Big chip mistaken for Small chip

[K-Lo]

I was reading about this crazy cash-game ruling at the WSOP where the first player in a four-way pot threw his cards into the muck face-up after the river was dealt with the obvious intention to fold, but then jokingly said "I'm all-in" and was held to the all-in call for $7K in a pot of a few hundred (as his cards were still technically live) by the floor.  Subsequently, a player with the second nuts called, and received the $7K windfall.  This seemed, at least to me, such a blatantly unfair ruling, given that it was obvious that he was joking and that there was no intent to call.  On the other hand, you can see what happens when floorpeople are inclined to blindly go "by the book", and there were some observers who of course simply responded that the player who was joking around "deserved it".

This got me to thinking though of some other situations in tournament play where you just know that the player in question did not intend to do something, but you might feel obliged to rule "by the book" anyways.  Some TDs recommend always ruling "by the book" while others feel that a player's intention is paramount and that Rule 1 should be freely applied.  Here is a very common situation that I think fits into this "intent" or "by the book" discussion, and would be curious to know how others would deal with this situation:

You are called to the table.  Blinds are 25/50.  Player A has raised from UTG to 125.  Player B threw in (without verbal) a 25 chip and what he claims to have thought as a 100 chip, but was actually a 500 chip, which like the 100 chip is dark in color.  He claims he intended only to call the 125, not raise to 525.

a)  What do you rule?
b)  Do you rule differently if you know that Player B has a history of playing angles with this type of move?
c)  Do you rule differently if the mistaken raise was different and a more significant amount, e.g. the player mistook a 1000 chips or a 5000 chip for the 100 chip?  Assume that the colors are such that it is not surprising that players are mixing up the denominations.  Does it matter if the raise would or would not be a significant portion of Player B's stack?
d)  Would the situation be any different if Player B was the first to act (Player A folded), and put out two chips, but indicated after that he meant to raise only to 125, and not 525/1025/5025?

[MikeB]

You are called to the table.  Blinds are 25/50.  Player A has raised from UTG to 125.  Player B threw in (without verbal) a 25 chip and what he claims to have thought as a 100 chip, but was actually a 500 chip, which like the 100 chip is dark in color.  He claims he intended only to call the 125, not raise to 525.

a)  What do you rule? Raise to 525. Players have to pay attention to what they're doing. If I let this guy off, the next one will want a break too.
b)  Do you rule differently if you know that Player B has a history of playing angles with this type of move? Still a raise, but might penalize
c)  Do you rule differently if the mistaken raise was different and a more significant amount, e.g. the player mistook a 1000 chips or a 5000 chip for the 100 chip?  Assume that the colors are such that it is not surprising that players are mixing up the denominations.  Does it matter if the raise would or would not be a significant portion of Player B's stack? I feel for all these situations, but for me, consistency in betting / raising rules is one of the most vital issues related to maintaining order in the tournament.
d)  Would the situation be any different if Player B was the first to act (Player A folded), and put out two chips, but indicated after that he meant to raise only to 125, and not 525/1025/5025? no

K: In your first situation with the cards tossed on the muck, I'm somewhat surprised that the muck-tossing wasn't first ruled a fold. If it was a fold, then ANYTHING the guy says afterwards (such as "I'm all in") is irrelevant. I really have a tough time ruling a clear toss of cards, face up or down, onto the muck as anything other than an instant irretrievable fold. It would of course be different if the guy said 'i'm all in" before the toss or even simultaneously. But if the toss comes first, without seeing the actual tape, I'd favor calling that a fold at that point.

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

I don't know how they could rule the player that mucked face-up was liable for the 7k! You said he was first to act, so how could he be allowed to expose his hand and afterwards declare all-in?

You are called to the table. Blinds are 25/50. Player A raised from UTG....

a) If the unintentional wager were corrected before the next player reacted, I would back up the bet and make it a call.
b) Any repeat offender could affect my ruling.
c) I don't feel differently, but the greater the amount, the more serious the damage. This could dramatically shift the outcome of the tournament. Is that really the way the outcome should be decided?...on a mistake!
d) Again, if the next player did not react, I would have no problem correcting Player B's mistake to the intended bet of 125.

[K-Lo]

Looking forward to more replies on the raise/call situation.  Great answers so far! 

Mike:  Apparently, the rule at the WSOP for cash games is that a hand that is turned face up is live even if it hits/touches the muck.  This was explained by the dealer, the floor, and the senior floor on further appeal.  (My guess is that the rule is to better protect people who intend to table their hand but the face-up cards accidentally hit the muck).  Therefore, since he didn't verbalize fold, but instead verbalized all-in before the dealer could clarify his intention, that was binding.  Nick: Yes, he threw his hand into the muck even though he wasn't facing a bet.  He wanted to just muck.  The all-in was a joke, and everyone at the table knew it to be so, but alas, held to be binding.

[MikeB]

I'm okay with cards merely turned up remaining live, TDA Rules are clear that the mere act of revealing cards does not kill the hand... and even a slight touch of the muck in the process of tabling cards, but the OP reads "threw his cards into the muck.... with the obvious intention to fold" The visual I get on that is that the cards are squarely sitting on top of the muck or worse are interspersed in the muck. That combined with the fold-like forward motion that's required to accomplish that is an insta-fold for me.

I suspect instead the tape will show that the cards were "tabled forward", perhaps with one or more of the cards grazing the muck?... so that the intent to fold was not clear. On that basis I could see the ruling that was made. It would sure help if anyone has links to videos of these incidents. Interesting case and to me it hinges on whether the guy's initial "mucking" action was clearly a fold or not.

[Nick C]

I'm having a tough time believing that any player, when first to act, would toss his cards face up or down! That's not an option. I know he was kidding and had no intention of competing for the pot but, there were other players remaining that still had not yet acted. He was way out of line by exposing his cards with action pending. He should have been out of the hand (dead hand) and one more false move might remove him from the establishment!

Giving all of his chips to an undeserving player is not in the best interest of the tournament, at least that's the way I see it.

[K-Lo]

Just to be clear, the WSOP ruling that I referred to in my intro to the actual post was in a cash game, not a tourney.  So WSOP house cash game rules apply.  His joke cost him $7K.  Cash.  In any case, I don't want to get in the habit of criticizing other TD's decisions or other venues' house rules, so I'll go back to the subject of my original post. (Needless to say, there's enough criticism from the players as it is:   http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/bizarre-hand-questionable-ruling-rio-bonus-questions-nvg-edition-1220150/)

The question in my post though was a tournament question, meant to gauge how many people would tend to rule "by the book" or allow a correction given the likely intent of the player:

You are called to the table.  Blinds are 25/50.  Player A has raised from UTG to 125.  Player B threw in (without verbal) a 25 chip and what he claims to have thought as a 100 chip, but was actually a 500 chip, which like the 100 chip is dark in color.  He claims he intended only to call the 125, not raise to 525.

a)  What do you rule?
b)  Do you rule differently if you know that Player B has a history of playing angles with this type of move?
c)  Do you rule differently if the mistaken raise was different and a more significant amount, e.g. the player mistook a 1000 chips or a 5000 chip for the 100 chip?  Assume that the colors are such that it is not surprising that players are mixing up the denominations.  Does it matter if the raise would or would not be a significant portion of Player B's stack?
d)  Would the situation be any different if Player B was the first to act (Player A folded), and put out two chips, but indicated after that he meant to raise only to 125, and not 525/1025/5025?

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

I looked at my earlier reply and I see nothing that I'd change. If you are looking for a general answer, I almost always lean in the direction of the intent of the player involved.

As far as the player being forced to put 7K into a pot when he thought he was folding a worthless hand, I know player's that wouldn't put up the $$$. You might be needing security to resolve that fiasco.

[diz475]

k-lo
for the 125 raise and then the 525 raise i would make the guy raise (a raise from 125 to 525 is not Unreasonable)
If  it was a 5000 chip that is close in color to the 100 chip maybe he gets a brake if no one acted on it but I know if I let him take it back im setting myself up for future problems


i had a situation in a 10k event were a player made a raise to 550 player B said call and put out 1050 player C without saying anything also put out 1050 (both 1 1000 chip and 2 25 chips) i let it stand as a call
and holy crap the table went crazy
and at that time the tda multible chip rule did not say same denom. and you can remove any one of the chips so my ruling actuly did fit the rule