There's a big difference in 1.) putting chips out and taking back the previously "in" chips to leave the correct amount or at least some sensible amount while acting in turn and 2.) grabbing your neighbor's two $1 chips from his $8 bet for your change from your two $5 chips while I'm doling out the change and pulling in the chips.


If the bet is 10 and the big blind($2) puts out two red chips and leaves the two $1 chips out there, I'm certainly making this player aware that he can pull back the excess chips, and I'm going to tell them in a very suggestive yet courteous manner. It's very often new players that do this, and in some cases they leave enough out there for me to be supposed to force them to raise. I give them a one time pass and explain the rules of raising to them, letting them know that they need to protect themselves so I don't have to force them to make a bet different than what they intended.

OK, so it's a tournament rule... OP was in a cash game.

You got lucky. The only reason to pull back chips is to complete the call or make a raise. Your action should have declared a call if you did not raise.

Facing action, when you have picked up chips from your prior action (in the pot, but in front of you), there is no good reason not to assume you are calling or raising.

If I'm next to act, I'm probably waiting to clarify your specific action, as not to give away information. However, if I'm planning to fold when you call/raise, then I may not pay attention to whether you call or raise and simply fold after you act. When that act is a fold, and I would have called, I'll be a little upset at myself for not being careful. That's on me.

Should that matter when HU? I think it should matter all the time, but perhaps V was just upset that they didn't get the action.


In my local rooms (AC), I'm not sure if they insist on making it a call (min). It might open up an angle, when I want to call and appear weak, so I grab some chips from a prior bet, try to fold and am forced to call. If trying to eliminate angles is a goal, then we shouldn't enforce this as at least a call. If enforced as at least a call, do we then allow the player to raise after denying the fold? Perhaps raise>fold>call and we never wanted to call.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you should never be folding until action in front of you is clarified. Folding after the player to your right says "Raise" before announcing the amount can influence his action and can also start a cascade of action behind.

Yes, I'm waiting until the player has acted, even if I don't know the exact action. I recognize that giving a player the knowledge that one less player is going to call is unfair to those left to act. Once I know I'm going to fold, I do my best not to give that information away until the action is on me. However, if there was a bet and I'm going to fold to a call/raise by the player on my right, it's not important for me to determine if the player is calling or raising, or the amount of the raise, just that I wait to fold.

If player on my right picks chips from a prior bet, ends up putting the chips back and folding, there is a nonzero chance that I assume they have made that call/raise, their action is complete and I'm folding. Yes, most of the time I expect to notice that they haven't put more chips in (to call/raise) and have folded/mucked their cards.

That player now folding, may give me a reason to call/raise myself. Can I quickly deduce what cards might have given a player cause to think about calling/raising and then fold? Can I use that to narrow a range from the aggressor and determine that my best play is to call/riase? Sure, at least sometimes.

Mostly table talk, but lots of players comment that they are glad Player B called, because now they can fold and would have felt they had to call.

This was my point and why you should wait until they act. You even say it's unfair to the remaining players. I could go further and say that you're colluding a bit by giving the player information he isn't supposed to have.

Obviously no one is asking you to wait to start thinking about making a decision about what you're going to do until the action is squarely on you.

This, which is the whole point of the whole thread, should always be at least a call. They should not be allowed to fold here.

As above, their action is not actually complete until it's complete. It may be enough information for you to make a decision about what you're going to do, but it's not your turn yet. You admit that it's not fair to the players in the hand...so just wait. Your posts are confusing to me, because you seem to understand it but you don't care enough about the game to apply it because you can't wait 3 seconds for the guy to clarify the bet size.


Sorry if I'm misreading this all.

The latter is almost guaranteed to happen in a typical 1-2 game. That's why one needs to be a big boy and not act until it's actually one's turn.

After re-reading things, I think this is the case.

I'm not acting until action is complete. We agree on the reasons what that is the proper thing to do.

I'm considering my possible actions, including my action when players fold to me, some call and some raise. When the action gets to me, I act. In the case where a prior call or raise leads me to fold, I'm not concerned with that exact action. I'm still waiting until it's my turn to act, and not giving away that I plan to fold until it's my turn to act.

The source of the misunderstanding is that I might think that a player is going to call/raise when removing chips. I might plan to fold in that case, after the player calls/raises. If the player who removed chips, and should be calling/raising, then folds, I may not recognize they changed what I anticipated. I may simply fold before recognizing that their action was a fold, and I may have decided to call/raise myself if I recognized that they folded.

I think we're good now? Sorry for the confusing stream of consciousness. It was an attempt to avoid confusion, so much for that

I think I misunderstood then. Thank for clarifying though.

Its a call