Incorrect ruling?

20-40 game. UTG raises. All fold to the small blind who says "call" and puts in only 2 chips, apparently thinking UTG had just called rather than raised. As the small blind says "call", big blind almost simultaneously puts in 4 chips and says "call."


Now the dealer notices that the small blind has not put in the correct amount of chips and tells him the pot was raised. Small blind says "Oh" and removes his two chips and mucks. The big blind now removes his 4 chips saying he would not have called unless the small blind had called.


UTG objects to the big blind removing his chips. The decision was that the chips had to stay in the pot because big blind knew the pot was raised and put in the correct amount and even said "call."


To me this was an incorrect decision. Small blind's action was incomplete and therefore big blind acted out of turn, which should not be binding.


What do we think?

The small blind should have been required to put in four more chips. He said call, and there was action behind him. It's his responsibility to pay attention to the action coming to him.


If the small blind is allowed to take back his bet and muck, then the big blind should be able to do the same.

Interesting problem. I believed the house ruling in this case is consistent with the way this sort of thing is usually done.


Many times I have seen a guy put in the incorrect amount of chips not realizing that the pot had been raised. He is allowed to take his money back and throw away his hand. The dealer should point this out immediately before another player acts.


I tend to agree with you. The big blind acted prematurely and should be allowed to withdraw his call and fold. The action should have been stopped before the big blind acted.

Andy,


I haven’t looked at Jim or Brett’s answer yet.


Although the Commerce and Hollywood Park (where I used to work) operate off the same printed rulebook, this problem is an area where there is some inconsistency and disagreement (between floorman, shift managers, etc.). Hollywood Park had a shift managers/floorman’s logbook, which contained handwritten updates to the printed rulebook (usually put in by a shift manager or the head of poker operations). So it is difficult to say what the exact and current rule is here. Given those caveats, the following is how I would rule, based on my last remembrance of the Hollywood Park rulebook and logbook.


First, the small blind made a verbal declaration in turn to call. This is considered binding. However, a player unaware of a raise in front of him can withdraw his bet as long as there is no “action behind”. But in this case there was. The big blind clearly acted behind. My ruling would be that the small blind must put in the chips needed to call the raise and the big blind must call too. I would allow the small blind to retrieve his cards if they were clearly identifiable (i.e., not mixed in with the muck).


BTW, the dealer should have protected the muck from the small blinds discards and/or asked the small blind to hold onto his hand until a floor decision was reached. Being forced to call the raise without a hand may seem extreme to some players; OTOH, the players must share responsibility for following the action.


Regards,


Rick

Small blind was in seat 9 and big blind in seat 1 and the both "called" almost simultaneously. Difficult, I think, for the dealer to watch the action on both sides of him which took place so quickly.


At Commerce, I have never seen the small blind or any player who put in too few chips, thinking the pot had not been raised, forced to call the full bet, whether he announced "call" or not. And I see this a lot, at least once a session I would think. They are always allowed to either remove their chips or complete the bet. Since that is the standard procedure, then it seems to me that the big blind acted out of turn based on the small blind's incorrect action, and he should have been allowed to remove his bet.


By the way, I was not in the game but was talking to a friend who was in the game when the situation happened. I then was called for a seat in another game and I later went back to ask my friend what the ruling had been. I believe Kevin made the decision.


I'm not sure whether or not a veral declaration is indeed binding in Commerce. I'll ask next time I'm there, but I won't be surprised is I get 3 different answers from three different floormen.

big blind acted on small blinds (binding) word: "Call".


small blind must call the rest of the raised bet and big blind's call stays too fo course.


when there is action behind the person who acted is bound to whatever they said they would do. if the big blind had not acted yet, then sb could correct his call and fold.


this is a pretty common situation and im surprised the sb was allowed to take his chips back. bb should have insisted that sb put the raised bet's worth of chips in the pot, despite having mucked his hand.

"it seems to me that the big blind acted out of turn based on the small blind's incorrect action, and he should have been allowed to remove his bet"


the sb's action was not "incorrect". he said the word "call" so bb was right in assuming that sb knew what was going on and was calling the raise. if the sb would have just completed a single bet without speaking, then bb may not have acted so quickly, and if he had then neither the sb or bb's actions would be binding. as soon as bb heard the word call he threw his chips in. everything changes though when it's learned that sb SAID "call".


my experience is that words like "check", "bet", "call", and "raise" are binding in all poker games.


rick's assessment of the situation is excellent and i wish he would write a handbook for floormen or something. the floorman who made the decision that SB could take his bet back, but then BB couldnt, is an idiot. first he makes a completely wrong decision about the sb, but then isnt even consistent when BB levels the exact same argument: "i didnt understand the action before me so i would like to change my action now that i understand it." in fact bb's right to change his mind is even more clear because sb's action has now CHANGED!


print this out and give it to a**hole.

In this club, I do not believe (although I'm unsure) a verbal declaration is binding. Whenever a player, unaware that the pot has been raised, has "called" with the wrong amount of chips (i.e., with only enough chips had the pot not been raised), he is allowed to either complete the bet or remove the incorrect "call", whether or not he said "call" when he put the wrong number of chips into the pot. It is treated as no action. Since it is so treated, the action of the last remaining player to act behind would not be binding.


To not allow the small blind to remove his chips would have been inconsistent with every decision ever made in such situations. I believe it was the oral "call" from the small blind that indeed caused big blind to also call, and that he honestly would not have called had the small blind folded.

From the Lucky Chances rulebook:


58. If a player is unaware that the pot has been raised, and puts in too few bets, or says “call,” and no one acts behind, that player does not have to call. If someone does act behind, and:


a) the player had put in too few bets, he/she may complete the raise, or fold and forfeit the amount put into the pot.


b) the player had said “call” without putting any chips into the pot, the player must call the raise.

---------


This still doesn't precisely handle every situation, but dang, we tried. (I was on the rules committee as player representative and ended up scribing the thing. A GREAT learning experience.)


Tommy

"print this out and give it to a**hole."


Is that all it takes to be an asshole? A mistake?


Tommy

Tommy,


I'm too tired to look up the exact wording but the original Los Angeles "common" rule book (from about 1997) was pretty close to what you have above. Over time the Hollywood Park interpretation/modifications seemed to make the penalty greater and greater for the player who made the incorrect call, especially if there was action behind. I've been away a year so I don't know the latest.


BTW, it is quite possible that the Commerce floorman made a reasonable ruling based on the direction he has received from his supervision above.


Regards,


Rick

Andy,


You wrote: “In this club, I do not believe (although I'm unsure) a verbal declaration is binding.”


Verbal declaration “in turn” is binding almost everywhere. Out of turn it is just considered BS (e.g., if someone says “if you bet I will raise”, the out of turn declaration is not binding)


Regarding the rest of the above post, the Commerce interpretation is close to the original rulebook. But if there is action behind, the player making the mistake usually has to at least correct the action or forfeit his original investment.


Regards,


Rick

Mike,


Regarding writing a book for floorman, one thing I learned is never to provide unsolicited advice when working in a card club. My former tendency to do so cost me dearly. But I do think I could do a good job if given the assignment :-).


I wouldn’t be too hard on the Commerce floorman. It is quite possible he has been given contradictory advice from his superiors as to how to rule in this spot beyond what is printed in the rulebook.


Regards,


Rick

unless he is in the reverse psychology mode, the UTG most likely has a real hand, probably a big pocket pair of A's or K's. (and he doesn't want to just pick up the blinds. Thus his objections to the preflop confusion. Who out there would just take the blinds and not raise a stink? I personally would just take the blinds and be done with it to keep the game "friendly".(especially if I had raised with pocket Q's or worse)


What kind of hand would the BB have to call the raise (three handed)with the SB IN the game, but not play two handed (without the SB's call of the raise?

"Is that all it takes to be an asshole? A mistake?"


a mistake that costs other people money. yeah that should do it.

my qualifications are low right about now.

Probably a drawing type of hand, say, 9-8s or something like that.

Hi Andy,


if the SB stays for the raise, BB is getting 5-1 on his call, but if the SB is solid, that marks him with a good hand as well.


Is 89s really good enough hand in this situation?


I could see maybe calling against a late position steal raise type situation, but what about a solid UTG raiser in the above described hand, where you are likely against big pocket pairs and or big ace? (since the SB must have a hand as well)


Am I playing too tight?

Isleta Casino, south of Albuquerque, uses a "betting/calling" line to definitize this situation. Once you put chips inside this line (line runs about 10-12 inches from the edge of the table, forming an inside perimeter), your chips are in action and cannot be recalled. Thus, in the given situation, the SB's 2 chips would be in action and the BB's 4 chips would also be in action. The SB would be given the option to call the raise for 2 more chips or muck his hand. He would not be able to retrieve his initial 2 chips.


Incidentally, this line prevent angle shooters from grabbing a handful of chips, banging them down, and then shouting "Check!" Once the chips are over the line, you have to bet or call the bet. You aren't forced to raise, however. Just bet or call. You learn quickly to only put chips in your hand if you want to bet or call. I like it !!

I would fold the 98s against a solid UTG raiser whether the sb folded or not. I was just trying to answer your question as to what I thought the BB had that he would have called the raise with the sb in, but folded with the sb out.


I think it's probably almost impossible to play too tight from the blinds. I'm not quite in Angelo's corner on this, but I'm edging ever closer.

The SB's verbal statement in turn is binding. Furthermore, his action resulted in significant action behind him, therefore he is obligated to call for the full amount, regardless of whether he put the right amount of chips in the pot in the first place or not. This is the ruling that would be made at most cardrooms I have been in.

My opinion is that all money stays in. SB stated "call" and is obligated to now call. Same for BB.