The question is not whether you allow it or not. The question is what does it mean when a player facing a bet puts out out less than the bet they are facing. Does that player still have options left?

Exactly. What does it mean? When you put out less than the bet, we are forced to decide wtf you mean when you could have just said call or put in the full amount and then we wouldn't have to guess/assume/decide anything. So...............

Why can't we just make it a rule that says "putting in one chip when facing a bet of more than the value of that one chip means nothing"? Problem solved.

What if people start tossing in 2 chips then to avoid the rule? Warn them once and then kick them out. Seriously, how many of these one chip issues do we need to hear about before everyone realizes it causes actual problems?

What we need are PSAs, like David Caruso tossing a single chip into the pot, putting on his sunglasses, and yelling YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHH, but then the dealer yells, "Not a call!"

For those saying there is no such rule; in my casino they are complete Kim Jung Un's regarding chip motion. There is a betting line that is enforced, and if one chip crosses that line you're obligated to put in the additional chips regardless of action.

We didn't say there isn't a rule that applies. We said it's not a one chip call rule. It is simply the application of a more general rule .... That an undercall must be corrected to the proper call.

Because that is more problematic. Do you really think players putting out chips and not being bound to a call causes less problems than players calling with a single chip?

I don't object to a rule that as a matter of behavior you can't do it ..... And if you continue to do it we will ask you to leave (I think it's not a useful rule but I can accept it). My objection is to not enforcing the call.

....throwing any chip(s) in at all signifies a call (unless it's an obvious raise of course)..so 1,2,3 or whatever number of chips is a call.

Everyone is getting hung up on the fact it's a 'single chip'

It isn't the number of chips that matters here.

If a player places chips over the line then he is either calling or raising.

If it isn't enough for a raise, then it's a call.

You apparently haven't read all the horror stories where someone throws in a chip to "call", but then when he sees he has lost, refuses to put in the rest of the chips. You can make whatever "rules" you like, but if the actual law of the land doesn't support your rules, they don't work. The rules of the poker room need to be crafted to work with what gaming laws can enforce, and in most jurisdictions they cannot force a player to put chips into the pot, regardless of what he has already said or done.

If you think the player may do that, simply ask the dealer to make the pot right before you expose your hand.

I don't think the horror stories you refer to are all that common, but the above is a simple way to avoid getting screwed.

So to make things clear; we should also let someone put the full amount in when he says "call" then right? At least with one chip you get one chip of value.

I imagine the players who got screwed would have made that request if they thought the other players were likely to do that.

Requesting that every time would be a good way to protect yourself, except that in the current climate you are likely to come across as a douchebag who is slowing down the game. I know it's really the one chip callers who are causing the problems, but without any backup from management the casual players won't recognize that.

I am not convinced this is true ....but if enough people keep repeating it then people start to believe it ... unfortunately those people also become floor people and management.

In the event I had the Graveyard shift manager called security who detained the player and called in gaming. While gaming was doing their investigation, the Dayshift shift manager came in. She was adamant that gaming would do nothing because you can't make people put chips in the pot. Well she was wrong. Why did she believe that? Well most likely because someebody once told her that.

My understanding is that in Nevada (where I think you work), players can legally be forced to put chips into the pot, but in all other US jurisdictions they cannot.

I understand that many people believe that. I'm just not convinced that the belief is well founded.

(though I will acknowledge that in some places even if that understanding is technically legally incorrect as a practical matter it may be a problem)

Isn't the problem that when a player does this, it wasn't expected and now we have a problem? Which now means we need to ask the dealer to make the pot right every single time it happens to protect ourselves. Then I ask why allow it at all if that's the case?

Here is a real floor call I had awhile back (2 years ago or maybe more now), you tell me what you think...

3 way action on the river. Player 1 bets $100 (a stack of $5 chips). Player 2 says "all in" and has a $500+ stack (doesn't move any chips forward). Player 3 tosses in a single $5 chip (also has a $500+ stack). Within the next 2-3 seconds, player 1 folds and player 2 tables his hand. Player 3 says "I didn't realize player 2 was still in the hand and didn't hear him say all in. I thought I was only calling the $100 bet by player 1 and would have folded if I knew player 2 went all in." Dealer calls for the floor (me) to decide what to do. Dealer says he heard him and player 1 and a player right next to player 3 said they also heard him. No one else gave their two cents. I later watched the video of this hand and the time between player 1's $100 bet and Player 3 tossing in a chip was less than 10 seconds and player 2 never moved a muscle other than his mouth.

You can tell me what you would do as the floor in this situation all you want, but the reality is that if we didn't allow tossing a single chip into the pot to be considered a call then this situation would never happen.

"call"

<fold>

Showdown, ok player 2 wins. Player 3 you owe him $500

WHAT if I thought it was $500 I would have never said call.

So what does this have to do with tossing in a chip versus saying call?

Because he tossed in a single chip. He did not say "call". Please don't change to story.

But what if he had said call instead of tossing in a chip. What would have changed?

Don't you still have the same problem then?

never would happen ....
why would it not happen this way.

or "

Player 3 called the bet by placing a number (1) of chips into the betting area.
This action is just as binding as saying call and moving no chips
This action is just as binding as saying all-in (as player 2 did) without moving any chips.

The fact that player 3 did not follow the action is on him and a separate issue...the 'one chip call' he made is kind of a side issue.

Just saying call is also bad. Just saying all in is also bad. Just move your f'n chips. It's not that hard.

If we hate a one chip call so much, we should also hate verbal deceleration just as much, because I can declare "all-in" and move no chips, and if called, just take my chips home with me.
What an angle....

This.


Verbal declaration is fine, but follow it up with chip movement to complete the action.

In Suit's case I think it leans more towards a misunderstood action claim than confusion over the 1 chip rule. Now if Player 2 had said 'all-in' and tossed in a single chip then we can tussle between the two rules. This is not purely a 1-chip spot here IMO.

I know I tend to lean towards/rely on the Dealers in these spots rather than the lazy players, but I think this leans heavily towards a call of $100 and an exposed hand. 10 seconds is a long time IMO .. No 'all-in' button? GL