Please cite a rule that makes this a call of the all in. All of this one chip calling started in tournaments where there is a "undercall" rule, but even by that rule this would not be a call.

I agree 100% but there is in fact a rule that makes saying call binding.
Not back then. I have them now.

It all comes down to a claim of "gross misunderstanding". Can you make that claim when you say "call"? Yes, you can and you have some protection there, but imo not as much as you have when you toss in a single chip. The problem arises in multi-way pots and that is why TDA came up with their undercall rule. If it is heads up, the decision is obvious. Make it multi-way with raises involved and you have a possible GM case.

Again, someone please cite a rule that makes my scenario a mandatory call by player 3 of the full amount.

These are the only rules I believe that come into play here. (I added the red where I thought it made sense)...

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. (This also applies right before the showdown when putting chips into the pot causes the opponent to show the winning hand before the full amount needed to call has been put into the pot.) However, if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you. At pot-limit or no-limit betting, if there is a gross misunderstanding concerning the amount of the wager, see Section 14

12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300(or one $5 chip) into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 (well maybe not obvious, but it is not obvious he knew the bet was $1200 either because of the single chip) and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot.



Basically it says this: If a player tosses in a single chip and you expose your hand and that player then says he misunderstood the bet, you are giving the floorperson 100% of the decision on whether you get paid or not, so I guess until all rooms adopt a new rule its your own risk to take.

[ETA: damn my slow fingers!]

Here are the relevant rules as I see them:

RRoP
Rule 3.13 refers to 14.8, which seems to clearly be a reference error. I believe it intends to refer to 14.12.

The only reference to forcing undercalls up to be full calls seems to be 3.13. Having said that, 3.13 also contains two exceptions in its own text (missing a raise before action behind, and gross misunderstandings).

Having said THAT, in at least one of the examples listed above, there was action behind the undercall (a fold by the original bettor). So I'm not sure this rule makes it very clear, other than to say that the decision maker has considerable latitude to decide how to rule.

I don't think it is at all clear or fair to say that all undercalls must be brought up to full calls by rule, though that may be the ruling in many/most cases.

For clarity, the TDA rule is perhaps a little more clear cut, but still gives the TD significant leeway:
The primary difference seems to be that:
(1) undercalls are forfeited if the player is allowed to fold, rather than allowing the player to take the bet back and reconsider
(2) verbal "calls" are binding even if there is a missed raise, only chip bets are potentially allowed to not complete the full call.

There has long been a general rule in poker that putting chips into the pot constituted your action and that an undercall needs to be corrected. In every room I have worked this rule has been in the rulebook. The rule also appears in the most recent WSOP Cash game rule set I could find (2016). And yes this rule does appear in RROP. And there is a call after a raise rule which can in certain circumstances relieve the player of the obligation ...and yes there is also a gross misunderstanding rule that says a Floor may in view of the total circumstances on a finding of a gross misunderstanding release a player from that obligation that existence of a discretionary exception does not negate the existence of the rule.

If you find that the existence of the gross misunderstanding rule negates the existence of the undercall must be corrected rule, why does it not negate the existence of the verbal is binding rule? After all you can find a gross misunderstanding where there is a verbal call?


I'm not understanding why you feel this is true?


WSOP (Live action rules 2016):
RROP (11th)
My rooms rulebook

Does your rulebook really not have such a rule? if I am facing a bet of $100 can I drop in $95 and then say .... oh never mind I'm not calling and take it back?

And in Limit poker the traditional rule didn't even require you release a chip .... forward motion could be binding if it caused action behind you.

Out of everything you posted, only the rule in your room actually would force the player to call the full amount in my scenario. All the others give him protection based on gross misunderstanding.

Does your room really not have the gross misunderstanding rule?

In my room, if the guy had said "call" instead of tossing in a chip he would have been held to a call 100% of the time. Since he did not say anything he has a greater than zero chance of getting to freeroll depending on what floor he gets and how convincing he is. If you don't see the issue with the one chip call then there is no help for you and if your room forces the full call every time then you are potentially screwing some unexpecting noob over every time because he saw this on TV once and really didn't know there was a raise.

I don't understand. Can you clarify the "noob" in this story? Is the noob the one who made the raise or the noob who tried to call $100 instead of $500?

How very condescending...

I don't understand why we care about the unsuspecting noob who threw in one chip not knowing there was a raise, but not about the unsuspecting noob who said "call" not knowing there was a raise. Why wouldn't gross misunderstanding protect either both or neither equally?

Then you and I just don;t speak the same language because its pretty clear to me that all three rules would make this a call here. Your best argument is that the RROP rule refernces the Gross misunderstanding rule .... but I still contend that is a discretionary exception which may or may not be applied.

Sure it does .... but you asked for a citation to the rule that an undercall (or shortcall) must be corrected to the complete bet. You denied the rule existed (If I were a betting man ... I'd bet there is a similar rule in your rule book).

So in your room you only screw over the noob who makes a verbal call?

As for a player getting screwed because he didn;t know there was a raise. Ideally this would never happen. But the reality is that when players don;t pay attention sometimes they are going to make a mistake like this. And if it can be corrected before anyone is damaged by it then by all means correct it. But if a player is going to get screwed by a mistake ... then by all means I would prefer it be the player who made the mistake.

Look the best case scenario for a player to make out a case for a misunderstanding in your scenario would be the case where he neither throws out a single under sized chip, nor says call but rather puts out exactly the amount of the first bet.

And I will gladly admit there are times when the player will not be held to the complete call when there is a gross misunderstanding. But the default rule is he is held to the call. And you have yet to give any reason why a 1 chip (undersized) call should be treated any different than a verbal call.

The Gross Misunderstanding rule doesn't automatically give him much "protection":
" ... a "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action."

Live poker, with verbal actions and physical chips, is unavoidably a game with possibilities for ambiguity, and, however the rules are written, it still will require intelligent judgements and use of discretion by floors to make it as fair as possible. Situations vary a lot, and an ultra-rigid application of any written, one-size-fits-all rule will not necessarily result in a more fair game. Good floors use good judgement and produce a better game, overall; bad floors use bad judgement and produce a worse game.

A good game also requires some good faith on the part of the players. If it is lacking, players should learn to have the pot made physically right before reacting and/or exposing hands, or else take the risk. Unfortunately this can be an expensive lesson to learn. (And in a bigger NL or PL game with lots of stacks involved, even very experienced players are often reluctant to do this, both because it slows things down and because it can be taken as insulting.)
When it's totally unnecessary, I dislike the 1-chip call; I think it's often either a silly attempt to look cool or just lazy. But it is apparently here to stay (except in Suit's room). I would not mind it if banning the 1-chip call were universal, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.
But I also don't see any real difference between a claim of gross misunderstanding based on a 1-chip call or on a verbal call. Both allow either an angle or for a player to get screwed, and both really depend on good flooring to have as fair a game as possible.

I just had a long bachelor party weekend so I am late getting back to this party, but I'm not going to argue it anymore, so I'll say this. At one time we had this problem just when someone said call and claimed misunderstanding. Now, someone, somewhere, started doing this one chip thing and it has spread across the poker world because no one put a stop to it and now we have this problem in two scenarios (1-when someone says call OR 2-when someone tosses in one chip and then claims misunderstanding). Tomorrow when someone starts twirling their finger above their head and making a whirling noise to indicate a call and that spreads across the poker world we will have 3 scenarios where we have this potential problem.

All I am saying is why did we allow something else that could cause problems to be able to indicate a call? In reality after reading everyone's comments, we should not allow saying "call" to count as a call. Maybe we need everyone to put out the exact amount or say the amount like "call $400". Maybe now I'm taking it too far? Maybe we started taking it too far when we allowed tossing in one chip to indicate a full call?

Allowing tossing in one chip to indicate a full call is unnecessary just the same as allowing clucking like a chicken would be. Why add the potential for problems? Now if you all would just go back to forcing everyone to call the full amount every time this happens and leave me alone, I will see you back here when the next thread is started because some dumbass floor made a terrible ruling because of a one chip issue that didn't need to ever exist.

#allingoodfun #imnotgrumpy #canwestillbefriends

That's a standard check.

Maybe we should not just kneejerk let people off the hook for a claimed misunderstanding when doing so puts other players at a disadvantage ... Maybe we can be more skeptical about claims, and also let the damage fall on the player making the mistake when that mistake is based on their not paying attention and someone has to get the worst of it.

You keep saying "the player that made the mistake". You do realize that showing your hand before being sure the amount put into the pot is correct is also a mistake right? Do you put more weight on one rule over the other?

No it's not a mistake. It's the way the game is played....after a player acts they are done and it's the next players turn. And it's not just turning over cards. It could be the player who acts next calling raising or folding based on the action before them.

It may be advisable at times for you to wait so that you don't get screwed over when there is a problem .... But you aren't in the wrong for acting when it's your turn.

It stuns me when i play at rooms that dont have an allin button. it eliminates all angleshoots and it takes the dealer EXACTLY one second to toss it in front of the player.

You can call with 1 chip. You can call with 0 chips. You can do anything. All rooms i regularly play at have this red all-in button. its quite small but does the job.

It still doesn't make the guy actually put his chips in the pot after he gets called and sees that he lost.

i dont understand, why do the chips have to be in the pot?

Because if they aren't, the villain can just pick up the chips and walk out the door with them. There have been threads about that happening.

“Theft has happened before.” Now we are arguing against ever doing or owning anything, regardless of risk or our tolerances.

If the other player has not properly comp,teed their turn, then it is not your turn yet. So flipping your cards may not be against the rules, it is still a mistake when you do it at the wrong time.

Just so I'm clear...

So if its 3 ways and first guy bets 100, 2nd guy goes all in, 3rd guy puts out 100, and 1st guy folds. Then 2nd guy immediately tables his hand and you're saying that wouldn't be a mistake on 2nd guy's part?

Not on that basis alone.

I guess I just don't understand the dislike of people putting one chip into the pot to signify a call. I've never personally witnessed any issues that stems from this action, though I'm not disregarding issues that others have mentioned either. Like anything else, just protect your action. If someone uses single undersized chip to signify a call, I will wait for the dealer to verbally confirm the action. I dunno, guess it just doesn't bother me.

I sometimes use one chip for a call myself, usually when facing a bet that would require multiple stacks of chips to call when I don't have any higher denomination chips to use. I'll also sometimes do it when someone goes all-in and I don't know the exact count, but I know the approximate amount and don't need/want the dealer to count down my opponent's stack before I call. I do usually combine my one chip calls with a verbal declaration as well just to cut out any ambiguity that may be there.

As a singular act it can skate by on it's own ... as a silent 'call' when facing a HU bet.

The issues arise when Players use it when it's not necessary to 'confirm' a verbal action ...
1) You don't need a single chip if you verbalize a call ... It's a call already.
2) You can create confusion/angles if you single chip a verbal 'all-in', especially when facing a bet.
3) You can create confusion when multi-way.

As it's also been stated, some Players my refuse to complete their bet/action if they find out they are beat/behind. GL