Quote:
Originally Posted by Fore
First it is far from clear his intent was to raise. Maybe he knows the rule and is angleshooting. I feel,you are inferring his intent when the opposite is just as possible.
I have played and seen many 2-5 or similar games where white only played in 5s unless all in and then fewer than 5 would play. That is different from say a 100-200 game where whites and even red just do not play. In those type games, three white simply are pieces of plastic with no meaning in the game no matter how many he has.
I honestly don't know whether you're agreeing with me or not, but I think not.
If he knows the rule and is angleshooting...this is exactly why it should be ruled a raise, to end the angleshooting. I could also live with asking him to clarify his intent immediately ("what? no, the $1s don't play, so it's just a call by oversize chip rule!") which if done before the next player acts, I would allow him to just call, then eject him after the hand is over for angleshooting (and admitting to it).
I guess I can agree that there may be some highly constructed edge cases where it is not clear that his bet is a raise (or an angleshoot that I will rule a raise anyway). In those cases I may rule it a call. But just to be clear, your example isn't one, because if it's 100-200 then his bet of 103 won't be oversized to begin with.
But I will agree that it's all about the context, and whether from the context it was reasonably clear that the bet was unambiguous. This is why we also (usually) allow the raise if the player is in the SB and he takes back his chips, then throws them in again with an oversize chip - by strict reading of the rule it might be a call, but by the context of his actions, it's clear he intends to include them in his bet and make what would otherwise be an ambiguous bet/raise into a clear raise.