Button is straddling for $10. SB has a $25 chip out as his blind already. SB throws out a 2nd $25 chip (does not pick up both chips together, does not say raise, does not do anything other then throw 2nd $25 chip on to 1st $25 chip).

I was told the first chip is just looked at as a blind and second chip is looked at as just an oversized chip making a call. I don't see how this can be anything other then a raise. This is official tda or roberts rules?

If SB wanted to call, he would indicate by pointing to his over-sized chip and saying 'call', and expect change once the flop action had finished. By adding an additional chip to his already oversized chip there is clear intention of a raise.

I would rule this a raise.

I really hope the person who "told" you this doesn't work in a poker room. It goes without saying that this is a raise to $50.

2 chips infront of him = raise clearly.

It's a raise. The general rule of thumb is that if you can remove either chip and satisfy a call, then it is a raise. In this case, removing either $25 chip would cover the call amount, therefore it is a raise.

Where you often get the other side of this situation is in the following (quoted from a recent thread):

In this case, it's a call, because if you remove the 500 chip, the remaining 100 chip doesn't cover the 200 call amount.

I made an argument for this w/ 2 red chips in 1 2 NL, I argued it is not a raise CAUSE of the SB's Special rules w/ oversized chip rules. It was ruled a raise by dealer and floor was not called.
Everyone assumed its a raise. Two Over Sized chips is a raise-

What exactly was your argument? Why would the SB need a second red chip to call the BB or a straddle? If you can't answer that, then how could a second red chip possibly be interpreted as anything but a raise?

I agree this should be a raise. I was told it is in TDA and Roberts Rules as a call. Can someone confirm/deny from book?

Yeah. Seems I was wrong, and TDA/RR rule this a call.

You can't confirm or deny it from Robert's Rules because you can't expect the rule set to list all of the things that are not true, which is what you're trying to prove here. You can only expect it to affirm the rules.

This is so undoubtedly a raise. Whoever told you that it's not should carry the burden of having to wade through the rules and find the one that he is claiming to exist. Don't burden yourself with proving a negative

You were correct when you said raise. I would rule this a raise, also. Rule 39 basically states what you mentioned.

In this scenario - removing 1 of the chips still leaves enough to make the call. So if the intent was to call he would have just tapped the table and said call - no additional chips were needed.

I really don't think that this applies. There is already an oversized chip in the pot that is large enough to cover the straddle. We are adding a second oversized chip when the first one already covered the call.

If the second chip isn't a raise, then it's redundant. Thus, it must be a raise.

So for those who think this is a call if you're playing 2/5 and it limps to the BB who throws in another $5 chip is that a call as well? I'm not sure how the situations are different.

Rule 39 is what I had in mind when I made my original post. But carefully read the wording in Rule 38:

"Anytime when facing a bet or blind, placing a single oversized chip in the pot..."

This is what is happening. The 1st chip is already out there. You're only actually placing a single chip at this point. The 2 rules seem to be conflicting in this scenario.

Agreed. Common sense says this is a raise all day. But the rules nits out there who like to play 'gotcha' could have a case.

If the dealer correctly set the blinds before dealing cards this issue would not arise, I understand this can slow games, but a fast, slightly intelligent dealer, can either change from the float, or ask another player to change without slowing the game.

Yeah, see, this is the problem when we look at the rulebook as a strict guideline, rather than a reference resource. This can go either way, and technical arguments can be made either way.

I like this as a solution, although it's by no means "official" and I expect to be shouted down:

Dealer: Time, everybody. Player, what's your intent?
Player: Oh! (clarifies intent)
Dealer: Okay, thanks. Please be more clear in the future, for your own protection.

Done and done.

Correst answer, incorrect reasoning. Actually, the way I read that rule, you were right and it wold be a raise

he already had more than enough out there to call the blind, therefore he was NOT facing a bet, so he "placed an oversize chip in the pot without declaration" and it should be ruled a raise of the maximum allowable amount for that chip.

Pfap's solution is obviously the most common sense.

But then someone will say, "but i don't want to talk; i should be able to play nlh without ever speaking if i don't want to..."
and for those people, i say, if you are in the described SB spot, pull back your chip, and then throw out both chips together.

Not really, that's clearly no better than getting dealers up to speed, and ensuring they correct the blinds before any cards are dealt.

What Pfap's describing would need a very on the ball dealer, and if they we're that on the ball they'd have the blinds sorted already. How many dealers do you know that would stop the game as Pfap suggested?

Having a standardised deal is as important as getting the rules standardised to imho.

Although I still don't like Pfaps solution, it's open to abuse if a player is aware a dealer will do that, and a reaction could be seen as the second chip goes in, and before the dealer has a chance to speak.

No, no case, unless the table, dealer and floor have all never played (live) before and are trying to learn the game from the (admittedly imperfectly written) rulebook, without regard to the real world.
Forget the blind situation for just a minute. Suppose the action on the flop goes:
Player 1: Announces "$35" and puts out a single $100 chip.
Player 2: Raises to $75.
Player 1: Silently tosses out another "single" $100 chip.
Would anyone seriously argue that this is "placing a single oversized chip in the pot" and therefore only a call?
Regardless of nittily literal readings of Rule 38, you're placing your second oversized chip in the pot when you add the second one. Not only common sense, but decades of actual poker dictate this. Anyone who argued to the contrary would (or at least should) be laughed at. (This is not to say that the rule couldn't or shouldn't be better written.)
Where I think this ruling may have come from is that some rooms will rule that a single oversized chip silently added to a correctly posted small blind is only a call.
I.E.:, blinds are $1 and $2; SB posts $1; pot is limped to him; he silently adds a $5 chip, doesn't remove $1 chip. Regardless of what you or I think it should be, some rooms will rule this only a call; some a definite raise; in many, the dealer or a player will ask the SB to clarify his action and accept his response.
But this was not the case in OP, in which an oversized chip was already out there before the next (single) one was added.

Yes, it's a raise, but "correct answer, incorrect reasoning". Of course he was facing a bet. His first (oversize) chip wasn't fully committed to the pot yet. He had posted his small blind with the oversize chip, hadn't acted yet to the button straddle (which he was definitely facing), and could have folded and gotten change.

That's because it is a raise.

The TDA has tried about three times to write this stupid rule to make it clear. They fail every time. You're pointing out that, despite changing it recently, they still have it worded incorrectly.

And this is also pointing out why we don't so much play the game to match the written rules... we play the game and folks write rules to try to keep up with what we're doing.

Everybody on here stating "raise" knows it when they see it. Now if someone could just come up with a phrasing for the TDA rules that makes it that clear for everyone else, we could retire this once-a-week discussion that happens here.

I think blind exceptions should just be clarified as their own rules. It was a situation in a FL WSOP game this year, I believe. It'd be difficult and silly to reword a single rule that clarifies this, but is just extra weight when applied elsewhere.

This is also a situation where tapping the table means 'call' instead of 'check'. This is why I often change out a redbird BB in a 1/2 game when someone else raises to 5, if I'm unsure the player is paying attention.

Why would they clarify anything that was caused by a fundamental dealer error, the dealer sets the blinds correctly before dealing/any further action if oversized chips are in play, or the lazy players could just ask others to change up chips if they knew they'd need smaller denominations.

End of problem, end of weekly discussion here.

simples