There must be several people on here who can confirm your claims about these rooms rules.

Probably could be it's own thread .. and probably already is out there somewhere .. But off on a slight tangent I'd like to ask whether or not a Straddle is a 'raise with option' or a 'temporary PF' Blind? This is one question that usually gets a Floor to pause, certainly Dealers. IMO we should treat a Straddle as a Blind, thus eliminating your issue in comment #1 above with the min raise now being $12. It doesn't eliminate a 'normal' PF action of raise to $6 and a multi-chip call. I think the issues are more common when a straddle is in place, but I could be biased as well.

I just feel that 'math' is easy, but Players forget (or mis-remember) rules a lot. I think any multi-chip bet should be treated as (potentially) aggressive unless proven otherwise by the math or a Player statement. If you are tossing out more than one chip, make sure you know what you want.


1-2 .. raise to 5, Player tosses out 10 .. raise by math and rule
1-2 .. raise to 6, Player tosses out 10 .. call .. same action, different result
1-3 .. raise to 6, Player tosses out 10 .. call
1-2 .. raise to 7, Player tosses out 10 .. call

Potential 'Oh shucks' angles are not going to be eliminated either way .. GL

Even if the straddle is a temp blind, $10 would be a raise to $12 if we assume silent multi chip actions are raises and not calls. It meets the 50% rule. But then if a casino has$10 chips, do we treat a single $10 chip different to two $5 chips?

I would prefer we continue to treat silent actions like these as calls. But if we treat the multi chip case as a raise, we need to treat the single chip case a raise also. It is certainly a leak, but at low stakes (which is the majority of hands played) calling is the intent in these cases much more often than raises

As to should a straddle be considered a raise or increase in the blinds, I come down on the it is a raise side. My logic is this…
1) in a limit game, say 4-8, with straddle to $8, what is my ONLY option for aggressive action? AFAIK I can only raise to $12.
2) again in limit, here we are allowed a bet and three raises per round. Preflop for 4-8 the max is $16 w/o a straddle. Again here, the max is the same $16 max with a straddle
3) in NL games, 1-3 with a $6 straddle, what is the min. bet on the flop? I have always seen the min as $3 on the flop (not saying this is a smart bet).

So for limit games, at least here, the straddle is very clearly treated as a raise not a temp blind increase. In NL does it makes sense to alter the game stakes per round such that the bet size goes down after the flop AND also treat the straddle different vs limit? What if the straddle size is not fixed at 2x the BB? Say someone straddles for $100 in a 1-3 game. Is the post flop min bet now $3 or $100? Betting $3 into a pot of at least $13 may never make sense betting $75 into a $201 pot on the flop may makes sense.

Obviously, we can treat straddles different in limit and NL, but why? I will admit the my opinion is in the minority here and is not how local rooms handle it. But I still think they are ‘wrong’ but I keep quiet and live with it.

First, you just changed the scenario, which seems typical. Two red chips after a straddle would be a call, as a raise would have to be 12, but that wasn't the discussion. It was a raise to 6, followed by two 5's. A straddle is a bet size of 6 and a raise is a bet size of 3.

Now, your point about ruling otherwise passive action as aggressive has merit. It would certainly be unusual, though not unheard of, to see a min 3-bet. That seems like the best point against calling it a raise.

I will not name the rooms beyond what I've already said, as I haven't had a chance to speak to any of them yet and I won't localize myself beyond N. Cal. Also, I'm only going to check with 3-4 people in one room this time anyway and not until I feel better.

If I wanted the bet to be $10, just say $10. Since I prefer not to speak in a hand, just add a $1 chip, making it $11, or use one 5, and 5 1's. In other scenarios stack out the call amount and the raise amount separately before pushing it in the pot. It's trivial, habit and a lot of players do it this way.

So it sounds like you don't actually know what their rule is then, which makes sense. Hopefully they will help clear it up for you more than we can. Also, since you're not feeling good you don't have to go there, just call the poker room and ask them, and they'll tell you what their rule is.

Again, not true. At casinos where straddles are considered a blind raise with an option, which in my experience is the majority of places in the US, the minimum raise in a 1/3 game with a $6 straddle is to $9. $10 would be a legal raise in that game.

That is literally the same example as in OP.

You said "anywhere I've ever played NL" and mentioned that you've played at 7-8 card rooms in Northern California. I don't think naming 2 of those would give away any more information about your location than you already did. It's not like all 8 rooms are in the same town?

Great. That works for your bets, but it does NOT eliminate all ambiguity since you can't control how others bet. And that has been the point of this thread. It is about what is the action when ANYONE at the table puts an ambiguous amount into the pot.

BTW, do you even realize that your description about needing to add a $1 chip is exactly the position that everyone else here but you has taken. You just admitted that putting $10 out with 2@$5 would not be a raise.

Glad to see you admitting your error.

Originally, I thought I knew and still think I'm right. However, I also don't have a big problem being wrong. I am, however, suspicious of people who show massive confidence that they're right. In life, I've found that to be a red flag of someone incompetent. So, I prefer to proceed cautiously.

As to calling them and doing it over the phone, that would be a hard no. Dealers, floor, casino managers and tournament directors are busy people. You need to catch them when they're available for a minute, or two. There is also the fact that English isn't always their first language, so details sometimes take a little bit. That and it somehow seems rude to me to do it that way.

If it was you against one highly confident person that position has some value. But in this case it is you vs 8 or 10 others. They/we are also every other person posting a position.

You just described yourself, in this thread.

You are choosing between two plumbers. One tells you that he has never seen a P-trap in his forty years of plumbing in Northern California, and he refuses to even point in the direction of a single home that he has serviced.

The other claims with massive confidence that he has seen a P-trap before. He refers you to a dozen equally confident professionals who say the same, as well as some customers who confirm that they do indeed have P-traps under their sink basins. As the red flags mount, you grow suspicious that these people are incompetent.

OK, putting in 2 $5 chips to the $3 raise is a call to the $6 bet, not a raise. Confirmed with 3 floormen, 3 tournament directors and one dealer.

You're right and I was wrong.

Thank you for confirming that and for coming back to admit you had it wrong.

It still doesn't make sense to me, which is why I checked three rooms.

Since 'the Player' didn't say anything when they entered chips into the betting area, the Dealer needs to rely on the rules to determine if the action was passive or aggressive.

Under the current rules when multiple chips are put into the betting area we must be able to remove one chip (any size) from those put out there and still have the call 'covered'. If the call is covered, then the Dealer must then determine if it's a raise by moving on to the next applicable rule.

In this particular case when you remove a chip, the remaining chip doesn't cover the call and this alone makes the action 'passive' and thus is ruled a call.

If the Player announces 'raise' or '10' beforehand, then the verbal declaration is consider primary and would force a minimum raise to 10 on up to 'all in' during a NL hand.

The rules lean towards actions being passive unless proven otherwise. And then there's 4-6 rules that apply to determine what level of aggression applies to the action by the Player.

in order to make sense of something you need to know the goal. You may/may not be accepting of of the goal, but at least you know the 'why' of the process. GL

It all comes down to a single question: if a bet in question could reasonably be considered either/both a call or a raise, how do you decide which it is? The rules as written tell you that an ambiguous bet is a call in that case.

In your example - $2 BB, raised to $6, another player puts in two red chips for $10 - that $10 bet is ambiguous. If they had only used one $5 chip it's not enough to call the $6 raise, so maybe they put out $10 expecting to get $4 in change. Or maybe they meant to raise to $10, which is a legal raise. So absent a verbal declaration, the rules say if a bet is ambiguous and could mean either, it is interpreted as a call.

As a20 sometimes argues, it could have gone the other way, and the rules could have said an ambiguous bet is ruled as a raise. But TPTB decided that it was better/safer/fairer to rule it a call, so that no one would be forced to raise against their will.

The details in the many sub-rules are all basically just dedicated to identifying the mechanics you use to see if the rule applies, and then dealing with the edge cases.
* First, you start by removing the smallest denomination chip in the bet and seeing if you have enough to call, and if not the rule applies.
* Then you deal with edge cases: what do you do if you already have chips out there, do they count? (Sometimes, depends on how you handle those chips, which chips are handled, and when you do it.)
* What if new chips are not enough for a full legal raise, but are enough to meet the 50% threshold? (use the 50% rule when needed to see if it can qualify as a raise.)
* Do you check and see if the player had smaller chips they could have used if they wanted to only call? (No, it doesn't matter what other chips they might have in their stack.).
* What if the player already has enough in previously bet oversize chips to cover the new raise? (New chips added are a raise or subject to 50% rule.)

And so on.

I know you understand the single oversize chip rule is a call. Starting from there, even though you are using multiple chips (two $5s) to call, ALL OF THEM are NEEDED to make the call.

That's why the $5 and five $1s or ten $1s would be a clear raise. You don't need all of the chips you're throwing in to call in these 2 situations.

So, basically, it's a rule for the people in the game that don't know how to place their bets and therefore reduce conflict in the game. I suppose that makes sense. Given the relatively aggressive nature of the games I play in, it makes sense it's not an issue around here. Still, it must happen some, or I wouldn't have gotten my answers as quickly as I did.

I suppose it's a good sign that the NL games need a rule like that though.

...what? No, it's a rule for people who do know how to place their bets. It's very much not friendly to those who don't!

The rules are used to clarify spots due to Players acting without first verbalizing their action. This is a choice within the rules .. there are plenty of threads here where even verbal action is misunderstood or 'angled' and needs resolution. IMO the game would run much smoother if more Players stated their intent before physically acting, but I also understand that we are all humans and we like choices within the game.

The issues typically come up 'because' Players don't know the rules and/or were trying a small angle.

What you run into is a Player that knows the rules .. it's a call. And then another Player at the table speaks up because they don't know the rules completely, they are being fooled by the math of the chips and/or they need the Dealer to reassure them that the action is OK within the rules. GL

You got your answers so quickly because it is a very common, maybe one of the few completely universal rules. It is also well known and understood. It comes up frequently with new players in low stakes games so dealers and floors get to explain it often. These are much the same reasons everyone was universally opposed to your position.

Yes there was a different logic that could have been applied but this was not what occurred. I don’t know when this rule originally developed but it is universal across all forms of poker afaik. So I expect it was decided quite awhile ago. I have been around poker several decades, well before the MM ‘03 boom, and don’t not recall this ever not being the rule.

Also as others have said, it is very much for people who know how to bet. It can even be used as an angle against those who don’t know the rule.

I've been playing since the late 70s and was active on RGP (USENET) in the 80s, on the original 2+2 software and had somehow never encountered this rule. I also remember the little booklet Commerce put out when they first opened in the early 80s that had all the rules, which I studied very carefully (including the long-winded, overcomplicated description of a foul deck). I recall nothing about oversized chips - and $0.25 chips were still in play then.

Also, since that time, I have never seen the need for the multi-chip rule being needed, or enforced in a cash game - which, at this point, seems curious.

In short, we all work off of our experience and small things will sometimes get missed. You're never too old to learn something new.

I wouldn't be able to recall things in the 70's even if I was around, so I don't blame you for not recalling it but the more experience you gain, these things will eventually become second nature to you.

Earlier in this thread, you said you would never be in this situation because you would add a dollar. You said you do this to make us raise unambiguous. That is fine, makes sense and achieves just what you intended.

But if you never heard of this rule, never saw the need and never saw it enforced how did you know to do this? Why would an ambiguous bet be an issue? How and when did you learn this?