1-3 cash note. Folds to seat 1 with maybe a limp. Seat 1 tosses in a single $25 chip and says nothing. Seat 2 asks if that was a call or raise. Dealer asks seat 1 if he meant to raise and he says yes so dealer declares raise. As seat 2 folds, seat 3 says wait no raise was announced. Seat 1 says you are right I forgot to say raise so it should be a call.

Seat 2 then re asks dealer is it a raise and she says since she said it was a raise and seat 2 folded on that, it will be a raise “this time” even though everyone involved knows this should be a call.

Note that everyone involved including the dealer is well experienced with casino poker. While not likely his original intention, seat 1 has enough “moxie” to see the opportunity to use the extra info and elicit folds from 2 and 3 that he “knows” would call his limp.

Seat 2 just decides to drop it and fold. The floor is never called but if h was what would be the probable and correct filing?

Floor should rule it's a call. If seat 2 cards are already mucked, sorry but nothing can be done...if they are clearly retrievable, give them back to seat 2. Floor should talk to dealer later off the game and be like "wtf are you doing".

What does this mean? Did Seat 2 still have access to his cards? If so, I would just correct the bet to a call since Seat 2 has already shown what he would do when facing a raise. There's no unringing that bell, so the dealer's reasoning that he acted on the raise isn't enough to not correct it.

Even if Seat 2's hand is irretrievable, I would still correct the bet to a call since making an exception for "this time" is bound to cause the bigger of two headaches. It's not great, but it's not awful either because Seat 2 is only losing an opportunity as opposed to committed money. I don't know the right procedure here though.

I would likely rule differently than the above two posters.

Yes, it should be a call, but the dealer clarified that it was a raise, and seat 1 didn't object, and neither did seat 2 or any other player, and then seat 2 folds. So now it's a raise, action on seat 3 or whoever.

If seat 2 (or any player) objected immediately, or if he folded but his cards were still retrievable and no one else had yet acted, then I would correct the ruling and proceed with seat 2's action. Maybe that is what happened in the OP, it's a little vague on what happened to seat 2's cards after he folded.

I don't know why the dealer is asking seat 1 if he meant to raise, but then agreeing that the player forgot to say raise first so it "should" have been a call. Either rule it a call (as it should be), or ask the player then rule it a raise (in a beginner game perhaps), but don't do one then the other.

Correction. Seat3 re asked and objected immediately. then decided to fold without calling floor. Seat 2’s cards had been mucked and were not identifiable.

See my correction. As soon as the dealer made the ruling it was a raise, seat 3, did object with no delay. But nearly simultaneously seat 2 folded and his cards were mucked.

I also don’t know why dealer was asking seat 1. But seat 1 did say he intended to raise. He did not say he did say raise. He admitted that he did not say raise when seat 3 asked and objected. It is possible seat 1 saw an opportunity when dealer asked if it was a raise. He did not lie but did answer saying what he did or did not say. He only said he intended to raise.

It is not unusual for a Dealer to 'double check' the actions of a reg, even when not a reg as well. As I've stated plenty, at the lowest stake in a room there needs to be a margin for error/teaching moments. This may be far from that here, but there's always a flip side to the 'angle' argument where in this case Seat 3 may want to see a cheap Flop against an attempted raise.

I agree with Dinesh ... action, and in the is case irreversible action, has taken place and we are now moving on even if a bad 'ruling' has taken place. GL

I cant read seat 3’s mind hero was in seat 5 and had already mucked. But I would say seat 3 and everyone else with cards DESERVES to see a cheap flop. They should not be punished for seat 2 not protecting his hand. He chose to muck to a bad dealer decision. He was right next to seat 1 and knew no raise was announced he could have called floor. Remember when directly challenged seat 1 admitted he did not say raise AND agreed it should be a call. It is very likely had seat 2 protested at all dealer would have corrected her bad decision. But even if he doesn’t why should everyone else be “harmed” for seat 1’s rash decision in response to th dealers bad decision. Remember seat 3 attempted to get things corrected as soon as dealermade her bad decision. He actually tried to help protect seat 2 and his own action. IMO two wrongs don’t make it right.

At worst seat 3 is trying to see a cheap flop by following the rules. Also remember, seat 1 did not raise the issue and try to make it a raise. Seat 2 rose the question so seat 1 could be angling to raise now in response weakness from seat 2 or even 3. Also it is clear no one is a newbie, so enforcing the rules seems most appropriate. I like to allow for a players intensions to be allowed. But we are far from certain seat 1 really did intend to raise.

I want to agree with you, but this situation doesn't offer much opportunity to object before the involved players can realize there's something to object to. Seat 2 didn't ask whether Seat 1 had announced a raise — he asked whether the bet is a raise, then took the dealer at her word. Similarly, Seat 3 learned that it was a raise when everyone else did (and then objected).

I don't think we can change this to a raise just because of a split second delay in reaction to a dealer doing something non-standard.

It seems to me that player 3's silence while player 2 confirmed the action then acted, assuming everyone was clearly following the transaction constitutes action offered and accepted. In pursuit of maximum fairness, I don't see any way to rule other than to accept the improper raise as valid action.

If the dealer announcement was immediately followed by an objection, then I can agree that the action should be corrected.

If seat 2 folded concurrent with the objection, then I would give him his cards back if they are retrievable. If not, apologies, but nothing we can do.

If seat 2 folded after seat 3 objected, while they were waiting to figure out how to deal with it, basically saying he's folding to a bet or call of any size (though this makes me wonder why he bothered asking in the first place), then his hand is dead and we're still waiting to resolve the issue of seat 1's action.
I don't disagree with the endpoint given how you've enhanced the OP, but I would caution about using language like "deserves to see a cheap flop." No one ever deserves to see a cheap flop, unless, perhaps, they are closing the action on the flop. If there are players to act behind you, you don't deserve anything.

At best, you could say the ruling should be that seat 1's action was a call, and then go from there. I know this is a bit of semantics, but the language used hints at misunderstandings or biases held somewhere deeper that could lead you into wrong territory in some other situation.

I would rule that the raise stands because it was clarified as such. And also that Seat 1 loses the benefit of the doubt and will get a time out next time he does something borderline.

I would also remind the dealer that to avoid this confusion, dealer should immediately say, "Seat 1 calls," when he sees the oversized chip without hearing a verbal declaration.

Redundancy << confusion

Well if I was called to the table it would be ruled a call with action on seat 3. My apologies to seat 2 if he folded based on the dealers poor judgement.

Seat 1 was asked what he intended to do, and in response he said he wanted to raise. That should be taken at face value and the default ruling.

I agree that if nobody had said anything, it would be a call. I also agree that Seat 1 may be lying. It's for this reason that Seat 1 loses the benefit of the doubt that should be standardly given to every player.

yeah, seat 2 should be his own advocate.

if youre in seat 2's position and there was no raise announced and the difference between a call and a raise will affect your decision then you need to get a ruling from the floor so that there is no confusion.

this is an example of a dealer who doesnt understand why the rules of the game are what they are. the rule of announcing your action is specifically to avoid this situation and any unfair advantage or angle it may give. the dealer should announce that its a call as soon as seat 1 finishes placing his chip in the middle and if seat 1 fusses about it then the dealer should simply say "next time you need to announce a raise, this is a call, thats the rule" and if he still fusses then the dealer can call the floor.

as a player, it is in your interest to advocate that dealers follow the proper procedure so in this case, seat 3 was 100% correct to correct the dealer, its unfortunate that it was after seat 2 mucked.

i think a good floor would rule it a call and rule seat 2's hand as dead if it is considered irretrievable (in the muck)

One player folding because the dealer decided to let this slide does not change the rule. Seat 3 immediately objected and if the floor is called to make a ruling, it should be that it was only a call. Incompetent dealers don't get to change the rules mid game. Now, if seat 2 or 3 decided to call the $25 instead, then we have a different issue.

This is how I would expect it to be handled because there was only one player who acted after the obviously ridiculous ruling by the dealer.

Sometimes players don't intervene immediately if its not their turn to act because they aren't sure about whether they are supposed to or not. So I would give the benefit of the doubt to seat 3 and seat 4. But once there are three folds then the raise stands.

Having said this, I would have likely reacted as seat 3 did (without saying anything) and allowed Seat 1 his raise as intended. However, after the hand I would remind seat 1 that in the future I would hold him to a call if he said nothing and threw in an oversized chip again.

As seat 2, I probably would just have called behind without asking because seat 1 had said nothing. And at that point I would object if the dealer intervened.

Seems right. Seat 1 called. There is no way he gets a free opportunity to raise now that he knows it will fold seat 2. If you throw out a single chip with no verbalization, its a call. no do overs.

Except that Seat 1 got exactly a do over when the dealer asked him what he intended to do.

That's the point that all of you are missing. The question isn't "what does an oversized chip mean?", it's "what do we do given that the dealer ****ed up?"

Yes, an oversized chip means call. But then the dealer asked him what he meant to do, and he said he meant raise. Now you're stuck - you've got two contradicting indications, but one is unambiguous and it happened later. And that one should take priority.

If you're concerned about Seat 1 somehow taking advantage of yhe situation, that's valid - but he can take advantage of the situation either way. He can lie about wanting to raise, hoping to scare people away, but in order to defeat that, you need to either force him to raise (because in reality he doesn't want to) or you need a time machine to go back and un**** it up. There's no scenario in which by setting a rule you can create a no-angle scenario for Seat 1. The best you can do is to limit the damage by forcing Seat 1 to do what he said he intended to do.

Here is where I disagree. The single oversized chip is also unambiguous, and happened FIRST. The first clear action should take priority, not a later verbal addendum that changes it. Just like every string bet ever.

I agree the dealer shouldnt have asked, as that is basically giving an open door for player 1 to change his action if it suits him. Ive seen this happen before, but never has the floor gotten involved, as no one at the table protested. If the floor was ever called, I feel the right call is to hold player 1 to his original action. Each case will likely be unique though.

Agree with Koss. Allowing him to raise after the chip went in with nothing verbal is pretty much just like a string bet. Apologies to Seat 2 who folded with incorrect information.

No, it's not. Because he can claim he said "raise." And from the cameras both a call and a raise look exactly the same.

A single oversized chip being a call is defined by convention, not by logic. The first time you saw a single oversized chip being defined as a call, you didn't know that - someone had to tell you.

Again, no. I agree it's tempting to think, because a lot of things work that way. But when you are asking what someone meant to do, it's the clarification, not the confusion, that trumps the other.

You can, of course, make it a rule that whatever people do first is immutable. It will make rulings very easy. But that won't stop any of the angleshooting - people will say "fold" and then push all their chips in, and then argue that their first verbal declaration negated their subsequent actions.

The way to fight angleshooting is with fewer, not more, rules. When you allow someone to clarify what they meant to do, then you defuse the power of the angle.