Why do you not just say "Call," without tossing forward a chip?

This is clear, and tossing forward a single chip seems redundant.

Two reasons. First, I'm a great multi-tasker and can do both simultaneously, thus it takes the same amount of time....Yes I am that great.

Secondly, being serious now, the rules of the room that I spend most of my time in requires at least one chip to be put forward towards the pot when making a call or declaring an all-in (I won't say "over the betting line", as the room doesn't use a hard betting line) . So even
when someone verbalizes a call or an all-in, the dealer will make the player put chip(s) forward before they proceed with the hand. The amount of chips doesn't matter, the player just needs to put something forward.

Then that room has a bad rule.

Requiring putting in "at least one chip" when calling is a dumb rule, but at least it's not an awful damage-causing one, in general.

Requiring putting in "at least one chip" when going all in is a terrible, awful rule. If there's a reason I dislike the one chip call most, it's that it seems to be a slippery slope for rooms to also make/allow you to put in a chip amount different from your actual bet when making a bet. That is just awful, and will no doubt cause all sorts of problems.

I remember a time when it was pretty common around here to have dealers tell players who announced all-in that they had to move "some" chips into the betting area. I don;t know if it was actually coming from management or if it was just one of those things that dealers thought was the rule. They usually justified it as necessary so that surveillance could see what was going on. Of course that made no sense because to surveillance it would look like the bet was the "some" chips that got moved forward. I think this sort of thing started going away as more rooms got "All-in" buttons/cards.

That's because the way you do it is clear and obvious. Not everyone does what you do (say "call" at the same time and "wait for the dealer to verify it is a call"). If everyone did what you do there would be no issues.

Just had a floor call Saturday because Player A bet one of his 3 stacks of chips. His opponent, covered him, said "all in", and then Player A tossed in 4 small denom chips and said "I guess you sucked out on me on the river" and then tossed his hand in face up (this all happened in about 3-5 seconds). The opponent then showed a better hand that had indeed sucked out on the river. Player A now claims not remembering intentionally throwing in the 4 small chips and didn't mean to call because he knew he was beat on the river.

Player A was very convincing and other players at the table including his opponent weren't much help (they wanted to stay out of it obviously and the opponent was just shy and said "I thought he called, I don't know"). The dealer said I mucked his cards and was about to push the pot (without the full call) when I saw the 4 extra chips and asked where they came from so I called you when Player B said they came from Player A. I could see other floors getting this wrong very easily, but it was a tournament with a very exact rule about heads up situations like this. But the question in my head still remained, did he toss those 4 chips out there intending to call or were they part of his bet that got missed or is he right that he didn't toss them out to call on purpose.

If we didn't allow the undercall there wouldn't have even been a chance of this going badly. Do you really not see the issue here? A poor floor decision could easily result from this undercall nonsense and screw any one of you over at any time if you aren't careful.

This exact story could have happened without an undercall. The problem 8snt the undercall the problem is the uncertainty about the origen of the chips.

If the player threw them out what else could it have signified other than a call. But if he didn't throw them out and they were stray chips from the pot it's clearly not a call. I have no idea which it is ... But the factual rulings are generally harder than the rules questions especially when the dealer has no useful input.

Sounds like a call to me.

However if tossing in one chip or in this case 4 chips wasn't allowed then there would be no question at all. It would mean nothing and the original bettor would know to wait or at the very least seek clarification.

You can't say the problem isn't the undercall because it is indeed the exact reason (along with tabling his hand) that the raiser also tabled their hand thinking it was a call and now time for showdown.

But if player 2 throws out any chips why do you need clarification at all? Your usual example you put forth a mistake on the part of the undercaller ... Presenting a "sympathetic" player. But here if the player threw out any chips there was no misunderstanding. He isn't claiming he thought it was a smaller bet. He isn't claiming he thought he was betting. Their is no basis to think his conduct here is anything short of an angle and it's an angle that can only happen if you say that an undercall has no meaning.

If you believe staff in various rooms, they seem to believe that some number of chips crossing the line is required by surveillance. I have actually overheard a phone call at the desk which suggest this is true in at least one poker room that has all-in buttons.

I take no position on whether the rule is an actual one (I have never played in a room where such a rule was even alleged, but people here say they've experienced it).

I do take a position that such a rule, if it exists, is a bad one. I don't care if it is required by surveillance or a PRM who doesn't know what he is doing.

But even if surveillance is the one responsible for saying "some chips must go across the line", then the PRM should make the rule that the chips that go across the line must be the same as what was bet, not some other (smaller) number.

At the casino I occasionally play at the "one-chip-call rule" is this: if you don't say "bet" or "raise" and just throw in one chip (no matter the value of the chip) then it's a call.

(Probably a good idea to ask the dealer when you're playing at a new place whether there are any special/local rules before you start off.)

Then you just call the floor and shut him up. If he didn't bother to learn the casino rules it's his problem - not yours.

Look the dealer in the eye while speaking if you want something other than what you're putting in (e.g. when you want to raise less than what you're putting in because you don't have the correct denominations to get the correct amount). Otherwise let your chips do the talking.

Most importantly let the chips of your opponent do the talking before you move a muscle. Never react to words, only. Ever. (Unless you know the person real good and that they will always honor their word.)...just wait until enough chips are in the middle.

This is not the rule we are talking about. But fair enough that is commonly referred to as the single oversized chip rule even though it is actually more complicated than that (throw in 2 $25 chips when facing a $30 bet and it is just a call and that is not a single chip).

Yeah, I dunno. They claim its for the cameras. I guess it's their way of having video evidence that action has been made/accepted by the player. It really doesn't slow down the game though, as most players know to put something forward. Those that don't know or forget, the dealer asks then to put some chips forward towards the pot then they move on with the hand. They also started using "all in" disks in the cash games as well, which in theory is a bit unnecessary since they already force all-in players to put chips into the pot.

I don't really care about slowing the game down. I care about P1 saying all in and then throwing in just a chip/stack "for the cameras", the P2 calling by throwing in the same size chip/stack, then finding out later that P1 was all-in and hadn't just bet the chip/stack.

Again, that is a terrible awful rule. The PRM should be shot for creating it. It is NEVER a good idea to allow a player to make a bet then put a different amount of chips in than the bet he just made. It creates unnecessary ambiguity.

As psand said, if they do actually go "to the cameras", it will look like a bet and call of that chip/stack, not an all-in. Unless they also throw out the all-in lammer, in which case, what was the point of putting in chips too other than confusing P2?

Just had another odd one that I had to rule on and it speaks to the issue with the ambiguous 1-chip call.

1-2 NL.

Button raises to 14. SB 3bets to 55. Folds to button. Button, thinking SB is all-in, throws in 1 chip, nothing verbal. Dealer tells him SB is not all-in (has about 50-60 behind). Button tries to take chip back and fold. I get called over and rule it a call of the 55. Flop comes, and SB shoves. Button 3-chip calls and loses to AA.

He would have made the same mistake if he had said call, or put in the exact amount of 55 chips. What does it have to do with the one chip?

Because it wouldn't have been ambiguous and in no world would he have envisioned that he could take his bet back.

You think it was ambiguous, but you made him call anyway? How difficult was your decision?

I don't see how this was made any different by the one chip call. He could have called with the exact amount of chips and still 3ant to take it back because he was mistaken about the SB being all in.

There was no ambiguity here. Nobody was claiming he didn't intend to call $55. The only reason this was any different then an exact change or over chip call is that the dealer didn't just proceed to put out the next street, instead he asked for the bet to be made right because their was still action.

Not difficult at all. My point was that he thought he could take it back and fold, which he would have never done if he put out $55.

Excuse me for bringing something else into the discussion. Talk amongst yourselves then.

I don't understand why you think he wouldn't have wanted to take back his bet and fold if he put out $55. He still thought his opponent was all in so he still wants to change the action.

In fact the one chip call protects him if there is any chance that you would let him out of the bet because the one chip call forced the error to become known before the next street got dealt.

Had he put in $55 the dealer might have dealt the next street.

I agree that he would have been much less likely to try to take back his action had he said call or moved in the correct amount of chips.