to $4 then it should be a raise because again, no other possibility of meaning can exist (well MAYBE you can argue the SB thought he had only $1 out there - but thats pretty thin)

I may be missing a rule somewhere, if anyone knows of one that fits please post. Any different ruling should be non standard.

In the room I play in a single oversized chip is always a call if a call is an option. So in the small blind a green on top of a green is a call not a raise.

In the BB there is no call to make in an unraised pot so it's a raise. If a player had raised to 20 I believe the addition of the oversized chip would now represent a call even in the BB.

Best strategy is the bolded IMO.

Your room is horribad on this one then. Green on a green only if it was 26 or more to the SB.

Most cardrooms call as "one chip" unless you say raise

I agree, I guess the confusing part is when the chip you have out in the BB is already 2.5x greater than the amount of the bet to call. So player could just tap table he doesn't need to add another chip to make the call. Nevertheless I'm never silently tossing out a single chip, if you're tossing out one chip, you're better off declaring your intention as well.

I hope this isn't true (I think it's a misunderstanding of the one-chip rule), but obviously enough do so that saying "Raise" is always a good idea.

Yea it all comes down to how you define the one-chip rule piece by piece.

The biggest one - how do you define 'oversized chip'? If you already have enough out on the table to make the call, how can the chip you are placing on top of it be oversized? What it is oversized too?

The other part of it is how you define "Previous bet chips not pulled in" rule along with the phrases inside the rule "and any change due". But again I do not think this counts towards this situation because IMO the PBCNPI rule is based on "several possibilities exist' in defining intent, whereas in OP situation the intent is pretty clear.

As with a lot of poker terms and rules, this will probably yield different results from time to time.

Your interpretation and application of the oversized single chip rule is incorrect and any cardroom using it as you propose is a very small minority.

1. In the OP the player does not need to put any chips in so his second chip is not in response to a beer or raise, so what could it be oversized to?
2. With the twp25s in the pot, either one could be removed and the full amount needed to call would still be left in the pot

Clear raise. This is a rare exception in the one chip rule. Since the player acting already has engaged in front of him to call the wager they are facing, one chip is a raise.

But yeah, verbalize it because I've seen some pretty good floors still get tripped up on this.

Any floors that struggle with this spot are terrible, its always a raise

It will usually count as a raise, IF you say raise. I know it's "cooler" if you don't say anything, but you are opening yourself up to trouble from time to time.

Okay there champ.

The One-Chip rule has become so well known and ingrained, that you could argue players who are tossing out one chip absent any verbal declaration are intending to call.

What if the guy who tossed another $25 chip out then said after chip hits felt "no it's a call, I tossed a single chip out to indicate a call, isn't that the rule?". Would he be wrong? Would he be held to a raise?

I think the rules are going to evolve to where any single chip tossed out is never a raise unless accompanied by a verbal declaration, no matter if you already have enough to cover the current bet in your posted big or small blind. Silently tossing a single chip even in that scenario will be just like tapping the felt, at least I think that is where the rules are heading.

Granted it might be more strict in tournament play than in cash play.

That should be ruled a raise. You don't need to put in chips to call, so if you put in chips you are raising.

I do agree that there can be a lot more rules written to clarify all the grey areas in the game that still exist, however I do not think this is the way to go with a rule in regards to this topic, it should be an auto-raise if player already has enough in front on the felt to cover the call. No issue in writing a rule like this because this is how most people will rule it, present post excluded.

Just because a few people misunderstand the rule doesn't mean the rule changes. So, yes, he would be wrong.

Unfortunately when enough people misunderstand the rule it sometimes changes. (hence the nonsense we now have with players being able to fold and forfeit an undercall).

I don;t think this particular is that widely misunderstood however.