WPF floor decision on 1 oversize chip bet

[Temp Hutter]

Blinds are 100-200 and an internet qualifier throws out a 1K chip. After it hits the felt she announces raise. The dealer then announces raise. I am next to act and I almost say something because it is obviously just a call but instead I just muck my trash cards and give the person a break. The next two players muck and then the next player (call him player C) announces that he is calling 200 and not the 1000 because it was an illegal raise.

There was no argument that the raise was actually a call according to the one chip bet rule because she did not say raise until after the chip was on the table. The discussion that broke out focused on when player C has to speak up. He waited until his turn to act, but three people acted before him and folded to the raise. Will the floor allow player C to call 200 or will they make the raise stand because of the action that has already taken place?

[SossMan]

dealer said raise. action ensued. It's a raise.

based on the fact that the dealer made the decision and nobody contested at that point in time the raise is allowed. If the 3 to act after her raise we'll say for example called and the guy contests what happened, it's basically an advantage to him. Let's say he has Aces. 3 players call the 1k making it a 4k pot. He's obviously not going to contest then. But if he wants to see a cheap flop then say something? No it doesn't work like that

[ QUOTE ]
dealer said raise. action ensued. It's a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right, but I hate this rule. This essentially means that you have to either 1) constantly police the table for improper plays or 2) give away that you're interested in playing a hand before it's your turn to act. In theory, you should just be watching the table constantly, but I'd feel like a real prick if I'd been the button in this hand, told the guy it's only a call, and then folded.

[Masquerade]

First of all the players don't decide unilaterally on the legitimacy of raises. When the dealer called a raise he had to protest there. He definitely can't see some players fold THEN decide to insist he can call 200. Just because he's a tool I'd rule that his "call" is verbally binding and he has to put in 1000. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[rwanger]

At first I was thinking that it was a cheap shot by player C. But what if he was looking away from the table and not paying attention until the action was on him? Then clearly it's not an "angle".

I think since the dealer said it, and the original raiser did not say "No no, I call"...it looks like a raise.

Any player who hasn't looked at his/her cards could say "I'm sorry, that was just a call" and they wouldn't be giving anything away.

[SossMan]

<u>But what if he was looking away from the table and not paying attention until the action was on him? Then clearly it's not an "angle".</u>

if he was looking away, then how would he have known that it wasn't a legit raise?

[Toro]

I don't look at my cards until it's my turn. So when I see this happen, I immediately call a string raise since after one player acts it's too late.

[Temp Hutter]

The floor ruled that the raise was illegal and it was only a call of 200. Player C was allowed to call the 200. The three players that folded to the raise were told they should have protested when it was their turn to act.

This seemed to open quite a few angle shooting doors depending on how things play out. What if one of the players that folded had called the 1000 - would they be allowed to go back and change their action to a raise? What if one of the players that folded had re-raised? What if there was a call, a reraise and another call before player C protested the original bet? It seems to me like a big mess.