Blinds are 300/600. UTG announces raise somewhat quietly, tosses in a 1K chip. Dealer does not announce raise. MP thinks it is a call and puts out 600. I stop action(yes, i should have done it sooner) and ask for a clarification on UTG's action. Dealer confirms it was a raise but thinks that 1K is a legal open raise. After the floor confirms that UTG must make it 1,200, MP complains that they did not know it was a raise, and their call should not be binding.

At this point, which is correct

a) MP can take back their 600 and have their full range of options
b) MP must leave in the 600 and have the full range of options
c) MP must leave in in the 600, and may only call or fold

Room dependent.

I prefer A. Many rooms would do C. Fewer would do B.

Plus you're missing D, which is that MP is forced to call 1200, which I would guess happens more than B but less than A or C.

Where I play, A.

My question is why isn't the dealer calling raise with a one-chip bet and stopping action after MP only puts in 600? I've seen dealers not realize the raise size is enough to constitute a legitimate raise, especially after a level increase but to let two actions go by (improper raise/unannounced raise with one chip and not stopping action when MP calls BB) is enough to need remediation, IMO.

I've been seeing a lot more places ruling C rather than A lately. A used to be the norm, but it seems like more places are going to C. One one hand I like keeping the games friendly and letting people correct simple mistakes that don't affect the action. On the other hand it hopefully gets people to pay more attention to the action and speed up the sometimes tortoise pace of the games. I don't play many tournies, but this is a common situation in cash games too.

Dealer screwed up three times (she was newish). 1st, she thought that 1K was a legit raise (she thought the SB was an open and BB was a forced raise, so she figured that the minimum raise was equal to the SB), 2nd she did not announce raise, and 3rd, she did not notice that MP undercalled until i stopped action.

Floor ruled C, which MP had an issue with. I honestly did not know what the correct ruling was

The reason the option remaining is only call or fold is because the person who undercalled already eliminated the option of raising.

My guess is the answer should be E.

E. One chip rule applies. It is a call.

Further notes: Too bad for MP not knowing it was a raise. If MP isn't paying attention to the action it's on them. If you just stick out a call and don't ask how much, you're screwed. I'm fine with C under gross misunderstanding but you don't get to not call the 600 cause you didn't realize it was 12.

I assume by "it" you mean player 1's action.

Not a one-chip call ruling, player announced raise first and is required to make at least a min raise.

I don't really agree. OP says player 1 announced raise "quietly", the one chip could easily be a call if you don't know he said raise first. Dealer not making the player put it enough for a raise further exacerbates the problem. I don't blame MP at all here. Poker is a visual game as well, and all visual signals indicated that player 1 had made a call of the 600.

Players are responsible for knowing where the action is, and what the action is. It is true that one chip can be *interpreted* as a call - but that doesn't take the onus off the players to ask "is that a call" or "what's the action".

That's generally true, but in this case, the man who announced raise did so quietly, and then tossed in one chip (key points being, this one chip is not enough to constitute a raise, and the dealer did not say anything or make the bet right). So if the action to you, its not a matter of "interpretation"...there is nothing to clarify; action from the point of view of players who didn't hear the announcement is that this was 100% a call. If I see one chip in front of a player, didn't hear anything, and that one chip is not enough for a raise, why should I clarify anything?

Any ruling that requires the caller to leave money in the pot is very bad, imo.

The shocking part is the dealer not knowing how much the minimum open raise is.

I wouldn’t feel comfortable in playing in a card room that cares so little who they hire.

Are you suggesting I need to do this every time the action is on me? Who knows if someone in seat one throws out one chip as they softly whisper to a dealer "all in".

I was actually stunned by this as well. I had not seen her around. The dealers here (Winstar) are mostly excellent, IMO.

I know players who do, if there's any possible doubt, yes.

Ask yourself - what's the alternative? The player announce raise. Not EVERYONE heard him, but players did hear him. Therefore the action is confirmed.

The alternative is exactly what happened. The next player puts out an amount equal to calling the earlier amount, making it clear they missed the raise. The dealer (or in this case another player) stops the action. Player 2 ideally takes his undercall back, then has all option open to him. The world has not ended.

Why should p2 be allowed to take back the undercall?

He was prepared to call 600 - if he misunderstood the action - he already called. Why should he get the freeroll?

What freeroll?

He wants to limp in - but misses the raise - so now he gets away free after having already called the blinds - so the freeroll is if you "misunderstand" the raise you can fake limp and walk away w/o a cost.

Wtf is a fake limp? A free roll requires that you get some extra info before making a decision, or get to "clarify" your earlier decision based on getting a favorable outcome.

Nothing like that happens here. He makes an invalid action, is told about it, then gets to make a valid one.

Yes, he gets away "free" from making an invalid action. Much like he would have had he understood the action properly. And without getting any extra info. And without getting to freeroll anything.

Calling is an invalid action?

Look you MIGHT let him go under "gross misunderstanding" the first time...

Because the player tossed out one chip AND that one chip was not enough to make a legal raise. He has no reason to think it was a raise if it was not announced and corrected. He is allowed to take it back. I know it was announced but no one seems to have heard it.

C is the technically correct ruling, but given the situation and the fact that the player put in one chip and it wasn't enough to raise I would allow him to take back the 600.

Announced raise and verbal is binding remove any option to just call. Doesn't even matter what the blinds are, could be 1200/2400, the verbal raise means at least a min raise and in this case the blind sizes with only 1000 going in means min raise to 1200.

Now if the blinds were 500/1000, things might get interesting on determining the size of the raise, since he announced raise and put out the exact amount of the call first, his action is not actually complete.