Saw this one at a local poker room-

UTG bets $18 on the flop. CO raises to $50. UTG throws a $100 chip out without retrieving his previous bet and without vocalizing anything. Dealer says "call" and tells UTG to pull his $18 back. UTG flips out about how he deliberately didn't pull his initial bet back and that it constituted a raise since it's not a single oversized chip, but multiple chips. Floor is called over and agrees with the dealer. I've seen it called both ways by different floors and was wondering which was technically correct?

It is a call.

When facing a bet, if a player's action can be taken two ways, it is ruled the less aggressive.

In this case, tossing in a $100 can be viewed as a call with change coming, or a raise. Since there is ambiguity, it is resolved by enforcing the call.

This is a call.

However, considering UTG reacted immediately to the dealer announcing it as a call, and keeping in mind Rule #1, I'm not wholly against allowing him to raise, with the caveat that he will be held to a stricter standard in the future. The rules are to help us run a clean game, not punish people over technicalities. I view this as a teaching moment.

Ah. UTG was fairly cool about it and didn't mind the call going either way (after the fact). After the turn, the CO ended up going all in which UTG called so nothing changed. Glad I learned something though. Thanks!

It's a raise BECAUSE the $18 is still out there. Had he tossed it and pulled the 18 back, you can apply the 1 chip rule. Understand the context of the rule before trying to apply it.

I like pfap's comment about a teaching moment.

This is wrong. Here are the relevant TDA rules, both of which lead to call.

Rule 44 certainly doesn't clear anything up. If anything, it leans towards it being a raise.

Honestly, I'm okay with asking intent in these cases. Many people intend to raise this way, while many people intend to call this way. By keeping it strict in either direction, we open the door to people angling bettors to go against intent. I think the risk of that is far greater than someone who tries to get some kind of phantom read from putting out an ambiguous bet. As a general rule, people don't want to be held against their intent, so they don't try to skirt the line in this way.

I put 44 because it specifically mentions that chips left in are different from multiple chips.

the whole thing is stupid anyway. If uttering one syllable is going to cause you to lose, you need to find a new game.

I think this is clearly a call. Oversized chip rule is in effect.

Rule 44 does not negate the oversized chip rule. The case it covers is I believe when a player tosses out two $25 chips and then reaches to pullback the $18 already there. If he takes his time pulling back the chips already there then he is essentially raising because the extra $18 constitutes more than half of the most recent raise (in many rooms).

I used to feel the same way, but I quickly realised that "going with intent and a warning" didn't teach anyone anything, and only caused confusion because of the lack of consistency.

As a floor, if you let the player raise the dealers are just going to stop enforcing it because you make them look bad when you reverse it. As a dealer, if you ask for his intent then you make the next dealer look bad when he insists it's just a call.

Perhaps my situation is unique because we use many more high denom chips (HKD), but I'm now convinced that this is one of the rules that shouldn't be subject to intent. If you enforce it, the players learn to say "Raise" very quickly.

OP is cash game, TDA rule is irrelevant, in addition to being vague and non-definitive. (TDA can write anything they wish to, but they should not be presumed to change the rules for cash games, which predate tournaments by >100 years.)
Anyway, RRoP says only:
"15. If you put a single chip in the pot that is larger than the bet, but do not announce a raise, you are assumed to have only called."
But this does not specifically address the situation of chips previously bet but not yet pulled into the center, and which the bettor leaves there when he adds the single chip. "Technically", these chips are indeed already "in the pot", so single chip rule above might apply. But poker rulings which begin with the word "technically" are often wrong....
I have seen this ruled both ways, also bettor simply being asked (or allowed) to clarify his action. (TDA is correct that verbalizing avoids a lot of problems.)
But in bigger, more experienced, less nitty games, if bettor left the previous chips out there (and confirmed his intent), my experience is that this would stand as a raise much more often than not.

This is a call.
100%.

A lot of casinos, and dealers do not want you to touch chips that are in the pot.
For good reasons.

So, if you have chips in the pot still, the dealer can push them back to you.
Your single over sized chip is still a call.

OP isn't 100% clear, but I think most of us assumed that original $18 bet was still in front of bettor, not yet pulled into the center. Technically already in pot, but certainly ok for bettor to pull them back when making a new bet. This happens many times/hr without objection from anyone. (You are of course correct that players should not be making change out of the center.)

I think this is a clear cut call and in this scenario I'm not a fan of floor overruling it as a matter of rule #1.

But if the floor is going to do so they can do so without undermining the dealers if they choose there words appropriately. They need to make it clear that the dealer was correct, that you expect the dealer to make that same ruling each and every time, that the dealer would be in trouble to make a different ruling, but that this one time you are going to make a special exception.

I am sympathetic to the the player here. I agree that if we look at the traditional wording of the rule there is confusion about this point. But this scenario in my experience is overwhelmingly interpreted to not be treated as a multiple chip bet. It is an ambiguous action and the rule exists to make ambiguous actions a call.

The player could avoid the ambiguity either by verbalizing the raise, or by picking up the chips already in action adding the $100 chip and putting them all out together.

100% call. Next case.

It's a call and for the people who don't see it right away

UTG bet $18
CO raise to $50
DEALER TAKES IN UTG's $18.
$32 to call sir.
UTG throws out a single $100 chip which is a $32 call.

Dealers should never pull in bets unless a player in the hand requests it.

I agree with sandman, I'm not a fan of enforcing rule #1 here since people usually never learn. The player thinks he did nothing wrong because "he didn't pull his bet back", so if we allow this to be a raise, they will do it again.

The correct ruling is that the action is a call.

Any chips that are in the pot from previous actions are irrelevant.

Imagine this scenario: The first bet put out there was pushed forward in a neat stack. $18 in a stack. When guy puts $100 chip in the pot, he doesn't throw it forward, but instead set's it nicely directly on top of the $18 stack.

Now is it still just a call? I cannot imagine anyone interpreting this action as a call.

A few more details for this particular situation:

1) Our local room rarely pulls chips into the pot and distributes change until action is done per street. Some dealers do it, but most just let players make change for themselves if they're going to be doing raises/reraises/calls/etc. At all points after the flop, the chips were in front of each respective bettor until floor was called and UTG was asked to take back his $18.

2) What really confused me was that I've seen the situation arise on televised cash games (late night poker?) where a player like UTG meant to call but didn't pull back enough chips and was required to raise.

If so, it's obviously a call (and I doubt this thread would exist).
But nowhere in OP does it say that dealer had pulled in the $18 (or said anything before UTG acted, for that matter).....

Call. Everytime.

It's a call. He's putting in a single oversize chip.

That can happen if multiple chips are used. Do you have an example video?

You want certain formations of a single oversized chip to be considered a raise and others a call? It's a call because the rule says it's a call.

And for good reason. Imagine in your scenario, the dealer announces "Raise to $118" and the other player says "All-in!". The first player cries, "What?! That is clearly a call."

Now you're screwed.

Well, in this case, the correct ruling is that the action is a call.

Any chips that are in the pot from previous actions are irrelevant.