NL – “Half Bet Guideline” for Fixing Short Raises: Your Club's Rule?

[Rick Nebiolo]

Recent experience leads me to believe there is quite a bit of misunderstanding or lack of standardization regarding correcting short raises in no limit. This type of short raise rarely occurred in the old days (when hardened veterans typically played no limit) as a bet, raise and re-raise used to be done in increments of bet $10 - raise to $40 – re-raise to $200 or so. With the small fixed or spread buy-in games, we often see bet raise – re-raise increments of $2-$4-$6 (some clubs such as Hawaiian Gardens require a minimum ratio of $2-$4-$8 – we can re-visit the advantages of this requirement in a future thread).

Here’s an example: Player A bets $100 using twenty $5 chips (one normal stack). Player B pushes out two stacks and raises to $200. Player C (next player to act) notices that one of Player B’s stacks is one chip short so he has actually raised to $195.

Now if Player B was “all-in” most cardroom no limit rules specify that any raise less than the minimum (usually the amount of the last bet or raise) is “action only” and if Player C just called $195 Player A could only call the remaining $95 (or fold). (Note that in limit games, most cardrooms treat any raise of half the mimimum or more as a full bet.)

But let’s say Player B has plenty of chips. How does your cardroom correct this sort of mistake?

Preliminary Comments: At the Bicycle Casino we used a “half bet” guideline for correcting raises. Any incorrect raise that was half or more than the legal minimum was corrected to the legal minimum. If a floorman was called to the table Player B’s raise would be corrected to $200, the minimum legal raise. Had player B put out $145, his short raise would be corrected to a call. (As an aside, I now believe this guideline would be improved if it was “more than half”. This looks better when the bet is two chips and someone splashes in three chips - using a “more than half” guideline this mistake would be corrected to two chips, perhaps better since most three chip splashes are a result of chips sticking together.)

A few miles away Hawaiian Gardens Casino uses a different guideline. If a floorman is called to the table the short raise of $195 would be declared a “fouled raise” and it would be corrected to a call of $100. (per Hawaiian Gardens Lead NL Host Dave Simon, perhaps the patron saint of fixed buy-in no limit). Keep in mind that in the real world (including the Bike, HG and other LA clubs) the floor isn’t always called and players often accept the intended raise to $200.

I’ll elaborate and expand upon my question:

How would your cardroom handle the above $100 to $195 example?

Does this type of error come up often? (i.e. “donk style” mini raises may be an “LA only thing” [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] )

Do your floormen apply rulings or guidelines consistently in this area?

Do you know of a better guideline or rule for correcting this sort of mistake?

Comments appreciated.

Rick

PS I had to edit the title of the post so it would fit.

[ QUOTE ]
How would your cardroom handle the above $100 to $195 example?

[/ QUOTE ]

My room would correct the raise to $200.

[ QUOTE ]
Does this type of error come up often? (i.e. “donk style” mini raises may be an “LA only thing” )

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I don't find this error occuring every day, I would not call it uncommon. Though "donk style" mini raises are common the real culprit in this error is players not counting there stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Do your floormen apply rulings or guidelines consistently in this area?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never seen a floor person called for something as obvious as $195 put in when the bet should be $200, a floor is much more likely to be called when the raise throws in $150. In the NL game I would say the floor is pretty consistent in using the 1/2 bet guideline if they are called (most players are content to allow a player to take back an extra $5 chip if they throw out $15 to call a $10 bet and then immediately correct the problem before action occurs) and the floor does not get called in these situations unless a player objects. However in the limit games (we only have low-limit limit games) the floor is a lot more likely to allow a player who has thrown in a raise (either chucks in $3 on a $2 bet or the big blind throws in another bet because he forgot he was already in) to take back the raise and just let it be a call.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you know of a better guideline or rule for correcting this sort of mistake?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I sure wish people would verbalize their action since that would cut down on the mistakes.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen a floor person called for something as obvious as $195 put in when the bet should be $200, a floor is much more likely to be called when the raise throws in $150.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of agree but we see a lot in Los Angeles. In retrospect perhaps a better example would have been bet $100, raise to $180. Since I can't edit now that I have a response, perhaps the rest of you can use this if you want.

~ Rick

[Randy_Refeld]

I have seen both of these; however, I have seen a third perhaps better way.

In no limit betting half a bet has so special significance, so there is no reason to assume a raise when more than half a bet it placed into the pot. Also when someone clearly wants to raise it is a horrible injustice to not allow the raise. If the clear intent of the player can be determined that should be their action; if their intent is not clear failure to put in the full raise is not a raise. It shoudl be noted that they have a decent amount of time to corect their action. If they come forward with some chips and count them out they should be able to return to their stack (their hands have not yet come to rest outside the betting area).

Here is a decision I made (I hope I can get the amounts right). First palyer bets $1600 putting in 3 $500 chips and a $100 chip. Next player puts in $2600 putting in 2 $1k chips a $500 chip and a $100 without comment. I am called to rule on if this is a raise. Notice that the second bet has the same number of chips as the first bet. Using a half bet rule this would be a raise. I ruled it was unclear and was not a complete bet so it was only a call. For waht it's worth there were some well known players int eh game and two of them caught up to me later and told me they were suprised to get a good ruling on that (at the time I was working at a casino that is known for having a weak staff).

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen both of these; however, I have seen a third perhaps better way.

In no limit betting half a bet has so special significance, so there is no reason to assume a raise when more than half a bet it placed into the pot. Also when someone clearly wants to raise it is a horrible injustice to not allow the raise. If the clear intent of the player can be determined that should be their action; if their intent is not clear failure to put in the full raise is not a raise. It shoudl be noted that they have a decent amount of time to corect their action. If they come forward with some chips and count them out they should be able to return to their stack (their hands have not yet come to rest outside the betting area).

Here is a decision I made (I hope I can get the amounts right). First palyer bets $1600 putting in 3 $500 chips and a $100 chip. Next player puts in $2600 putting in 2 $1k chips a $500 chip and a $100 without comment. I am called to rule on if this is a raise. Notice that the second bet has the same number of chips as the first bet. Using a half bet rule this would be a raise. I ruled it was unclear and was not a complete bet so it was only a call. For waht it's worth there were some well known players int eh game and two of them caught up to me later and told me they were suprised to get a good ruling on that (at the time I was working at a casino that is known for having a weak staff).

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting and good decision under existing rules. One problem I have with your response/approach is that it requires strong/advanced thinking by the floor staff - something we don't have now (on average) and something that is unlikely to improve much in the future. Assuming we don't have strong floor staffs, do you think there should be a written guideline for correcting bets? <Following added after edit:> If so, how would you write it?

~ Rick

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a decision I made (I hope I can get the amounts right). First palyer bets $1600 putting in 3 $500 chips and a $100 chip. Next player puts in $2600 putting in 2 $1k chips a $500 chip and a $100 without comment. I am called to rule on if this is a raise. Notice that the second bet has the same number of chips as the first bet. Using a half bet rule this would be a raise. I ruled it was unclear and was not a complete bet so it was only a call. For waht it's worth there were some well known players int eh game and two of them caught up to me later and told me they were suprised to get a good ruling on that (at the time I was working at a casino that is known for having a weak staff).

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the player who put in $2,600 saying about what he intended to do? And was that part of your consideration?

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is a decision I made (I hope I can get the amounts right). First palyer bets $1600 putting in 3 $500 chips and a $100 chip. Next player puts in $2600 putting in 2 $1k chips a $500 chip and a $100 without comment. I am called to rule on if this is a raise. Notice that the second bet has the same number of chips as the first bet. Using a half bet rule this would be a raise. I ruled it was unclear and was not a complete bet so it was only a call. For waht it's worth there were some well known players int eh game and two of them caught up to me later and told me they were suprised to get a good ruling on that (at the time I was working at a casino that is known for having a weak staff).

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the player who put in $2,600 saying about what he intended to do? And was that part of your consideration?

[/ QUOTE ]

Suprisingly the player that put in 2600 had nothing to say. I am guessing he realized that saying something at this point could be bad for him as I dont' think he wanted to give away what his intention was; I think he wanted to get a ruling and move on.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is a decision I made (I hope I can get the amounts right). First palyer bets $1600 putting in 3 $500 chips and a $100 chip. Next player puts in $2600 putting in 2 $1k chips a $500 chip and a $100 without comment. I am called to rule on if this is a raise. Notice that the second bet has the same number of chips as the first bet. Using a half bet rule this would be a raise. I ruled it was unclear and was not a complete bet so it was only a call. For waht it's worth there were some well known players int eh game and two of them caught up to me later and told me they were suprised to get a good ruling on that (at the time I was working at a casino that is known for having a weak staff).

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the player who put in $2,600 saying about what he intended to do? And was that part of your consideration?

[/ QUOTE ]

Suprisingly the player that put in 2600 had nothing to say. I am guessing he realized that saying something at this point could be bad for him as I dont' think he wanted to give away what his intention was; I think he wanted to get a ruling and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

What factors then do you look at here to determine whether the action is clear or unclear? Without more information I tend to assume that the player who threw in an extra $1,000 must have wanted to throw in more money. You mention that the number of chips in the bets was the same, but unless there is some reason why the chip colors aren't clearly distinguishable I have to assume that a player in this big a game understands that different color chips have different values.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting and good decision under existing rules. One problem I have with your response/approach is that it requires strong/advanced thinking by the floor staff - something we don't have now (on average) and something that is unlikely to improve much in the future. Assuming we don't have strong floor staffs, do you think there should be a written guideline for correcting bets? <Following added after edit:> If so, how would you write it?

[/ QUOTE ]

A guideline might be helpful. I don't know what a good guideline would be. The first bad situation thst that has to be avoided is where someone cleaerly wants to raise, let's eveyone knows they want to raise, and then they aren't able to raise. A second situation that must be avoided (but is less troublesome thatn the first) is one where a player can make it appear he wants to raise, but puts in an amount that is intentionally unclear (putting in exactly half a raise in limit can cause some problems) in order to gage reactions.

There are problems with guidelines (not jsut in this spot, but in all spots) do you replace a top section floorman's judgment with a written rule? I think the most imporant rule in poker is the floor will rule in the interest of fairness. Everytime you make allowances fo rthe floor not having good judgment you make poker nittier and less fun. I think the real solution is to work on getting better floor staffs. This can be done both through training and making better employment decisions. Unfortunately the places where they need the most help will be the last to ask for it. Having even one person on the staff that is really good can make a lot of differnce (more of a difference in a small room than in an LA card barn).

A friend of mine worked on the floor in a room that occasionally spread 2-7 triple draw (when I say occasionally I mean less than 10 times a year). Long after he left there the rank of hands came up. He didn't know that A2345 is not a straight in that game (ace is high only for anyone that doesn't play 2-7) so he thought it would lose to 22456. He was one of the best floormen in that room, but nobody had ever told him this simple point so if he would have had to rule on it he would have gotten it wrong. I have to wonder why nobody told him that; perhaps nobody else in that room was aware of that either.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
What factors then do you look at here to determine whether the action is clear or unclear? Without more information I tend to assume that the player who threw in an extra $1,000 must have wanted to throw in more money. You mention that the number of chips in the bets was the same, but unless there is some reason why the chip colors aren't clearly distinguishable I have to assume that a player in this big a game understands that different color chips have different values.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would suprised how many of these players will throw around money. Often a player will get different colored chips mixed together and casually put them in. I have seen a player talking and mean to throw in 3 red chips and throw in 3 black by mistake (I ruled in that case that he ocudl correct to a call becasue he immediatly stopped the gmae when he became aware of the error).

As far as determining if it is clear or unlcear; the standard rule (at least at that time) was it takes a full raise to raise, so the evidence has to be that they clearly wanted to raise. If there is anything unclear it is a call.

In Rick's original example $195 instead of $200 that is clear they meant to put in $200 not $100 that is a raise. I think the $180 is still clear. When it gets around $150 it is very unclear; the floor should consider the entire situation; even how they put the chips in can make a difference.

Example: First player puts out a stack of 20 $5 chips. next palyer puts out a stack of 32 $5 chips; wihtout a rule in place about half a raise going up I would rule that a call. Change it a bit; first player still bets the $100 this time second player puts out two stacks of 16 chips I would rule this a raise.

This goes back to Rick's original post. There is a problem with the growth of poker (particuarly NL); card rooms are opening (or expanding) and they don't have much experience in these matters. It is hard to right a one size fits all rule because poker rulings are based on fairness.