First time playing a “Big Game” yesterday ($50-$100 Limit Omaha Hi), and saw this. Didn’t know if it was an outlier or if it’s just standard etiquette once you get away from the dregs playing $1-$2:

Three guys in the hand as we go to the River. Player 1 bets a $100 chip. Player 2 then throws in two $100 chips for a raise. Player 3 then says “call” and tosses out a single $100 chip. Player 1 instantly folds.

Dealer says to Player 3 “there was a raise, it’s $200 to call.” Player 3 says “oh ****, I didn’t see the raise, I fold.” Dealer says “you said call, it’s a call.” But then Player 1 says “Nah, it’s okay, let him keep his money.” And…that’s how it ends. Player 3 doesn’t call anything on the River, Player 2 just wins the pot without a showdown.

Is this fine, or does the Dealer need to force Player 3 to call the $200?

In a limit game it doesn't really matter anyway. So if everyone at the table is OK with it, there's no reason for the dealer to stand in the way of that.

it can be an issue if p1 says he would have called if p3 hadn't called - sometimes in a tight decision a call is correct but an overcall is not.

but p1 will let you know if that's the case.

if not, the folks who play in the bigger games tend to follow common sense and don't try to play gotcha poker. if someone was unaware of something and no damage has been done, they will let you fix or reconsider. not always, but often.

also, in bigger (limit) games, p1 will often notice the wrong amount went in, and will point it out and it will get corrected one way or another, preventing damage from occurring. players are a little more observant, and more experienced, and notice and correct small issues before they can become big ones.

dealers tend to know to let the players run the game, and only get involved if there seems to be dispute brewing. floors tend to enforce the strict rules when they are called over, because that's their job, but the players generally make it so floors don't need to be called.

it can sometimes lead to tricky situations when someone is angling, but it generally works fine, and the pool of people who play these games is smaller so they can peer pressure anyone who causes problems.

Why would player 1 say that the guy could take back money from a pot won by player 2??

If player 2 says he can take it back, I'm fine with that.

More the opposite, p1 can insist the call stay in if he only folded because p3 called, or get the floor called.over. An edge case though, usually it won't come to that is one of these games ime.

You and I play in the same sized games, so I'm open to hearing if you agree.

Larger games get more leeway with the rules/rulings. The Dealer still needs to attempt to enforce the room rule for the spot but it's VERY common for the Players to step in and do a spot by spot wiggle amongst what is typically a much smaller Player pool where one would assume less angling may be attempted.

In this spot it is odd that Player 1 would be speaking up, but he may be a table captain for the game. Certainly Player 2 could've pressed the issue but they did not. IMO this can, and will, happen much more often in Limit games since there's not a drastic change of the amount of chips going into the betting area.


What should happen? Room depending, but since Player 1 folded Player 3 would be held to a call VERY often. Some Floors may allow Player 3 to reconsider their action with the 100 staying out there either way.

I'll comment as in another thread today .. In smaller Player pools or 'odd' games the rules/rulings tend to be more Player friendly in order to keep what 'few' Players there are coming back. Nothing worse than a ruling driving a Player away from a game if it's avoidable. GL

He was in the hand on the river so he should have the right to object to any agreement outside the regular set of rules.

If the dealer makes player 3 pay the full bet, there's a good chance player 2 tosses him a black chip back after the hand anyway. That's the difference between NL/PL and limit games where stack sizes don't matter unless one of the players is short.

I don't want to get into strategy but there are scenarios where player 1 would have called the raise by player 2 if player 3 had folded. Depending on how many bets went into the pot on flop and turn, he might be priced in to call with a pure bluff catcher for example. That changes once player 3 calls.

I screwed up—it was Player 2 who let Player 3 take his call back. Player 1 was no longer involved. Sorry!

(Player 2 rivered the nut flush and Player 3 had rivered a lower flush, so 3 was saying to 2 “you know I’m never calling your raise with just a low flush” and 2 was “yeah, that’s why I’m letting you keep your money.”)

It doesn't make any sense to me why p1 would insist p2 get more of p3's money. Even if he would have called if p3 hadn't, that's not going to get him his cards back, so what's the point?

Player 1's right to play in a fair game does not stop once his cards become irretrievably — actually that is exactly when we should be extra sure to defend his right. I don't understand your confusion.

His right to what? I don't understand why one player would want to force another player to give money to a third player.

You are asking about the reason for his want, which might be to defend his right to a fair game. His cards being irretrievable limits his recourse, and so we should be extra protective of it.

Agree that in bigger games players mostly have the leeway to resolve minor procedural issues or unintentional actions as they see fit - the poker room doesn't have much incentive to get involved as long as the players are happy and it doesn't seem obviously unethical or unfair.

Actually sometimes they get the leeway to resolve much more problematic situations too.

Few solution are perfect but most players are willing to compromise for the greater good of the game.

And keeping the games friendly is generally strongly in the best interests of good players and pro.

It's not even really about the stakes - its more because players at high stakes generally have a much deeper understanding of the rules because so much money can be on the line. A casual 3/6 limit player or 1/2 hold em player might not really have any idea about more complex rules and playing norms.

This happens a lot in cash games though to a lesser degree.

Often the SB doesn't see that there is a raise and either throws out a calling chip or says "call". When the dealer lets them know its for a bigger amount they often try to take their calling chip(s) back which is where it gets interesting. The rule is the chip(s) out there have to stay but often the players involved say that the calling chip(s) can go back. I always do.

In tournaments technically its different because it affects everyone but I would say about 1/4 of the time it happens the player will get to take back their calling chip(s).

I always advocate for it whether I'm in the hand or not because personally I think the rule is very stupid. Either its a call or its a fold. The calling chip(s) should have nothing to do with it if its ruled a fold.

I hate this new undercall chips stay rule.

If you verbalize a call it is a call.

If you put out the under call chips, I much prefer the old rule that you can pull them back, reconsider all options.

I prefer this older rule even though I cannot remember the last time I under called.

Personally, I prefer to have very strong dealers and housemen who are strict and by the book in their rulings. It's not deal breaker or anything if I play in a more relaxed environment, just my personal preference.

Just had a similar occurrence in the same game yesterday:

Folds to Button who opens, BB defends. Flop is dealt, BB checks, Button bets, BB calls.

But the dealer thought the BB had folded and so he'd already thrown the deck into the muck and was pushing the pot to Button. The players stop him, and the Dealer calls "Floor!" to figure out how to deal the Turn card. But....before the Floor arrives, the BB and Button say to each other "it's a small pot, let's just chop it up and move on," the Dealer shrugs in assent, and they do in fact just chop up the pot and move on to the next hand.

It's crazy how relaxed everyone is! Really hammers home how much all this angle-shot/rules nit stuff is really just scumbags being scumbags.

Don't conflate the two: An angleshooter would take issue with these agreements because of the rules, while a rules nit would support these agreements in spite of the rules. (Or, the term for a rules nit who uses his technical understanding and a literal interpretation of the law to gain an unfair advantage is just "angleshooter".)

Rules nits are most often the ones who call out angle attempts because they see what is really going on and hate that the knowledge is being used for bad.

I suppose there is a breed of nit who would insist that the floor is called and the hand plays out for reasons that even he does not understand. That guy just "kinda sucks".

Especially in a limit hold'em cash game where it doesn't even matter to the other players at the table who wins a pot.

There, that's better.

Apparently it's a limit Omaha High game

Isn’t there a provision in most rule sets for a gross misunderstanding? For example in a NL game, player A throws out a single chip and says “all in”. Player B does not hear the verbal declaration and says call. The dealer then places an all in button in front of player A and B objects stating that he didn’t hear the all in and was just calling the single chip bet. There is some gray area to this type of spot, but is it not true that it can be ruled that there was a gross misunderstanding by player B and that he might be allowed to fold instead?

Not sure that would apply to the given case since the difference in bet size is probably too small to constitute “gross misunderstanding”, but there may be provisions in rules for not holding someone to a call in some circumstances.

gross misunderstanding (if the amount is wildly wrong, you get to reconsider) was an RRoP rule. it didn't make it into TDA, at least not as such.

TDA says that if there is a misunderstanding, the floor may rule you have the choice between forfeiting whatever you put in and folding, or making the complete call amount. But it only comes into play if you use chips, not if you verbalize "call", etc etc. It's quite a bit less flexible.

Codifying the bolded part is an affront to common sense. In no other situation is "call part of a bet then surrender your hand" a valid poker action. Nor am I aware of any other situation where a "penalty" involves throwing a somewhat arbitrary amount in the pot and folding.

I get the sense this arose when NL became widespread as an attempt to be King Solomon splitting the baby. Requiring a $2000 call when someone thought it was $50 seemed too harsh. But letting them get off scot free didn't sit well I guess? So voilà, we do something in between and punish them a bit for misunderstanding the action.

The error is that the rules don't exist to punish inattentiveness. Actions are binding in poker to prevent players from deferring a decision until others have acted. (If a player is reasonably suspected of feigning misunderstanding to see the action behind, they should be held to the full call anyway.)