Dealer responds “that was a raise. Would you like for me to call for the floor to explain the rule?”

FWIW, I hope they adjust the addendum for rule 46 in a way that clearly addresses the situation where the old already covers the bet.

IMO, the SB's intent in the OP is:

1) Raise (80%)
2) Angle (15%)
3) Weird way to make change (5%)

I remember having done this in the past at least a couple of times (swaping chips from the SB when my 5$ chip already covered the straddle) and it was always treated as a raise without need to clarify.

Making an incorrect ruling and forcing players to object is an awful way to handle this. Say "call" like you're supposed to, then call the floor if someone wants clarification.

Actual dealers commented in this thread that the situation would be ruled a raise in their card room.

As I said in the part you didn’t quote, there’s no uniform opinion on how to rule in that situation and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it ruled differently by two different floors in the same room.

I don’t know where the “100%” or “like you’re supposed to” stuff is coming from but I don’t think that’s an appropriate way to discuss a question like this.

Hey, an actual instance of begging the question. Did you read the thread?

Provide your justification to claim an error. I believe your position is in the minority for a good reason

Bravo! I had to make a ruling on this exact situation last night.

But he didn't just push out an oversized chip.
He removed his blind, which would have covered the call, and replaced it with an oversized chip.

If so, what is the purpose of pulling back the $5 chip and throwing out a green $25 chip without saying anything?

Possibly he is angle shooter. I’m thinking if everyone folds, it was a raise. But if someone behind him shoved he may fold and try to claim it was just a call. It may have been totally innocent as well. Not sitting in there and not having any kind of read on this person would be just guessing I suppose. Hell I didn’t know there was even a standardized set of rules out there lol. Don’t play tournaments, so I was in the dark when people’s started making reference to rule 40 something and rule 40 something another else. Lol
It just don’t figure for someone that’s been playing for very long to do this and believe it to be anything other than a raise in the joints I play in.

Unfortunately intention doesn't count.

But if it did matter there could be conflicting intentions here. The player could be intending to raise. The player could be intending to get change.

This is why intentions don't matter.

Also as noted before it could be an angle. If everyone folds the player gets the pot. If he gets raised (or called) he can claim to have just called.

Whatever the rule is for the room, it has to be upheld regardless of any stated intention.

We 'finally' found a spot where a 'single silent' chip can be disputed!

While it's understandable to expect this to be ruled either way I tend towards a raise. But only due to a technicality, so to speak.

While Players can 'chip play/stage' to gauge opponent reaction prior to completing their action, does 'un-calling' take this too far?

Technically this Player has to 'check', raise or fold as they are already committed to a 'call' amount. When we examine rules pertaining to pulling back chips the one common theme is that a Player has committed to a call at a minimum while also having the option to raise.

When a Player pulls back all their chips do we now eliminate one of the 'acceptable' calling actions simply because they were already committed to a calling amount? Perhaps we do, but maybe we don't.

I think the key here is that the chip changed denominations. If this Player had already had a $25 out there for the BB and 'simply' pulled it back in a motion to toss it into the middle, then it's a call (check), change coming. I don't think anyone here would dispute this ruling.

But since the effort went into exchanging the chip 'for no reason' then I want to eliminate any potential angle and rule that it was done 'for a (poker) reason', that being to raise. The change in denomination is needed for me since the Player could pull back the $25 and pause and then simply toss it back in silently. This is a call since no 'exchange' of chips occurred. If it's a call 'without' a pause, it should be a call 'with' a pause.

Take it a step further and now the Player has a $25 out there for the $5 blind, pulls it back and then tossing in $100. The same 'no reason-reason' applies here and I'm raising this to $100, max amount.

While the Player could angle a fake argument that they really didn't mean to raise (when they really did, ala AA), I'm keying in on the 'changing' of the chips.

What if the Player pulls back a $25 and puts out a $10? Still a raise IMO. GL

And the poor dealer who now has to verify both the presence and values of all chips in play area at all times, and also know what the player pulled back, or if he even did.

Likely scenario, dealer sees one chip, didn't hear "Raise.", announces "Call." and action moves on...

I thought that every (competent) dealer verifies presence and value of chips in front of SB/BB/straddle when pitching them cards? That seems to be part of the routine. Especially since they have to tell players stuff like "blinds please" all the time.

He's the SB. If I didn't see him exchange the chip, when it was his action, I'm gonna wait for him to act.
He can knuckle the table or say call or raise, or toss his cards and wait for change.

This is an interesting situation... I would think that most dealers would interpret this as a call and announce a call.

Personally I think by pulling back the $5 chip and then replacing it with a $25 chip, I think the intent is to raise the bet but its ambiguous because of the silence.

Raise in my card room. Small blind already covers the bet so there's no need to mess with it unless you intend to raise.

Rules first, speed later. Floor calls slow the game down even more than playing by a very specific set of rules.

The common counter example for this argument is

'Blinds are T25\T50. It limps to the small blind. SB has tons of T25 chips in front of him, but he tosses in a T100 chip without making a declaration.'

This is considered a textbook call. But the same argument 'I had plenty of appropriate size chips for the call, why would I toss out a bigger chip unless I intend to raise?' is always asked.

The issue is not "why would I throw out this chip, when I could have thrown out that chip."

The issue is "why did I throw out any chip when I didn't have to."

You're right, the rules could be written to support your example also being just a call, but they aren't. It's a call if you throw out an oversize chip when facing a bet or raise higher than the chips you have out there. It's a raise if you already have enough out there to make the call. Verbalize your action if you want to be sure to avoid confusion.

I won a hundo bet on this being a raise irl. Just went with most trusted floor in the room at the time as arbiter.

I guess we are assuming that SB had a T25 out there already and then enter the 'single silent' 'too large' chip when action was on them. Currently this is only a call since the original chip doesn't cover the BB.

Even if the Player put out the larger chip and pulled back the smaller one .. still only a call if done without a verbal/visual declaration indicating a raise.


Possible derail, but I've been an advocate of 'always' first taking the total of multiple bet chips into consideration before applying any of the other rules. Then this would be a raise and we 'quickly' move on without needing to do any other math. Thus forcing the Player to declare their action more often and saving the Dealer/Floor from trying to get a proper (or wrong) ruling in place while most of the table is trying to explain their version of the 2-4 rules that possibly apply .. and apply them in the right order. GL

This seems like your ruling would be more inline with the player's intent. In the situation where a player throws a T100 chip onto his small blind and not do anything else, I've never seen them wanting it to be a call, they always want it to be a raise and get upset when told about the 1-chip rule.

Maybe you think the big chip is unlucky and want change so all your chips are the same.

Not always.
When they get upset they probably learn and don't do that in the future.

Steamraise, you got me thinking.

What if we’re in a room where OOT raises stand if the action doesn’t change. A player makes the chip swap from 5 to 25 before it’s his turn. Action limps to him. Is this a raise? If not, what if he did it right before the button folded? If it is a raise, what if he switched it from a 5 to a 25 back to a 5 before it’s his turn?

IMO if the replacement is a raise when it’s his turn it should be a raise in all situations before his turn given a binding OOT action rule.

An aside on the "why would I throw out a big chip when I have lots of small chips" thing. Every night I have players with multiple stacks of $5 chips throw out a $25 chip or even a $100 chip for a $5 call, just bc they want all red chips or dont want to keep track of a single black chip. A giant PITA.