Example situation:

Blinds are posted, cards are dealt.
UTG raises to 4BB
MP raises all-in
folds to BU
BU throws in 4BB ?

Someone points out there's an all-in in front of him.

What's the ruling?
Is this a call on the all-in?
Can BU decide if he wants to call or fold and just leave his 4BB on the table?


The ruling at my local poker club seems to be:
- If you throw in just one chip, it's a call.
- If you say call, it's a call.
- If you match the previous bet, without noticing there's a raise or re-raise, you must leave the chips you already comitted in the pot and then get to decide wether you want to call the raise or not.

This seems like a pretty weird ruling opening up some possible angles to be shot.

Thoughts?

Based on your description this would be a clear case of 'misunderstood' action.

Robert's Rules of Poker (and TDA) allow for 'BU' to readdress his action .. unless another player has already acted 'in turn'.

In most rooms BU would be allowed to pull back his bet and he would have all options, being fold, call or raise. There are some rooms that force BU to forfeit any chips put into the betting area even if he decides to fold.

If another player has acted 'in turn' then BU would not be allowed to raise, only fold or call in most rooms ... and the 'in turn' player would then be allowed any 'misunderstood action' options.

The single silent chip could complicate things, especially if it's a large chip, but it may still qualify as misunderstood action none the less.

Your poker club seems to be a bit more strict than the rules 'allow' but there's nothing wrong with that.

We've been having some discussions in other threads about chips being tossed/pushed out into the betting area and my viewpoint is that the Dealer is given too much responsibility for knowing the spot rather than forcing the player to state his action before making the effort to complete the act. GL

There may be some relief under the 'gross misunderstanding of the bet' rule, but I rarely see that used in live play. YMMV.

Where I play, a single chip would probably prompt the dealer to clarify intent, a declared call is a call, and a call of the 4 BB would allow the player to decide to clal the all-in or fold, but the 4 BB stay in.

Lol. Just last night. Straddle, dealer says "Live Straddle $5 to call". Player tosses in $2. Dealer says "It's 5". Player reconsiders and pulls back his $2 and folds. Happened probably 10 times in a couple hours. I see some sort of gross misunderstanding ruling probably every session.

This is really the best way to handle things almost always. Players shouldn't act in an ambiguous way but when they do the best reaction is to have the dealer clarify intent. Ideally the dealer both explains why the action was ambiguous and allows the player to act as they intended.

Actually under the TDA rules the player doesn;t get to fully readdress his actions. the player may be permitted to forfeit the 4BB and not complete the call of the all in. This is in my opinion a bad rule .... but they don;t care what I think.


I am not sure that most rooms actually still follow the traditional rule that would allow a player to withdraw the undercall. It seems t me the modern trend is to make them forfeit the undercall or complete the call as in the TDA rule. I haven;t surveyed poker rooms on this, but thats the sense I get from the tourists playing in my room.

This really depends on the room. Some will allow the player to pull back the undercall and fold. Other roomd will consider the undercall forfeited and allow the player to fold or complete the call. In both rulesets the player generally can't raise.

Clearly you get different rulings in different rooms and sometimes different rulings in the same room, but my opinion is that the rule should always be that money stays in the pot no matter what. Player can call the all in or fold but doesn't get the 4bb "call" back.

And this rule never made any sense to me. Either they called or they didn't call ... why are they forfeting money nto the pot other than somebodies sense of RULES MUST PUNISH.

If the player could have gotten any benefit from putting in the apparent call (like it caused action after it) then I say the call must stand. But if the player gots no benefit from this then why not let them take back the chips and reevaluate? Who is hurt by this ?

Why punish someone for misunderstanding? It's easy to say that they should pay attention, but it's also easy enough to misunderstand the betting, even if you are paying attention.
I prefer the old "gross misunderstanding" rule.

Wait why. You should expand on your posts more instead of these drive-bys.

Also it helps to establish physical position of the players.

I.E. MP All-In is in Seat 9, BU is in Seat 2-3. Probably honest mistake, 1st time happens take back four chips. 2nd time rule for him to match the All-In. If the MP is seated in clear view of BU, there is absolutely NO WAY BU does not realize it is an ALL-IN. For him to throw in 4 chips im forcing him to make All-In call.

The only ruling IMO should be GMOA or not, depending on the floor.

If deemed GMOA, player gets a do-over.
If not deemed GMOA, player is all in.

I don't like any solution where the money that has gone in stays in. The pot is not magic, and the money bears no relation to the actual poker action they are facing. However this also means that the dealer (and other players in rare instances) get to tell the floor if the player is always doing this, to help the floor assess whether this should be GMOA or not.

I'd like to see the dealer immediately stop the action and get clarification. The call of 4BB wasn't an acceptable action.


If action has been stopped, I'm giving BTN the 4BB back and allowing all (legal) options.
No, nothing indicates BTN was calling an all-in.
Room rules vary, but I'm not a fan of punishing mistakes like that. If the room rules it a call, they must call the full amount (or go all-in themselves I suppose). If clarified, then no 4BB penalty for deciding to fold.


I'm not a fan of the once chip call, but I do think it could evolve into something not as annoying/ambiguous someday. If that's the rule here, it shouldn't apply with multiple chips in a small amount. I'd argue that sliding out a full stack "for the cameras" would be an acceptable 'less than calling chips' call. Again, with some caveats.

Yeah, when you say call, it's tough to argue anything else. I'll say that in this case, when you call and slide out 4BB, then get corrected, I'll wish the rule has some leeway.

See above. When action stops, you should get your correct options (no short call-fold penalty). Curios if in the same spot the player slides out 2 BB, would they only forfeit 2 BB on a fold, or would they have to add 2 more BB to fold?




If the next to act proceeds after seeing a 4BB call on an all-in, with another 4BB call... then what?


I'd like to hold players accountable for knowing and following the action. But I do understand that mistakes happen. Unless it's habitual, or there is a reason to suspect shenanigans, I don't want chips forfeited. Even so, I'd rather see them given warnings/time away instead of giving up chips.