Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensfan
Now, I would announce my intentions prior to moving any chips forward so there wouldn't be confusion, but cutting out the call and announcing raise is not all that uncommon in the room I used to play in.
As described by the OP, that isn't the case here, but it does happen.
I have also seen plenty of players cutting out a call, announcing raise, and then moving chips forward at that point, first the call, then the raise. However, as you said, this isn't the case here and that situation is obviously much different.
It is far less common to see someone taking exact calling chips forward past their cards without saying anything and doing anything other than calling. The number is not 100%, but it's close, at least in my personal experience.
If it was up to me, players should be forced to bet whatever they bring forward if there is no verbalization first.
Regardless of whatever the official rules are, because it seems to differ from room to room, I also consider it an angle if somebody brings an oversized stack of chips forward and only bets/calls using small fraction. Forward motion without verbalization is just a gray area that needs to be tightened up significantly in many cardrooms, imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psandman
Maybe they don't all agree but somebody doesn't want to give up the information that the K hurt them .....
These hypotheticals can go on forever and that's the flaw with my position. It gives other players the opportunity to angle depending on whether the river helped or hurt them. If they liked the river, they can keep their mouth shut and/or agree that turn action was complete and the intention of a call by MP was clear. If they hate the river, they can argue motion wasn't complete by MP or whatever and make a fuss and force MP to "complete action" and then reshuffle and put a new river out because an opening was left for this argument to be valid. If the table is in dispute, then I would say a reshuffle and new river is necessary.
I concede there's not a 100% black and white solution to this scenario because somebody is gonna get the opportunity to angle and receive an advantage here no matter what. I just think that person should never be the MP based on the particulars in this case.