If he knew the guy was all in, how does gross misunderstanding apply? lol

He...thought the all in was for $61?

I am one of the minority that prefers the RRoP gross misunderstanding rule over the TDA forfeit or call rule, though I don't feel quite as argumentative about it these days. If you can require the caller to use his visual skills to see the amount of the bet he is calling even in the face of the dealer miscounting and announcing a different amount, then surely you can have a symmetrical rule which requires the bettor to use those same skills to visually confirm that the amount the caller has placed over the line is substantially close to the amount that you have bet, or at the very least not an irregular amount that makes no sense as either a full call or a symbolic one. Both players should have to protect their action, which will double the amount of safety from misunderstandings. But as long as the rule is fairly applied, I can live with it either way.

The lengths that rule makers will go to protect angleshooters is astonishing

FYP. I'll note that the examples given in the same section, the amounts are only 25-30%. And even in those cases, the character of the caller is allowed to be a factor in the decision.

Dinesh, if I am reading this correctly, you are implying that a player should always ask for the pot to be made right so that he can visually confirm the call, and that verbal or one chip calls should not be considered binding (for the full amount of the call)? Otherwise they could wait to see if they lost, then just claim gross misunderstanding.

I am not actually against getting rid of one chip calls, but it seems like making verbal calls non-binding would be problematic

Not exactly, but directionally correct.

I think verbal is binding. But everyone needs to protect their action. If you're 100% certain the opponent called, and 100% certain that the dealer also heard it, then go ahead and show your hand. But if not, then wait for, or ask for, confirmation. Wait for him to put chips in. Just don't fastroll.

What if it was another player behind your opponent who was telling a story or was at another table and said call while you were not looking directly at your opponent? What if he said a similar sounding but different word? Now you have put yourself in a bad situation. And with plexi and masks, the risks are highly elevated that what you thought you heard can be challenged, and a ruling won't go your way. Protect yourself.

re: 1 chip calls - I hate them. They cause problems all over the place. For a bet of any appreciable size or if I wasn't watching closely I will always ask for confirmation if I don't also get a verbal call or if the player doesn't follow it up with more chips. Some/many rooms, and the TDA ruleset, already have in their rulebook that one chip calls are discouraged and the floor can rule it in any number of ways. I wouldn't mind them being eliminated. But until they are- protect your action if there is any chance of ambiguity.

Even chips bet - you don't always need the pot to be made right, but does the amount of chips put into the pot by your opponent make sense given the bet or raise you made, or is it obviously off in a way that makes it clear there may have been some miscommunication? If not, protect yourself and your action, and ask for clarification. Don't make it so a floor call is needed, and a ruling may go against you.

Both/all players have responsibility to follow the action and protect their action at all times when they are in a hand.

Here is the problem I have. Until they change the rules\convention, tossing chips into the pot when facing action is always at least call. To me, saying verbal is binding, but action unequivocally interpreted as a call is not is inconsistent. I guess I don't see a difference between a verbal declaration and tossing chips into the middle when facing action

So that means to me that you can always limit your call by claiming gross misunderstanding, even if you verbally declared.

While I agree that players need to protect their action, I think the burden must be reasonable. A player asking for a count, then moving chips into play, then being allowed to change, after the fact, how much he was willing to call after seeing his opponents cards is not a reasonable action to protect against.

Now if we changed rules\convention such that pots always had to be made right before the action is considered complete, I would agree with you, but that would slow the game down somewhat (I actually think they should do this, and really appreciate\tip the dealers more who do this)

Re protecting action: The exact same situation could happen if villain put in the $61 and then tabled his hand first. Is hero now supposed to ask the dealer to make the pot right before tabling his winner? Let's be real, 99.9% of the time villain had the full call amount out or was immediately willing to complete the call. If that happens, the rest of the table is going to call hero out for slow rolling and breaching etiquette.

If I bet $161, opponent put out $61 and then tabled his hand, I would have absolutely no problem saying (to opponent), "hang on, you know the bet was $161 right?" and then waiting for his answer. Call the floor if necessary.

I don't give a flying **** whether the other players think that is slow rolling. Which they won't, because they will see that I am protecting the other player (and myself, as much as possible).

Yes, if we know that opponent put out exactly $61. Hero in this hand didn't know that though. He wrote "Yeah, if I had noticed it was exactly $61 it would have set off alarm bells."

If we spent a minute to try to figure out if the player all the way across the table put out $159 or $161 and then address the dealer to make the other player put in an additional $2 before tabling our hand, other players might mind. I certainly would. I'd also be very hesitant to even play in a room where players feel the need to do that.

FWIW, I'm specifically addressing a situation where we don't know that villain is a known angle shooter. If we do, like in OP, that obviously should make us significantly more cautious. But at the end of the day, against another regular this should be a non-issue if the floor does the right thing and tells him he isn't allowed back until the bet is paid in full.

Just going to point out that a lot of the conversation is assuming the villain said call, when it is clear in the OP that he did not do so.

If his physical action (pushing out chips) is always indicative of a call, does it matter that he did not say 'call'?

Stating call is unequivocally considered a call and is clearly addressed in the rules. Unfortunately the same is not true about pushing out an undercall or tossing out a single chip. To say that either a single chip or another under all amount is unequivocally is not supported in the most common rule sets. Until those are actually unequivocally addressed in the rules, one should protect his action and if necessary ask the pot be made right

Btw, while the op likely could not tell the undercall was exactly $61 but he should have been able to tell it was not $161 or even close. While I wish he had no need to such is not currently always the case.

I know it is useless to say 'Well, that's always a call in my room', so I checked RRoP. The best I could find was

"13. A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action and must make the amount of the wager correct."

I think I would be hard pressed to find any room that allowed moving chips into the betting area (whether it be a betting line or forward motion) and not consider that a call.

you should keep reading the rest of that exact rule and get to the part on gross misunderstanding.

For completeness, here is the relevant TDA rule:

Let me also go back and agree with you about an earlier comment you made - I too am a little unhappy that verbal declarations and undercalls with chips alone are treated so differently in the rulesets. It would be ideal if both somehow got the same protection (whatever protection that is).

But I can't think of a way to know in advance that a verbal declaration was made with a misunderstanding of the bet amount, unlike with chips, where the disconnect is more readily and observably evident. Which I'm sure is the exact reason the rules are written the way that they are. It's just too bad there's no easy way to protect against these issues in the case of a verbal declaration.

Dinesh, by the rules you quoted wouldn’t this specific situation fall under this circumstance where someone undercalls the opening bet?

Under TDA rules, which is what you just quoted, and what I added "for completeness", yes.

Under RRoP, which is what Spewing and I were talking about earlier, it's floor's discretion to allow the player to take back the partial call and reconsider.

As I said above, I prefer the RRoP set of rules on this topic, though it requires more floor involvement and discretion, and likely a higher workload for them.

(On the other hand, even the people who prefer the TDA rules often don't like that it allows them fold and forfeit the partial call, which might be considered a non-sensical ruling that tries to split the difference, much like a ruling that chops the pot rather than make a harder ruling that gives it to one player or another.)

People who think that rules should eliminate any discretion and just be absolutes that floors enforce tend not to like the gross misunderstanding rule in RRoP, though of course there are other reasons as well, someone above posted that it enables angle shooting for example. People who think that floors should be allowed discretion to make fair rulings in context that protect players (especially new players) tend to be fine with it. Not everyone thinks there are enough capable floors to go around, which is possible, though it becomes self fulfilling if they don't have the ability to think about context when making rulings. It is also possible that room managers don't want to have to deal with what it takes to run a room well rather than cheaply. It is also possible that players push them in the direction of strict rulings, for a variety of reasons.

Something that used to come up more frequently but I don't think has been said for a while - in the chicken and egg game of poker rules, the rulebook doesn't really define how the game is played, it reflects the customs of the game that is already being played. If the customs change enough (like, say, the 1 chip call may be; or how showing your cards at showdown used to be required, but now is optional), then the rules will change to reflect that. Eventually. If enough people agree that the change is good, long term, and agree to play that way.

From the point of view of applying the rule by the house, it matters why there was a gross misunderstanding.

Like when the SB doesn't realize there was a raise and throws a single chip out there to call.

In this case it matters if there was a $100 chip in the $161 all-in bet (or at least 4 $25 chips). If there was, it makes sense that there could be a misunderstanding. If not it is patently ridiculous that there could have been a misunderstanding given the size of the stack and the size difference when the $61 was put out there as a call.

Typically the misunderstandings are verbal (as in this case when what the player "heard" was $61 possibly missing the "One Hundred" that preceded it). This gets exacerbated when a player has earphones/ear pods on or bad hearing (as I do).

The other time misunderstandings happen is when a player says "all-in" and puts out less chips than he has. Then unless an all-in BTN is out there the other player may not have heard the "all-in" and thinks the bet is the chips that are put out there.

All of the above is why I almost always ask the dealer what the bet size is. And why when I call I put out one chip first and then the rest - so if somehow there is a misunderstanding my call won't/can't be misinterpreted as a raise.

I agree with the above post. If the $161 was in red and white chips, I'm making the person pay the $161 or get 86'd period.

If the $161 was a stack of red with a black chip on bottom and white chip on top, I can entertain gross misunderstanding.

Also agree it matters if the $161 in chips were moved into the middle or not, as does the villain's angleshooting history.

Really interesting discussion, thanks everyone for your comments.

FWIW in this case the $161 bet consisted of 6 green chips + 2 red + 1 white and they all went in the middle. Due to the larger chips I could be sympathetic to the idea that it was a gross misunderstanding, if he hadn’t realized his mistake immediately after I turned my hand over. Like, if he saw my hand and realized he was ahead, is there any chance he wouldn’t have been allowed to put in the last $100?

I dunno how someone sees a bet of multiple green chips and thinks it's $60 either. Pay up or 86 forever.

And exactly, it gives him a complete freeroll. 0.0000000% that he sees a hand he beats and says "oh wow I was only calling $61 so ship me that and keep your other $100" which is why gross misunderstanding shouldn't really be able to be applied in this spot.

That info also makes it more gross that the dealer decided all of this without deferring to a floorperson. You shouldn't have even needed to be the one to make that decision.

I wonder what the reason could be for the dealer not to call for the floor in a situation like that.

I think a well run room should have a policy of “when in doubt, call for the floor”; the situation here shouldn’t even be a close call though. Is the dealer afraid of getting reprimanded for making a mistake or wasting time = rake? Is he afraid that the regular won’t tip him anymore? I just don’t get it.

Ok I'm curious... With the all in bet, was there 12 reds and one white on top of a black chip or was there more than a stack and a half of red.

In the first scenario there is at least the possibility of a misunderstanding... In the latter there is no chance of a misunderstanding.