In a high limit game where the small value chips don't play. One player makes a bet of $30. Another player throws in a single $100 chip along with three(3) $1 chips (which don't play) without saying anything.

Is it a raise or a call?

It's a call.
The $1 are not in play so in effect he threw in 1 chip and 3 bits of plastic.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Technically it’s a call, the same way that 1 chip + card protector is a call.

Since it’s a high limit game where players usually like to resolve problems without floor involvement, the dealer can ask the player what he intended to do and check if the other player is OK with that.

If it's all the chips he has, I'd say it a raise. Otherwise, call.

It’s a 30/60 game at the biggest, possibly a 15/30 game. I think in 50/100 and below you should always enforce the house rules, let alone a universal rule like the single oversized chip call rule. The dealer is there to protext the players and run the game.

It would be wierd to throw in extra chips regardless of whether they play or not if he only intended to call. I think the dealer should just simply ask for clarification on his intended action.

I would disagree unless the smaller chips play when going all in. I think this is a call whether it is all of his chips or not. Why are the chips even on the table?

Where do players in your room keep their $1 chips for tips for dealers/waitresses?

If it is not clarified and the next player acts as if it was a raise, I would think that it would have to be ruled a raise. Similar to the guy, facing an all-in who through in a non-playing chip from another casino, then argued that he didn't call, if you use non-playing chips to give the impression of a specific action, I would think the action either needs to be immediately clarified or it has to stand.

What happens if, when facing a bet, you toss out big over chip and a few non-playing chips, and players acting behiond fold before it is declared a call?

don't see any harm in dealer asking player's intent if no one acted yet

I threw this one by my manager and she said that it's a raise as the single-chip rule doesn't apply because multiple chips were used, even though under the rules those chips don't add any additional value to the bet.

That is generally how I would rule as well, but for the second reason, not the first. It is actually the oversized chip rule, not the single chip rule, and it can apply even when multiple chips are used to force an otherwise ambiguous bet to be a call.

This bet is not ambiguous. Even though the extra chips turn out not to play, the player is clearly trying to raise. Forcing it to be a call only allows that player to angle if he knows the rule and knows it will be ruled a call.

Would you rule the same if the player throws in one chip and his card protector, smart phone, drink ticket or lucky $3 Bellagio chip?

No. No. Almost certainly not, depending on its form. Possibly not, but maybe depending on context if it was corrected at game speed (like what happens sometimes if you have a dirty chip in a stack and in the midst of cutting it out you see it, flick it out, and replace it with the correct color).

Some because they cannot possibly be considered to be part of a legal bet, so there is no obvious raising intent. Some because they choose to use a chip protector which looks similar to a chip, so they bear the risk of using it, and furthermore using them makes it difficult to know the amount that might have been intended.

In this cases none of those things is at issue.

I will also add that in some rooms/games low denom chips do not play, except when all-in, so perhaps this player was mistaken about this particular rule for this room/game. Given his obvious desire to raise, I will offer him some protection for taking an action which might reasonably be considered a raise in many rooms.

That is their fault. If the chips don’t play, then they cannot affect the oversized chip rule. If subsequent players don’t allow for the dealer to clarify this, that is their issue. They in this case must protect their own action by allowing dealer the clarify.

If I toss out a black to call 10 even though I have plenty of red and green, and three people behind me insta call 100 or fold, their incorrect actions don’t alter my legitimate action. Because they are wrong in what they think does not change my call to a raise.

Not to derail, what might be interesting is if the first one to act “called” my non raise by tossing in 4green. Now his actions are a legit raise, if he never said call and only put in his chips. But should it be if he only thought he was calling.

Btw, IMO yes it is a raise because he has now induced actions behind. Letting him revert to a 10 call would allow an angle. His recourse is to protect his action and get clarification before acting.

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.

I should have mentioned that in my room, the small chips do play in an all in situation. That's why I thought it made a difference. If they don't ever play in this room that's different.

They often have singles on the table for tipping, paying time, or in at least one case I know of there is a $5-10 game with time rake, but they still pay $2 to the jackpot drop every hand.

@Dinesh. Sure maybe he is angling, but that does not mean you change the rule. Maybe the angle wa yo7 rule it a raise so he argues he intended or it should be a call all the while he has a monster and is now trying to look weak. Who knows it can be angled either way. So just apply the rules as intended. Why try to be a mind reader if intentions, especially when contest is critical and yo7 likely did not witness the context

Just follow the rules, he put in a single, oversized chip and three pieces of plastic with no meaning in the game.

Ideally, I agree the immediate clarification before any other action is best. But that did not sound possible in OP

As to the 100-200 example fine, make it 25-50 heck here white don’t play even at 5-10. If by chance whites get in the pot, dealer will color up multiples of 5 and return the rest but that is only at 5-10. 10-20 or higher the dealer just pushes any white back even if it is 20 or more whites. They are solely for tips.

Your manager is incorrect.

Tossing forward a black chip with a few chips from another casino is exactly the same as tossing forward a black chip with a key ring and a few keys.

Do dollars chips play in increments of 5?
If so I think this would be a rasie to 105

I dont think you should put weight on his intent to raise.(I actually dont think he intended to raise at all). Most of the time the dealer has to enforce the oversize chip rule it is because the player intended to raise and is told it is only a call by rule. So just because a player intended to raise isnt enough to override the rule. Lots of players toss out an oversize chip intending to raise, but arenot allowed to.

I think the guy was probably angling. No one in a big game raises to 103. They keep it in even multiples usually even if $1 chips were allowed, as its a pita and slows the game down. Here we have a case where the game doesnt even allow the chips to play, and this guy suddenly decides to raise to 103 because a raise to 100 doesnt get the job done? Unlikely. He was probably hoping someone would think its a raise and fold, but if called he would say its only a call.

As another poster mentioned, you cant change a rule just because a guy is angling. In PLO I often see players toss in 600 when the pot is 150. They know the rest wont play. But a floor wouldnt say that the bet is 600 because he was angling by hoping a player wasnt paying attention and folded to what je thought was a 600 bet.

Each room is different but where I play the 2/5 game is like that where bets must be in increments of 5 unless all in. But their rule is that since the chips under the 5 increment dont play, they are completely disregarded. So any bet from 16 to 19 is ruled a bet of 15, as the 1 to 4 white chips dont play. You dont add the value of chips that dont play to determne f you should round up.

He doesn't have 105.
You gonna make him go to the ATM?

I'm not saying rule it a raise because of his intent to raise. (Though I do think there is an intent to raise, or an attempt to angle.)

I'm saying it's a raise because there is no ambiguity about whether his non-verbal bet is a call or a raise. The oversize chip rule exists because there are times when a given combination of chips could mean the player meant to call, or could mean the player meant to raise, so we put a rule in place to avoid having to ask and to eliminate the confusion. This is not one of those cases.

The definition of the circumstance when the oversize chip rule comes into play is when no single chip can be removed and still have enough to make a call, but all the chips placed are also enough to be a raise. So there is ambiguity about which was intended. In this case, it is ruled a call.

Here, there is no ambiguity. The player put out multiple chips, and the three $1 chips could be removed and still have enough to cover the call. Ergo, the oversize chip rule does not apply, and it is a raise.

Obviously, the crux of the matter here is that the $1 chips apparently don't play in that room and game. Some here say to treat them like pieces of plastic, chip protectors, keys, or smartphones when deciding whether to invoke the oversize chip rule. This is ridiculous to me. Treat them like what they are when evaluating the context and making a ruling: chips which generally have value for making poker bets, but which might not otherwise be considered valid to bet as a matter of convenience in this particular game at this particular point. Also consider that, in many rooms, even when those chips don't play for normal bets, they do play for all-ins.

I wouldn't freak out too much if it was ruled just a call, because it's clear that this is a confusing edge case where the oversize chip rule meets the rule about small chips not playing, but I would rule it the other way, personally.