Not a big deal, but I thought I'd see what the actual rule is here -

Blinds have just gone up to 100/200 and there are no antes in the tournament. There is a break just before this level where all the $25 chips are colored up. Player A is in the BB and there is one limp and and a SB call in front of him. Player A, forgetting that the $25 chips have been removed from play, announces a raise to $550.

What amount is player A required to bet, $500 or $600?

"Bets must be in increments of 100. Would you like to raise to 500 or 600?"

Why do we have to require anybody to do anything? This is a situation outside the norm, attention has been called to it before any action behind, so why not allow the player to go with intent?

Yeah unless his raise has significantly influenced action past him (very unlikely), then he can change his bet to what he prefers. Bettor can choose 500 or 600.

I bet it's not in the TDA rules exactly as the OP's scenario, but TDA rules do allow the floor to make an interpreted decision in the best interest of the game.

Making the bet $600 makes the most sense to me based on the 50% or better above the bet (or blind) constitutes a raise, rule. If he declared $525 it is obvious that it should be made $500, as it is obvious if he bet $575 it should be $600.

I would be just as fine with giving the player an option to correct his bet considering the minor difference. Pfapfap would know better than me.

The 50% rule refers to players who actually put money into the pot without verbalizing the amount. Lacking any greens the player could only announce his intention.

Verbal declarations are binding but you cannot bind someone to an amount he cannot bet. The amount in question is insignificant and does not warrant more than a quick question, "Did you want to make it $500 or $600?"

The challenge is that in a pure manner of speaking, he only had one intent, and that is to bet $550 not either $500 or $600. What if the player declared $525 or $575? Would you rule it as to be $500 in the former and in the later he has an option to contemplate his preference of either $500 or $600?

Thinking it through a bit more, I'm convinced that the most logical and less problematic solution is to force the player to make it $600.

Here is another test: What if the player declares $550 and options to make it $500, then on the next hand he declares $550 again and this time when advised of his option he makes it $600. My rhetorical question is do we give him an option each time or is it better to force the bet to $600?

These are tests and challenges?

My answer is always the same: clarify ambiguous situations as soon as possible.

Force is my last resort in almost any situation.

I'm not sure that's correct, my good colleague. If the blinds are 100/200 and a player orally declares he raises to $300 without putting his chips in, it is as perfectly binding just as if he had tossed in $300 in chips. His choices are now to fold, or complete the bet to $400 either scenario, no?

I appreciate the spirit of clarifying ambiguity, but the moment you offer an option, there is inherently a moment of uncertainty in an outcome where it can go either way as the player takes a post action mulligan and contemplates if $500 or $600 suits him at this interesting juncture in the game. He may even often enough have an advantage as he observes how his opponents react to the controversy as the table awaits a ruling.

Poker is consistently a game of strict procedures that "forces" a specific action after players make rule and procedure mistakes.

Isn't giving a player options in the realm of ambiguity, whereas a single outcome for a specific error is clarity in the purest?

If you can not bind someone to an amount they can not bet, then how can binding the player to make it either $500 or $600 be consistent with that logic? He's being bound to a range so therefore he must have indeed made a binding bet. Otherwise, he should be given the full spectrum of options with no restrictions, including folding and betting all the way up all-in.

I really respect all of you guys, but clearly forcing the bet to $600 is in the best interest of and more consistent with the game.

It's the $50 part of the bet that he cannot be bound to since there is no way to make a bet of any amount plus $50.

There is a regular player in our PLO game who announced "Pot" the other day. The problem was, he was sitting in a $2/$5 NLHE table waiting for the PLO to get started. I said "Wrong game Hank" (not his name) and he laughed as did the table and he threw in a bet.

The pot was $70, he put in $60. I can't tell him what's in the pot but I usually know how much is there. The thing was, he announced a bet he could not make and yet the game went on without anyone getting upset or calling the floor. It was not a significant amount difference.

This is really no different. The player made a mistake that did not cause any problems, the option between $500 and $600 is meaningless. Probably most players will mke he bet $600 since making it the lower amount looks weak.

Had the player said "$2500" and he only had $1800, he would be all in, no question and get a warning about overstating his bet. But this is too small an amount to worry about.

I guess my question was more interesting than I thought, and there is no clear cut "rule".

There was no dispute or anything at the table. Player A had actually thrown out a $1000 chip when he announced $550. Dealer and limper were confused for a moment, then Player A realized what he had done and said oops, I guess make it $600. Thanks for the responses.

Neither. "This is the second time. You know you can't bet that. Next time you do it, Al's coming over with his titanium toed shoes and is going to show us how much his workouts have improved his leg strength."

Can you provide any real-world example of this? Something you've witnessed? I know people get very nervous about this "he might get a tell off of me!" concept when a bet is slightly ambiguous and we pause a moment to clarify, but have you ever seen this attempted, let alone successfully? What possible tell could I get by quickly scanning NINE OTHER PLAYERS to determine in which direction my bet alters by 10%? How is this a possible angle in any way?

Not always, and not everywhere. Rule #1 is that the floor can make any ruling in the interest of the game, even if a strict interpretation of the rules suggests another outcome. It's right there, before every rule, that not every rule is consistent or strict. It's at the very top.

I bring this up a lot in these kinds of conversations, but none of the "we must be totally strict at all times!" people ever have anything to say about it. Maybe this time will be the exception.

Why do we need to force someone to go against intent, when intent can so quickly be verified? What is gained by doling out punishment? Are we here to play poker, or to play a game of hoop-jumping "gotcha"?

Completely different situation.

Exactly.

The WSOP this past year introduced progressive penalties, and I liked it. In fact, when my home leagues start up again, I'm going to introduce this for the one chip rule. That's right, you read it properly, I'm not even going to hold the one chip rule as strict. It's a rule of convenience, and first offense gets a warning and clarification. Second offense, we hold you to it.

I'm in no way worried about angle shooters exploiting this.

pfapfap and Dealer Guy: I'm much too tired and it will be too much work to respond to all your counterpoints properly at this hour. I will say that we really are arguing what amounts to the resolution of an issue that is of very little relative consequence or importance, not to mention very rare in occurrence. Still, it is fun to debate which is the more perfect solution, though I doubt we will change any minds between the three of us. I'll get back to you sometime between tomorrow and Sunday.

In the mean time, I would be curious on how you guys would propose is the best ruling if that same player declared $525 or $575 instead of $550?

Spirited debate is what keeps me up too late when I have to work the next day. I must be getting better at it, I haven't gotten an infraction point in over 6 months!

$535 = $500, $575 = $600 and no one would complain since I would say it with calm authority and I'm really big.

$525 is $500, $575 is $600. $550 is right in the middle, so he gets to choose.

It's an easy fix. Just clarify whether he meant $500 or $600 because obviously he didn't mean $550 because that's impossible. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt and don't over-analyze.

To me, it is so perfectly, profoundly, and unambiguously self evident that if we were to force the bet down to $500 if a player declares $525; up to $600 if he declares a bet of $575, that we would continue that logic of reasoning that if it's $550 we round up to $600. In a logic test, offering the player an option here to go either way because he came in the middle just doesn't hold up when we would have adjusted his bet otherwise, and where we adjust bets all the time in other situations.

I can't imagine a table of seasoned live tourney veterans ever objecting to rounding up the bet to $600, I'm not sure it would be the same the other way. It's just plain inconsistent with how we would customarily handle other decisions in the realm of this situation, even inconsistent with how you, Dealer Guy and Al yourselves would propose to handle the same mistake if it were only $25 more or less than $550.

Nevertheless, if the player is given an option, it really doesn't matter all that much. Either decision is fair enough given the rarity of such an event and the minor potential consequences to the action on that singular hand.

OK, I'm done with this thread. With respect my friends.

11:59 is am, and 12:01 is pm. 12:00 noon is neither am nor pm.

I'm not sure why the concept of "two of these are close to a legal bet, but one of these is in the middle" is so hard to recognize. And if the room has a policy of always rounding up (or down), I'm perfectly happy with it.

I just don't think it's that big of a deal to let someone bet with intent in more ambiguous situations, certainly not to the point of feeling the need to test or challenge it. "Nope, 550's not legal, which way do you want to tip it?"

You are presenting a non sequitur in an attempt to make your point. What we call the mid point (noon) or a fraction beyond it (p.m.) or below it (a.m.) means nothing other than a means to express a specific value. What we call a specific value has nothing to do with how we treat it. It's not as if a half way point has some strange mathematical properties that would call for us to suspend how we treat it relative to any other value greater or lesser than that mid point.

Why would we suddenly suspend logic and precedence of rounding all other values between 500 and 600 unless it happens to be 550? Is just another number, not some enigma or special value that can't be rounded off as comfortably as we are willing to round off a value of either 525 or 575.

Who says suspend logic? I agree with the logic of rounding to the closest legal bet. Precisely in the middle has two ways it can go. I really don't understand why this troubles you so much. What do you fear in allowing the player to correct it?

What "troubles" me is that the resolution you propose is inconsistent with the way we traditionally resolve invalid bets. A value precisely in the middle does not "have two ways to go", it only has one way to go and that is to round it up. There is no such thing as a number that can't be rounded, even one in the middle. In poker where rounding off is called for, a value of .50 or greater is always rounded up without exception. I just don't understand why you would agree to round down 525, round up 575, but somehow you would make a special exception for a bet of 550.

What if he said, I bet 549 or 551? We would certainly round those numbers up or down without any hesitation whatsoever. The value of 550 is not some special neutral point where we suspend what we would otherwise automatically do, it is simply a tipping point where we go from rounding down to rounding up.

Suppose in this same scenario, with the 25 chips out of play, the player declared a bet of 350 into the 200 blind. You would certainly agree the player has no options here whatsoever; he must put out 400, nothing more, nothing less. We certainly would not say, "Well, since the 25 dollar chips are out of play, and your bet is in the middle, you have two options. You can put out 300 and fold, or you can complete the bet to 400 and continue with the hand." This would be just as absurd as giving a player an option to make it 500 or 600 as he pleases only because he bet 550.

I'm not arguing against the concept of a rule that is hard-nosed, I'm arguing that it's also possible to show some leniency in ambiguous situations. This doesn't invalidate the procedures that always round one way or another, it's merely another completely valid way to address it. Your way is fine; I have no problem with it. I'm merely saying that other methods are perfectly valid and fair, too.

Examples? The only things I can think of are raises to existing bets.

Why? We're not writing in scientific notation here. This is poker, and we're using integers (usually). If someone bet 549 and then said "oh, well, make it 600" I'd be perfectly okay with that.

Poker is not an exact science. I see no problem in pausing at the occasional abnormal situation and asking clarification. If someone makes it a habit, then we get a bit more strict.

Examples? I'm not sure what you mean here.

This has nothing to do with the "50" in the number, it has to do with the multiples of the existing bet, and the intention. Even a bet of 300 would be a raise (unless he said he thought he was calling), because we're rounding based on intention. That's the key aspect to this, not the number.

What's absurd to me is why it matters. If your casino says "always round up" then hey, that's cool by me. If instead you decide "always round down" then you won't hear a peep of complaint. Many methods can be equally valid without each of them denigrating the others.

There is absolutely nothing unreasonable to me with any of what you are saying in the post above. It is indeed possible to have more than one right answer when it comes to poker rulings.

I wholly accept that the nature of poker inherently comes with situations from time to time that should be solved by subjective means in the best interest of the game. One of the beautiful dimensions of poker is that no matter how long you play, you often run into scenarios that you've never witnessed before.

Peace my friend