Never if they did it in the way described in the OP.

Putting a raising chip on top of chips already out there and then spreading them out is a raise.

If BB is first one to raise the pot I can see this being the case, like if it was a several way limped pot and BB wanted to raise it up.

However isn't it a little more ambiguous when it's already been raised (straddled) to the BB? Absent any verbal declaration, he is just placing a single over-sized chip on top of his big blind chips, in that case I could see it being ruled either way with reasoning for both.

So if its always a raise why does the player need to be instructed to say raise?

(I'm not saying he shouldn't say it .... but on the other hand maybe the objecting players and/or dealer need t be instructed as to why it is a raise rather than hearing the floor give an instruction that sounds like they were correct and the floor is giving the guy a break)

Are you ever anything but devil's advocate?

I instruct him to say raise for a couple reasons. Maybe next time his action isn't so obvious. Or maybe I'm sick of getting called to the table for nonsense. Just say raise and there's no nonsense.

And what makes you think I wouldn't explain why I am ruling it a raise to the objecting players, also right in front of the dealer?

I used to advocate for the otherside. But the devil pays better.

It's silly that some people make this type of mistake over and over after the action is ruled a call each and every time.

As described, the action in the OP should always be a call.

But, if it's a raise every time, why is important to instruct them to say "Raise" from now on.

Obviously, to anyone who is intelligent, this action, as described, should be ruled a call every time. But, if the player who does it disagrees, he should be instructed to say "Raise" from now on so that his action matches his intent.

Why in the world should it be ruled a call? What percent of time do you think this player didn't want to raise?

People are splitting a very fine hair saying that stacking a chip on an existing stack and then spreading the enitire stack is not the same as gathering the chips and tossing them forward. In both cases, you are combining into a single stack and then performing an action that treats the whole stack as a single unit. I can't see a meangingful difference between this and gathering all the chips in your hand and tossing them forward.

Really? You are both trying to say putting one oversized chip into the betting area with a previous bet/blind is always a raise if they play with the chips when putting the chip out there? Then in your opinion, what is the oversized chip rule and why have it? Why not just let a player just put the chip out there and let it be a raise?


Also, out of curiosity, does your opinion in this case change if he only has a red chip out there instead of 5 whites? i.e. He has a red chip out for his BB, puts a green chip on it and then spreads the two chips out. If your opinion changes, why?

So, I'm wanting to call from the BB, just put a green chip out on my BB and accidentally spread the chips out while doing so, you are going to hold me to a raise???? If not, who is going to determine if spreading of chip was accidental or not?

So how about if I toss it in and it hits the white chips?

If you combine the single chip you are adding with the chips you already have out there at any time, and then toss out said combination of chips in any direction, it should be a raise. So no, the above would not be a raise and isn't even close to what's being done in OP or the example SIMM used.

Edit -

I find it pretty interesting that whenever we have a thread like this, most people don't seem to give two hoots about a player's intent, and rule by letter of the law when it comes to single chip issues. However, when a string bet thread pops up, half the thread goes on a soapbox about intent.

TO me, the difference is that in order to spread them, I had to use my hand and address the whole stack as if it were a single stack. Tossing a single chip out onto an existing stack does not indicate the same intent.

Definitely a raise-Player reaches out with $25 chio in hand, picks up stack of whites in hand with $25, pulls back a few inches, then tosses the whole stack forward.

Definitely a call-Player tosses a single $25 onto a stack of $5 whites and does not make any additional motions or indications.

With those as your ends of the spectrum, reaching out and placing a chip on a stack, then spreading the whole stack out seems very equivalent to the first case to me.

If I was the player and they ruled that a call, I would probably not argue too much, but I do think 'raise' is the correct ruling.

It is to eliminate ambiguous situations. A player may want change instead of to raise.


I have never seen anyone put more chips out, moving with their hands their chips already out there, not take the 'extra' chips back, and mean it as a call. So my thought is the player who does so wants to raise, whether it's a red chip or 5 whites out there. If the player doesn't touch the other chips, they may be hesitant to touch chips that are in the pot, and so it is ambiguous if they are calling or not.

Correct. It is to eliminate ambiguous situations as we have in the OP. In no way, touching chips in front of you an indication of a raise. Which is why we don't ask what his intent was. If we don't know what it was to start with, there is no way to know if he is changing his intent when we ask.


I do it all the time. I always gather my chips (if I chips out there first), raising or calling. Bet is six to me, I grab the blue ($2), add a red, and push them out. So according to you, my intent was to raise when it always was to call.

And my point is that its still hair splitting ... you are just choosing a different point to split the hair.

If you just toss a single chip out, it is always a call. If you pick up and gather chips already out with another chip, then toss all out together, that is of course a raise. It's the in between situations where floor has to make rulings, like adding a single chip on top of your BB stack of chips then flicking them all over with a finger, is that considered gathering and raising? I don't know, but I imagine that's the kind of stuff floor has to rule on all the time.

This isn't close to the same thing. For you, you can't take any chips back and still have a call. If it was $5 to you would you really put a red out, and stack it with the blue and leave the blue there??

Put another way, if you are the button and it is $6 to you, tossing a blue and a red is a call anyway. If it is $10 to you, tossing a green and 5 whites (like in the OP) is a raise. So those are totally different chip scenarios.

And we will just have to agree to disagree that manipulating chips and leaving them in the pot is indicative that you want them to stay in the pot.

This is applicable here:

I answered that question already a couple posts above yours.

I don't think you understand the way the player did it. I see it as he puts a green on top of his 5 whites and then tosses them in together to spread them out. Why on earth would that be a call? Anyone who is intelligent could see why its a raise.

Nope.

This is the part that gets me. He combined his chips into a single stack, then moved them, as a single stack, and spread them so that they could be seen. Had he even had the slightest backwards motion before spreading the chips, there would not be even any question.

For all the people saying 'it's a call', play it out in your mind as if you were the player. Put an oversized chip on your stack, then push it forward to spread the whole stack out. Does this seem like anything but a raise to you?

That would be idiotic and you know it. And if I did, I would expect it be a call. Same as if I tossed a green and stacked it with a blue. Tossing in one chip without saying raise is a call according to every rule set I have read. Not in one rule set can you find "... unless he 'plays' with the chips."

Reread the OP. The OP did not toss in a green and 5 white. He "tossed" in one green while 5 whites were already out there. He then spread them out. Spreading is NOT intent to raise. Could be a nervous habit. Could be he is making sure the dealer sees he needs change. Could be ...
"Playing" with the chips is at best ambiguous and the rules says ambiguous is always defaulted to the lesser action. In this case, a call.

Apparently.

The rule itself is ambiguous, in that it does not address in any way whether or how chips already in the pot affect the oversize chips rule. Only through implementation and interpretation have we come to the common agreement that "pulling the chips out and throwing them back in" is a way to clearly indicate intent to raise - that is also not written in any ruleset.

The bottom line is that the rule is meant to eliminate the ambiguity of putting in an oversize chip. It default to a call in the absence of other context. But if there is other context, that context should be taken into account when determining what the oversized chip means.

In this case, it is unfortunately still a gray area. You've seen opinions on both sides here, from people who have lots of experience making decisions like this. That should tell you something.

Right, agree it is idiotic to leave the extra chips. Unless you are raising.

I read it just fine. I was giving an ALTERNATE example to show that your example was meaningless, because you described a situation where the chips you had in the pot were ALWAYS calling chips and the chips left in the OP situation could be RAISING chips.

Do you think if he picked the whole group of 6 chips up and tossed them forward a foot that is still a call? If so, virtually every player, floor and TD are going to disagree with you. If not, why does that "playing with chips" make it a raise? Show me in the rules how you came to that conclusion.