As stated by Rick it is not always about tells. I don’t normally verbalize my bets. I simply put the bet out and allow the chips talk. I will usually Verbalize a call that keep game moving. For a raise will typically say raise and then put whole amount out and not give a amount verbally. So if I miscount or otherwise screw up the chips speak. But non of this is about tells.

@Rick. 1, 2, 5 chips put in are not why som call it single chip. It is Can any single chip be removed and the action be valid. That is the singl chip aspect.

This is clearly a raise and I would be very irritated by the floors ruling.

And you are clearly in the tiny minority in that position. Since it is running about 10:1 against you and your opinion runs clearly counter to the common rule sets quoted here why do you believe it should be a raise?

Because I somehow misinterpreted the OP's clearly stated action. bah

Its a call, even though intent to raise was fairly straightforward - unfortunate for lesser experienced players that can suffer for what is close to a technicality.

While other player can choose to allow it (awkward since sometimes they want the raise to go through but not betray that info) this is not a good spot for dealer to influence the action by asking for clarification.

Learning to verbalize raise is a good habbit for most.

I feel like if this thread was restarted but the first three replies were about how it’s a raise everyone else would have followed suit per usual and why discussion just gets bad.

“one chip” rulings don’t apply to tossing in two chips at a time. So if he tossed in two 1k chips it’s a min-raise without verbalizing an amount.

They might apply to tossing in one more chip when one large chip is already out there for a smaller bet but I think is realistically always going to come down to dealer description of your actions and narration in a typical floor decision situation.

Oversized chip rule applies regardless of how many physical chips are used.

Maybe your opinion is correct just not in this case. Maybe in an alternate universe.

The first three replies were supported by subsequent actual rule set quotes. I will agree a poor dealer may rule alternately. That does not mean his ruling follows well established rules.

If the first 3 posts would have been “it’s a raise”, the next 10 posts probably would have been “no, it’s not”. This is a textbook example for a situation that is a clear call by the rules (in most rooms) even though more than one chip was used and the total amount would be enough for a raise.

The rule is so well-known that the hypothetical is useless even as a thought exercise. If you can find one thread from this forum where the first three replies were wrong and the majority of subsequent replies followed them off a cliff, then maybe there would be something interesting about herd mentality to discuss. But I don't know how you could read the replies here and think that the conversation could have just as easily gone the other way. It would have required lapses in memory, misplaced confidence, and false citations, not just blind following.

I mean, it's easier to assume that everyone is just bandwagoning on an answer than it is to accept that maybe the way you thought about something was wrong.

Not the same rule(s) ... From TDA 2019 ...

41) ... Silently betting chip(s) relatively tiny to the bet is non-standard, strongly discouraged, subject to penalty, and will be interpreted at TDs discretion, including being ruled a full call.

THIS is your typical 'single chip rule' scenario which creates issues. Since an action like this (especially since they open the door to multiple 'really' small chips) opens up the door to misunderstood action and under-call rulings.

Rule 44 explains that a single over-sized chip is always a call unless raise if first declared (before the chip hits the felt).

Rule 45 explains how to handle (silent) multiple chip betting with a two tiered approach for first determining if it 'may' be a raise or just a call and then applying the 50% rule to determine if it actually is a raise.


In today's 'mask' era spots like these will pop up even more IMO. This worst spots come from a Player verbalizing an action and then follows that up with 'confusing' chip motions. I watched a YouTube spot just last week about a player who went all-in verbally but then tossed in a green chip into the middle. Before the Dealer even had a chance to verify the action the opponent tossed in a green chip for a call and exposed their hand ... stating that they didn't hear the all-in through the mask. GL

Yes of course.

When I say I use two chips instead of one I mean that if I am wanting to raise to 1,000 I will use a 1,000 chip and a 25 chip. Or two 500 chips if I have them.

Only if I must use a 1,000 chip will I say "Raise" and put the 1,000 out there.

Literally the rule is hinged on whether you said raise or not. The rule is specifically designed to clarify the actions of people that play silently.

This is clearly a call, and I would be very irritated if the floor had ruled otherwise.

You would be wrong.
Worse still. the guy who puts in what would be a very clear action and then mumbles something as he puts it in.

If you're speaking here you must be betting something other than what it appears.

If he had just kept his mouth shut we would be on the next hand by now.

Always a call.

Putting in multiple chips summing to more than a min raise, when with the same chips ($260 and the 2x $1000) you could have easily reproduced the exact bet amount, is an unambiguous raise.

It would be different if he didn't already have $260 in the middle on this betting round.

Edit: no idea if this will change anyone's mind, but maybe it is simpler to imagine this: you bet or call $5 with a single chip. Someone raises to $30 total. You pull back your $5 chip, and put out 2x $25 chips. If this still looks like a call to you guys, I am puzzled; we must not have played in the same casinos. Or I'm losing my mind. Both are possible!

from OP:

I think you missed this information.

That’s a call in rooms that model their cash game rules on TDA rules. Dinesh quoted the rule in post #5.

It is worth noting that none of the standard rulesets make any specific mention about how to treat chips already in the pot when applying these rules (nor whether to consider them as part of the "bet" under consideration - do those chips count?).

Plus, there are many different varieties of what might happen with them:
1- Player pulls them all back first
2- Player pulls some back first
3- Player pulls all back after putting in oversize chips
4- Player pulls some back after putting in oversize chips
5- Player leaves them in
6- Player pulls them all back, then puts some back in the pot along with other oversize chips

The standard from respected floors seems to be "ignore them" when deciding whether the rule applies, at least in part because there are so many different possible varieties of ways they might otherwise have to be considered.

Among the advanced players here, they tend to think that options 2, 6, and maybe 4 would allow for ruling it a raise, since the player seems to be making an attempt to purposefully demonstrate they want to leave specific chips in with their bet. (Option 4 may be excluded because it's possible to look for tells before deciding whether to pull back none/some/all of your previously bet chips.)

But again, there is no language in the rules to indicate this overtly, it's just expert rules officials trying to make common sense rulings based on obvious intent.

Having said all the above, in this case the player pulled back all his chips first, then put in oversized chips. It is a clear call in every standard TDA ruleset, and the RRoP ruleset practical ruling as well.

1) The $260 makes no difference because he pulled them all out of the betting area, which essentially takes them out of the pot. The Player is still committed to at least a call and has the option to 're-use' those chips to complete a call or attempt a raise.


2) Pulling back the $5 commits a Player to at least a call

Tossing out two $25 is call ... unless you can get a Floor to ignore ... That $50 is not a legal raise, $55 is. They would have to apply the 50% Rule and not enforce the Multi-chip Bet Rule as described here in order for that to happen.

This spot is actually 'worse' than the OP's since the two chips combined don't amount to a legal raise. GL

Just name a few. There's enough experience here that we don't need to speculate.

Its really going to depend on the room and sometimes the Floor within a room.

At Foxwoods I did that with my small blind and it was ruled a Call.

Though now at some rooms (including Foxwoods if I am not mistaken) if you pull back the SB and put out two chips that would ordinarily be a Call, it is considered a Raise.

The point is that a player may be doing this to keep small chips and get change from the larger chip. Or he may be doing it because he wants to raise. But because there is ambiguity the Floor will generally rule based on the oversize chip rules.

I didn't misunderstand the OP. I know he pulled the $260 back.

I would agree with the majority here if he had pulled back the small chips and put in 1 chip that covered the bet. But putting in 2 chips that are enough for a legal raise is a raise in my book. Especially when they could have made the exact amount for a call using an easy combination of the $260 they started with and the 2x $1000 they put in later.

I've played in casinos, card rooms, and home games in 7 states I can think of, including Las Vegas and California, and a little bit in Canada too. I can't imagine seeing what the OP described and anyone at the table assuming anything other than raise. I would never even think to ask if it was a call.

All that said, my confidence is somewhere in the 75% to 90% range - not that I'm correct based on any particular rule book, but that my interpretation is what would have transpired at any of the games where I played regularly. But this isn't anything I'd ever thought about before reading this thread, so it is quite possible I've witnessed it and just failed to notice... Or that the me of 15 years ago would disagree with the me of now.

I never had any problems with it, but honestly all this aside, I think pulling back of chips already committed to the pot is a little bit of a gray area that I don't think is totally clearly covered by the rules I glanced through in this thread.

Your book and what you can or cannot imagine aren't the determining factors though. I'm not calling you dumb or stupid and I'm not saying that your argument is in bad faith. I'm just suggesting that sometimes our intuition doesn't match with how things are.

With the chips he placed in the pot, it is literally ambiguous as to whether it is a call or a raise. He could be trying to call, or he could be trying to raise. Because his intentions are not clear, we go with the lesser amount because we're not mind readers and we have to be consistent with how we rule these things.