5/10 PLO Game Live 6-Handed

Situation on the turn. Two players in the hand. Pot ($280)

Player 1 checks
Player 2 bets ($260)
Player 1 Raises Pot ($1,060 total)
Player 2 pulls back their $260 original bet and throws in (2x) 1K chips

Is this a call or raise?

call

Call. But how/why do you think that this has anything to do with the "One Chip Rule," as you call it?

Player 2 claims his action should count as a raise because it was more than the minimum required to raise ($1,860 would be min-raise)

Dealer + Floor ruled it as a call as 1 oversized chip over the calling amount is the 'one-chip rule'

It is never a raise, absent a verbal declaration, or (in some rooms or cirrcumstances) some manipulation of chips already in the pot.

It is because of what I prefer we call the Oversize Chip(s) rule, which unfortunately is more commonly known as the One Chip rule (that is the RRoP language), even though it doesn't require using just one chip (as in this case), or even 1 oversize chip (they must all be oversized, which is to say no single chip must be small enough so that if it were removed, the amount remaining would still be enough to cover the bet as a call).

RRoP:
TDA calls it the Multiple Chips rule - they have a separate rule for just a single chip, even though both are really the same case:
Annoyingly, "one chip call" also sometimes refers to the often innocuous but sometimes major-problem-causing situation where a player is facing a (larger) bet and decides to flip in a single chip (often a $1 chip) to signify that they are calling, "for the cameras".

It would be a raise if any part of his original $260 was left in front of him. So if he pulled $255 back and threw in 2 $1k chips, then it would be a raise.

It would be a raise if he just said "raise".

This will be a 'Call' a very large percentage of the time due to Rule 45 above. Since the removal of one chip puts the remaining chip(s) below a call it's considered a call.

Now to address pulling back and adding as D1 has opened the door to ..

1) When you pull back your entire bet, you are committed to a minimum of a 'Call' but may also raise. TDA 2019 changed the rule to eliminate saying 'raise' and then only sliding out the call before deciding how much the raise will be. Doing so now would be a forced min-raise.

1A) In cases where pulling back a chip does suffice a 'Call' the remaining chips may then be subject to the 50% rule as applied by the facility. Some rooms require a full raise, others force a raise if the total is over 50% of a legal raise. Application of this rule is much more varied than the rules shown above.

2) Pulling back only part of the bet still commits the Player to at least a 'Call' but they can still raise. Since there would now be a smaller chip that could be removed thus leaving the two 1K chips 'in play' it would be a raise to $2K+ since the min raise was 820 (to 1900) from 1080 (from 260).

In order to help keep pace and possibly eliminate angles, Players are now only allowed one forward motion (with release) per action unless they have previously made a verbal declaration. GL

Are you suggesting that he was clearly intending to raise?

Maybe he just wanted change.

Maybe he wanted them to think he was trying to raise.

Well OP claims the player claimed it should be a raise. His real intent we will never know for certain. Not even if we were there at the time he did it.

What I'm suggesting is to not put 'intent' into the opinion of a Floor/Dealer, and I've seen plenty of 'Rule #1' rulings that went against the letter of an exact rule. IMOAD, yes this was an intended raise.

Did the Player ask for change or make any other physical motion that suggested that this was a call? What kind of change is he looking for ... He pulled back 260 to toss out 2000 for a 1060 bet. Why not leave the 60 out there and toss in 1000 on top? Stretch comment for sure ...

Could it have been an angle? Maybe ... we love trying to manufacture angles.

I've long taken the stand that 'any' (silent/motionless) multi-chip bet should first be taken at full face value before applying any of the current rules to determine a call or raise. To me it's pretty simple ... hold a Player accountable for chips they enter into the betting area. This would eliminate LOTS of Floor calls (in time) and force Players to more often verbalize their action before physically trying to fulfill that action.

We protect the low limit Player from themselves in certain spots. 1/2, raise to 6 and then a Player tries to call with two 5s. IMO this should be a raise to 10 ... force the Player to say call before they put out the chips. But under the current rules this is a call since removing one chips puts it below 6. There's nothing wrong with asking Players to pay attention to the action and/or protect their action by verbalizing first. We would certainly expect a Player to say 'change' if they put out a 25 and a 1 in this spot to make a call.

There's no need to further rattle this cage in this thread, it's been hashed out in others. GL

Ideally, the dealer seeing this vague action, immediately asks him "What are you trying to do?"

I would go with whatever he immediately says. If he hems or looks at the other player for reaction or any other sketchyness, it's a call.

The point of the rules is to precisely avoid those variety of judgment calls. The way the rule is written means that if you don't declare a verbal action putting chips into the pot always has a defined meaning. It's not up to the dealer to interpret anything.

Further, there's a clear reason why this rule exists - so that you don't get to take a binding action, see if your opponent gives you a live tell, and then choose what that action means. Even if a dealer immediately catches it, if you're an angle shooter, you get a 1-2 second window to potentially see an immediate reaction. Is this a dynamic we really want in live poker? So many rules in the game are designed to avoid precisely this sort of angle shooting nonsense. And this just gets worse if the dealer doesn't immediately catch what's happening.

Just make it a call.

What the...no. That is not ideal, and the action is not vague. It would be a bad enough wtf on its own, made worse when the caller accepts the dealer's surprise offer to change his call to a raise.

The oversized chip rule exists precisely to protect players and to make it so that the game can be played completely silently.

Imo the guy should be held to a call as soon as he starts taking chips out of the pot.

What? No. lol? I think you're conflating not letting a player fold if they start manipulating the chips in front of them?

No I know that's not the rule. I'm just saying, it seems like all types of messed up that the guy can take chips out of the pot, think about it, look around at everyone face, and then decide between fold/call/raise. It seems like a whole lot of string raise to me if we decide he can still raise. Of course, like I said, I know that's not the rule.

That player cannot fold in this spot after taking the chips back. Not in a well run room at least.

Lol it has nothing to do with playing "silently".

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

May not be the intent of the rule but it does help facilitate playing silently. If a player does what was stated he can be fairly certain that at least in well run rooms his action will be handled consistently...a call.

Now could he do this, this way in this spot? Different discussio. Is this why the rule exists? Also different discussion. But the rule does facilitate silent play and consistency.

As stated above ... the thread is really titled incorrectly for the spot, which just shows that there is some misapplication of at least the verbiage used in these spots ... which brings out some confusion over which rule someone is talking about and if it's really the right rule that should be applied to the spot.

1) Single silent (over-sized?) Chip Rule (when facing action) ... always only a call

2) Multi-chip Bet Rule ... Dealer to determine call or raise based on individual chip values

3) NOT A RULE (or 'proper' action) and can cause misunderstandings. A Player follows up a verbal declaration (typically an all-in) by putting in one chip or one stack 'only'. This gets extremely tricky when a Player is facing action and verbalizes their action, but only tosses out the single chip, as most Players will take this as a call only based on their 'knowledge' of #1.

4) Pulling back chips from a previous bet/call holds a Player to at least a call when facing new action ... and is still subject to all the other betting rules as necessary. GL

It is important to make one's actions clear. Saying "call," or "raise" (and maybe an amount) before moving chips would be a big help for everyone.

If you are afraid to speak because you might give a tell, you have issues that should be discussed with a psychiatrist.psychologist, IMO.

Tells are part of it.

So are making mistakes. Or saying something that could be ambiguous.

But the worst part of vocalizing bets to me is the chances that what is said will be misunderstood or not heard.

For that reason I always use two chips so that the one chip rule won't apply. Or in this case three+ chips.

Because that is not always possible, I do articulate my betting intention before I act in cases where I can't bet silently. And because of a bad experience I generally wait a moment after speaking before I put my chip(s) out.

When I am calling I almost always put one chip out first and then the rest of the calling amount as necessary.

I have seen bad mistakes made by silent bettors and have made some myself (including one like in this OP). But having learned from them I prefer not speaking my bets where possible.

Assuming I will ever play live poker again...

I'm not OP, but probably because what people call the "single chip rule" is just a specific application of the oversize chip rule. If someone opens to $30 at 5/T and action is on you, it's a call if you throw out a single $100 chip and it's also a call if you throw out two $25 chips; it's the same rule that determines that both of these are calls.