I agree with this.

Fore ... I'm very confused by some of your comments, which probably isn't a surprise to some.

I've never stated in this thread .. or any thread .. that a single silent chip is anything but a call, no matter the size. There have been others in the thread suggesting that the OP spot and a SSC should be considered the same thing if I'm going to pose these comments. I've made multiple attempts to keep the single silent chip out of this thread.

My comments are very simple, so I thought. Any multi-chip bet that is equal to or more than a min-raise 'should' be a raise. It's easy math and keeps things moving along without the 'process' of ... "Well, sir, if you had only used three chips instead of two this would be a raise."

I understand the concept ... we might as well call it the 'double silent chip bet (call)'

Some have put the ambiguous comments out there. My response to them is that we can simply say that a single chip is not an aggressive action (when facing a bet and without a verbal declaration) and 'any' multi-chip bet 'could' be considered aggressive as part of the rule.

I really tried to get out of the thread, but I'm not going to sit by when I'm being dragged into stances I've not taken. GL

Player A bets 1000. Player B raises to 5500. Player C silently puts in two 5K chips.

You want this to be a raise every time. Why? We're talking about rules, not what you want.

I understand the current rule ... and everyone needs to read the 2nd to last paragraph above. Its that simple .. if you put more than one chip into the betting area its considered an aggressive action and you are subject to the easiest math in poker and we move on.

Why stop action when the math works? GL

PS ... if he puts out a 3rd chip .. 500 .. for easy change its a raise though ..

You have yet to state some reason why two chips is aggressive but one chip of the same value isn’t. What time s the simple is h that makes that work?

You want to make it t simpler for the new player. Fine. P1 bets 200. P2 raises to 600. If your new player puts in two 500 chips you make that a raise. But if he puts in a single1000 chip it is a call. Why to some who doesn’t know the rules is your way better? In the new player mind he put in a min raise in eith case. But you expect him to know that multi chips means aggression but a single chip doesn’t. How is that simpler than the opposite?

More, he wants a single 10K chip to be a call. And he thinks this is less confusing to newbies versus a consistent rule.

I work in software, specifically on the design side. You wouldn’t believe how common it is to hear that “the complicated way is more simple, actually”. It’s daily.

The 'reason' is that two chips are more than one. The current rule is more complicated because we now have to stop and evaluate the denominations of the chips to determine the correct action.

You explain to the Player that entering just one (silent) chip into the betting is a passive (calling) action per Rule 49.

Not 'more', it's the same stance over and over and over again ... a single silent chip is a call. It's a single chip and there's a separate rule governing it. I've never wavered from this and don't plan on it.

All I'm putting out there is that 'any' multi-chip bet that equates to a min-raise (or more) is just simply a min-raise and action continues. I'm fine with stopping and evaluating chip denomination when the total of the chips is less than a min-raise under the current rule.

New Players ... one silent chip is a call, but any mutli-chip bet is subject to min-raise/call requirements.

We eliminate any evaluations when the chips equate to a min-raise. IMO the New Player is more confused when he's told that he needed to use 3 chips instead of 2 in order to raise ... even though the chip total is the same.

This thread is so blown out of proportion.

If someone would just comment that 'we' (currently) want to evaluate all multi-chip bets in the same manner regardless of their sum total then that's a point of view I can grasp.

My suggestion is why evaluate them at all if the total meets the most common basis of poker, the min-raise. GL

Action is taken. Is it possible to interpret the action in multiple ways? Yes? Okay, it's the least aggressive action.

So I guess it's clearer now that you're not necessarily interpreting a rule a certain way as much as you want the rule to be amended? I'm not sure I'm following 100% on your reasoning, but your way is also going to result in bets being forced to be opposite of the players' intentions. Except that in your version of the rules, there are situations where there is no way for a player to make a call without it being a forced raise without them putting one chip out first and then step 2, put out the rest of the chips, and let's make sure there's enough time between the two steps so the action isn't misinterpreted as a raise. How long between the first chip and the rest of the chips? Let's make it subjective?


I don't understand the problem you're trying to solve.

I look at this two-fold I guess ...

Primarily a Player should/could understand that 'any' multi-chip bet is subject to a raise 'evaluation' so they need to understand the situation they are entering. I also don't think it's a stretch that we 'burden' the Player with knowing what a min-raise would amount to ... so they better be careful/aware when putting out that amount of chips in a multi-chip format.

Secondarily we can eliminate some of these Rule 50 spots (pulling back of the smallest chip) when the chips actually do amount to a min-raise or more and keep the game moving along.

It's not so much a problem. But I think it's easier to explain to a Player that 'Hey, you put out enough chips to raise, it's a raise' than to go through the Rule 50 process of first pulling back a chip and then applying easy poker math or the 50% rule if it is determined to be a call.

As far as a 'delay' in putting out the second chip to cover a call .. We all know what a string bet looks like and/or there's always the option to just say 'call' before putting out any amount of chips. Tossing in an under-call shouldn't be any different than tossing in an over-sized chip as they are both single silent chip actions. GL

You seem to be hung up on multiple chips for some reason. This is probably because people commonly call it the "single chip rule". The single chip vs multiple chips isn't relevant at all really. Was every chip you put out required to make the call? Yes? Call. If you happen to only put a single chip in, then yes, that one chip is always required, so it's a call. No? Raise if legal, otherwise force raise or call depending on amount.

I feel like you have made this extra complicated. When you say "might be subject to raise evaluation" it translates in my head to "might get angleshot."

You said you primarily play cash so I'll put this in cash terms.

5/10 NL game
Player A raises to $30
Player B puts in 2 green chips. Always a call. It's literally the same as throwing in a single bigger chip. Yes I understand that 2 greens chips are not a single bigger chip.

5/10 NL game
Player A raises to $30
Player B puts in 1 green and 5 red OR 10 red. Clear raise.

No, I'm suggesting that it could be made easier. Any multi-chip bet that equates to a min-raise is a min-raise ... move on. Any multi-chip bet that is less than a min raise is evaluated under the current rules in place ... move on.

I agree that these spots are pretty rare, but the evaluation goes against the basic premise of a raise requirement.

Who gets angled? A Player really can't angle themselves and if you're suggesting that the next Player may see the 2-chip 'bet' as a call and incorrectly put out an under-call that can and will happen. Players need to be aware of the action ahead of them before acting, which is the case all the time not just in this case.

If you're suggesting that a Player will bet $30 with the hopes that at least one other Player will 'call' with two green chips and unknowingly reopen the betting for said Player, then yes, that's a potential angle and the 'offending' Player needs to know his math or say call before putting out the 50.

I was done with this thread until the angle comment came up ... There are plenty of cash and tournament examples already in the thread that match the 10-30-50 sequence.

'Literally' tossing in two chips is not the same as tossing in one chip. Within the same paragraph you acknowledge that. I'm suggesting to eliminate as many 'sometimes' events that we can.

All I'm suggesting is that a min-raise is a min-raise. The 'chip removal' and 50% rules can govern all other combinations of two or more chips that fall below a 'complete' min-raise.

When you eliminate situations that cause the game to slow down it's not a complication. Is it a change? Yes. Would current Players slip up? Yes. Would there still be local and 'room' rules that Players need to be aware of? Yes. That will never be eliminated from poker. GL

answer, I'm just gonna say it. You're wrong on this one and no one understands why you're digging in so hard. These spots are not as rare as you think and all you're doing is adding extra verbiage to the rule with your flawed logic being that it's somehow simpler. GL

I honestly think he's trolling at this point. There's no other explanation.

If it were in the form of a computer program, would your suggestion require an increase in the number of conditional evaluations, or would it allow for a reduction? Would there be an increase or a reduction in branching of the logic?

And do the answers to those suggest a simpler or a more complex set of rules?

I'm not trolling. My trolls are pretty obvious and contain emojis and/or other obvious grammar markings. I have also stated at least twice that I'm ready to move on but other posts have come in so I gave them their due.

As far as a computer program and/or flow chart, I don't think it eliminates the need to evaluate all multi-chip bets (or mainly two chip bets). But it does eliminate the need to go to 'further' evaluation when the bet equates to a min-raise ... those bets immediately put action on the next Player instead of going through the chip removal and 50% evaluations before we can proceed to the next Player. GL

Answer, I want to pick your brain on this because I honestly don't see how you are so dense on this subject when you otherwise seem intelligent and capable. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a few of your opinions I vehemently disagree with. Specifically, I challenge the notions that your proposed rule changes would be easier to learn and speed up the game. I fail to see how this would be possible, as players would need to know the current raising rules (for the situations that still require them) your new rules, and when to use each set.

WHY do you feel a two chip call should be a raise when a one chip call should be a call? Why is a second chip magical where it changes the action? The second chip is important because in situations where it applies, that second chip is not needed, and is therefore a clear, unambiguous raise. A single chip would be ambiguous because a player could have either raised or called with it, so it defaults to the least aggressive action. As I said in my last post though, the important factor isn't that "multiple" chips are put in, it's that "extra" chips are put in. When you keep in mind the reasoning for rule, it seems like common sense for it to be this way, in my opinion.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

To answer the subject question...

Me!! Don’t believe it just ask me.

Call. Nothing but. AINEC.

I believe we are again beating around the bush ... I'm not proposing a 'new' rule. There is very little new to learn either ... I'm suggesting that the most basic of all poker rules is applied first, unconditionally, in a mult-chip situation no matter how many are involved, that's it.

I think it's much easier to explain to a Player that a single chip entered into the betting area without 'instruction' is considered a passive action but any multi-chip bet is subject to evaluation as a potential raise. The current rule leans towards the more passive action (same as a silent single) even if the total of the bet qualifies as a min raise.

I must have missed your post on the 'extra' chip point. That is a good way to explain why the rules go through the gymnastics of pulling a chip back and then also applying the 50% rule. It also 'somewhat' explains why 'X' amount of chips might or might not actually be 'X' amount of chips.

The current rule says that it's only a call if both chips are required to make it 'over' the call amount. I'm suggesting why bother pulling one back if it equals a min-raise.

I don't think it's a stretch to expect a Player to know what the current bet is and how much a raise would amount to ... and be wary of a multi-chip action.

That's it .. (deleted sarcastic comment) .. GL

PS ... I'm a huge advocate of keeping the Dealer out of the intent business and these rules help a Dealer remain out of that gray area when a Player may or may not intentionally put the action into a flux. This discussion almost feels like a Chicago Math type of discussion where you get the answer right but since you didn't show your work you don't get full credit.

I haven't read any of the thread after this post. This post should be the end of the thread. It's a call. It's always a call. Even if the player only has 2000 chips and thinks he's just going all-in, it's still a call.

You’re really missing out.