Saw this happen in a tournament. BTW, I am at the table, but folded preflop and am not either party in this hand.

Board is A23Q with two diamonds.

Player A bets 12K with two 5K chips and two 1K chips. Player B thinks a while, and min-raises to 24K.

Player A thinks a longer while, and then puts out 4 more 5K chips. The way he added the chips, it makes you think he was calling, as he adds those chips, pulls his hand back, looks at what's sitting out there, and then reaches out to take back a couple of the chips. But, the dealer kinda says wait a sec, and other players say something, and the floor is called. Since he added 4 more chips in one motion, and since his chips total 32K, more than half of a legal min-raise, he is forced to reraise to 36K.

Player B now thinks a while again, picks up his 24K, and drops 50K in one motion. Player A thinks a while again, and calls the 50K. Dealer puts out an offsuit 7 on the river, and Player A pauses about 5 seconds before going all-in. Player B tank-calls with AK, and loses to the wheel of Player A.

As this happened, I thought there was a very high probability that Player A intentionally-accidentally min-raised here. At showdown, I knew I was right. Of course, it doesn't matter what his intentions were as far as the outcome of this hand is concerned.

My only question, is do you think is an angle, or is this more akin to a false tell, and not really angly at all?

Thanks for your input.

Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Last minute change of plans angle?

In my opinion even if this intentional it's not an angle. Being deceptive about the strength of your hand during the betting phase of the game is part of the nature of the game.

Now though I don't consider it an angle it is not always acceptable play. If the player doing it just accepts the dealers telling him he has to raise ... Even if he is indicating he didn't want to raise .... Then I have no problem with the play. If the player argues or calls for a floor I think he is abusing the game (especially wasting time in a tournament situation) and this though not an angle is out of bounds.

I'd say it's an angle. The guy puts out 20k in 5k chips when trying to add 12k to make the call? I don't buy that. But it is sort of an obvious one, IMO, like the guy who throws out 4-1 k chips facing a 400 bet and says oops, I thought those were hundred chips.

I'd call it an angle vs deceptive play in that he is counting on the dealer to enforce the rule and make him complete the raise. I've seen players actually protest and call the floor saying they meant to call, to really sell the angle.

Or this:

It is likely an angle, but one of the more benign ones. Using knowledge of the rules to perform one action while representing another action is, in my opinion, an angle, but on the borderline. Some people, like Mr. Negreanu consider these types of play to be in bounds misdirection, and I don't disagree with it.

Do I think he did it on purpose? Don't know the guy, but most players have very good chip awareness and know exactly how many chips to pull back, or will eyeball the chips before pulling their hand back. i would guess that it was an intentionally misleading play.

This is absolutely an angle.

Player A is doing something that is technically within the rules but is ethically questionable. He is counting on the Dealer/Floor to undo his attempt to make his raise a call.

I think his intent to raise is clear and he is using this charade to get his opponent to think he is accidentally raising.

If Player A was going to call he would have just put in three 5,000 chips and pulled back the two 1,000 in one motion.

I think that this is an angle. There are lots of non-angle false tells, but pretending that you raised by mistake crosses the line, IMO.

Although it may have been an angle, it only bit Player B in the ass because he tried to take advantage of what he thought was Player A's unintentional raise.

So the angle worked.

Appealing to a player's greed usually does.

(Old Man Yells At Cloud, incoming....)

This is another evolution in poker procedures, and like all the others (like allowing players to obscure their cards and stacks with their hands, etc), there is no good reason for it, and no good result from it. I speak, of course, about allowing a player to release enough chips into the betting area to raise, but THEN pull back other chips to get below the "raise" threshold.

Back in the day, as soon as those 4 chips hit the felt, the dealer would have announced "raise", unless the player had first announced "call", or a number that was less than the amount being added.

You know WHY it used to be this way? So situations like the one described in OP would not be an issue.

If you can tell me why the current procedure is superior to the old one, you'll have to explain it to me, because I sure don't see it.

I don't see how the situation in the OP would not be an issue. The pulling back of the chip would not be allowed either way. The thing you say is allowed nowadays was not actually allowed in the OP. Also the opportunity for theatrics would still be there, as the player could still feign a mis-click.

I know deception is part of the game but some things cross the line and anything slimey is just that. How can one not know their chips? Also, I've seen way to many times ppl hiding their big chips in tourneys and also accumulating all the lowest chips for the chip-up period, thinking they'd get that extra 100 chips or something. I don't get these petty tactics.

Angle. Deliberately using the rules to make your desire for a raise not look like a raise.

While I agree with YTF that the dealer should have announced raise immediately, it would have done nothing to stop this angle. Of course, Player B was never going to be long for this tournament anyway since he should have wondering why an offsuit 7 was causing a "reluctant" raiser to shove on the river.

It was probably done as an angle, but it's definitely possible it was an accident. Players who are new or playing above their comfort level often get overwhelmed and don't know what to do when they have the nuts. I saw it all the time when I was dealing tournaments. Those are the same types of players who are more likely to call there.

Were there any other times where he got confused?

Actually they are doing that to help speed up the process. If one player has most of the chips (especially one player who knows how to handle chips) the colorup goes much faster.

I don't think rec players in donkaments are able to think on that level - to make sure they get a call from a mistake looking minraise on a wet board. If he's bad enough to minraise a draw heavy flop, I don't think he's on a high enough poker level to mastermind the angle.

Oh, maybe I misjudged them then hahah. I always thought it was some sneaky way to get an extra chip when chip-up happens.

Unless there is a miscount, this would never get them am extra chip.

I'll take a shot at it...

Most players who put out too many chips and then take back some are trying to save time and effort. Instead of reaching out and pulling back all the chips and then counting the exact amount and putting them out there, they are in one motion dropping chips and pulling back the remainder.

To call them on a "raise" based on a technicality would be "gotcha" poker at its worst.

However, there is no good way to solve the problem of a player throwing out what he thinks will be a call when it turns out to be more than halfway to a raise.

Accidents will happen.

And when they do and players think they have called and have left all of the chips out there and it turns out they have raised, then they will be held to the raise as you have noted was standard in the past.

And as with any new rule, there will be opportunities to angle. The vast majority of people throwing out too many chips and withdrawing some to get back to a call, are gaining the benefits of this "new" rule. Their calls are exactly what they intended.

However, a variation of this angle existed before the rules changed. Instead of pretending to pull chips back "too late" the Villains in the past would simply object to the raise. They would say something like "I meant to call!" or "thats a call!". And then when it was pointed out to them mathematically that it was a raise, they would reluctantly put out the min-raise.

There was some televised event recently where a guy put out raising chips and then said "call" afterwards. He had done it enough in this one tournament that the TD issue a warning to the opponent that Villain typically had a very strong hand when he tried to pull this angle... And sure enough he did.

The guy paid him off anyway.

My first boss in this business used to say, "Doing it the Right Way is NO HARDER than doing it the Wrong Way." In other words, "Your little shortcut there didn't save you any time nor effort."

I'm afraid I still stand with him on this one. Thanks for taking the time, tho. Sincerely.

That one was an even bigger angle. He didn’t put too many chips in the pot, he announced “raise” then put calling chips in, knowing he would be forced to raise. English wasn’t his first language and he claimed that he meant to say call instead of raise, while holding 5-6 on a Q-5-6-5 board.

Thanks all for your input, as well as to any others who add to this thread later.

I was very sure that Player A intentionally put out that extra chip in order to be required to min-raise, and did so to make it (hopefully) appear to Player B that he only meant to call, and thus induce a 4-bet from Player B.

While I have never done this move, I consider it to be very close to the border between an angle and a valid false-tell strategic play.

However, I have seen players put in too many chips many, many times. And usually they really did mean to call, but are forced to raise. And if I'm in the hand, and now want to reraise given the strength of my hand, I do so. Am I taking advantage of their honest mistake? I guess I am. But I don't see any moral issue with it at all. I don't see why it's any different than taking advantage of any other mistake they make in the play of the game. But others might disagree, and that's fine.

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)