Ruling for discussion from Wynn

[goofball]

I'm playing in the Wynn 15/30 game late the other night. It was folded to the small blind who limped, I was the big blind. When it was my turn to act, I (in a moment of stupidity) threw forward one chip, then a second, then a third to indicate a raise.

The other player thought it was a string raise and we called a floorman.

Thoughts?

[Edge34]

If you're in the big and he just completed his small blind, even 1 chip thrown forward begins the action of the raise.

Why was this unclear?

[Photoc]

Incorrect. If 1/2 of the bet is tossed out at one time, you are allowed to complete the raise. 1/3 of the bet is not 1/2 or more, thus this is a string raise.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. If 1/2 of the bet is tossed out at one time, you are allowed to complete the raise. 1/3 of the bet is not 1/2 or more, thus this is a string raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a nit picking to me. Why else would the OP throw out a chip? His intentions were obvious, however its also an uncool thing to do.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[Edge34]

Wow...I honestly never knew that part of the rule. I mean, the intent of the string raise rule was to prevent someone from putting out the call, getting a look at people's reactions, then raising if it seemed favorable, correct? I just naturally figured that since there is no possible way for this to be the case, that it would be allowed. I guess you really do learn something new everyday.

Thanks, photoc. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Of course, if he's raising from the blind and this guy put up a stink, that may be a bit of a read for future streets anyways. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Photoc]

TT, I agree with you on this point. But, at Wynn, a rule is a rule and a nit will always be a nit.

I'm just stating the rule. Floor/manager decision is final. The intent was there, but action overrides intent.

[Photoc]

The reason for this rule is to prevent angle shooting.

Player A calls, Player B tosses out one extra chip to start a raise and Player A folds or even reraises. Player B says...Oh, that's just a call, I didn't think I had enough out there.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason for this rule is to prevent angle shooting.

Player A calls, Player B tosses out one extra chip to start a raise and Player A folds or even reraises. Player B says...Oh, that's just a call, I didn't think I had enough out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't prevent any angle shooting at all. It just changes the nature of the angle.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
The intent was there, but action overrides intent.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, yeah, but there are also times where clear intent overrides unclear actions.

Since every WPT trained nit player in the country is taking every single rule and finding every single possible shade of grey, might as well dump some gas on the fire here. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

al

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

It doesn't prevent any angle shooting at all. It just changes the nature of the angle.

[/ QUOTE ]


exactly.

amd i don't think it's REALLY all that nit-pickyish either.
how hard is it to just put the full raise out at once?


and i agree that if the SB wanted to re-raise then he might do so after the one chip...and then the BB would just say "wait...I didn't put more than half the raise out there...so it's just a call."

also - there can sometimes be confusion from players who forget that they are in the big-blind. so they put the one chip out there...see that they are already in...and then pull it back.


I don't think the raise should be allowed here.
When the BB puts out the one extra chip I do NOT think the intent is obvious. I think "is he raising?? or does he not know he's already in the BB? or is he just fishing for a reaction and then is going to pull his chip back??"

If someone put the one chip out there against me I would initially have NO CLUE what the hell they were trying to do so I DEFINITELY don't think the intent is obvious.