2 Non-Standard Lingo Cases: 1) "Bet the pot" in NL; 2) Questionable betting term

[fgmyers]

[Note from admin: This thread contains two different cases of non-standard language: 1) the original post concerns use of the term "pot" in a non pot-limit game; 2) The 2nd case concerns the phrase "Make it 1000" when facing a bet of 700: is that a call or raise if 1000 is less than the minimum amount to raise? Please feel free to discuss either topic in this thread]

Original post:
No limit live game, 5 players in the pot.  After the flop, player in the first position says, "I bet the pot."  

Can you hold them to betting the actual amount of the pot?  

Our initial ruling was the player is responsible to bet but not necessarily the actual amount of the pot since "Pot" is not a valid bet in no limit.

Any feedback would be very helpful...

Thanks!

[chet]

Frank:  There are several other threads on this subject.  Basically the only time the phrase, "I bet the pot." has any meaning is in pot limit.  In any other game, such a phrase has absolutely no meaning and is basically defined as an unclear, meaningless statement.

As to holding the player to some amount of a bet, I might be able to support a limp bet, but along that line what would you do with the following:

A is SB of 100
B is BB of 200

C calls the 200
D says, "i bet the pot"

Does your interpretation hold D to a call of 200 or do you hold D to a min-raise to a total of 400? 

I think you are hard pressed to 'force' D to a min-raise, when he said nothing about a raise.

It will be interesting to see from others on this interesting topic.  My preferable ruling would be that those words have zero meaning and the dealer should ask the player what he/she intends.

Chet

[Nick C]

fgmygrs,

I like what Chet said because; If I were dealing I would stop the action immediately and clarify the intention of the player. The problem would be compounded with a reaction from the next player. That is when the floor would be called and their decision might not be what the bettor intended. 

[MikeB]

No limit live game, 5 players in the pot.  After the flop, player in the first position says, "I bet the pot."  
Can you hold them to betting the actual amount of the pot?  

FG: This was discussed and voted on at the 2011 Summit. The language adopted is incorporated in TDA Rule 42, specifically in the last sentence: "... Declaring 'I bet the pot' is not a valid bet in no-limit but it does bind the player to making a bet...."   The rule clarifies that while "pot" is undefined in a non-PL game, such declaration is a commitment to bet. The dealer should immediately ask the player to declare a specific bet amount or push a specific amount of chips forward. In discussion at the Summit it was concluded that this bet could be as small as a min bet or raise.

As to your specific question as to whether the TD can hold the player to an exact bet of the pot (or a close approximation), I do think that is within TD's discretion under Rule 1. However, that would involve counting the pot which we don't want to do in non-PL events, and it really is outside the intention of Rule 42 as it was voted on in 2011, IMO.  I for one would like to see "... and may be subject to penalty..." discussed as an amendment to the rule at the next Summit. Depending on the circumstances, declaring "pot" in a non-PL game can be as or more disruptive than a conditional declaration for which the 2011 Summit did add the subject to penalty language.

Thanks for the great question, I've moved it to the TDA Rules board b/c it is in fact a TDA rule topic.

[K-Lo]

In discussion at the Summit it was concluded that this bet could be as small as a min bet or raise.

Chet brings up a good point, one which I think identifies a gap in the rule.

In any given betting round, if a player says "pot" or some variation thereof when he is already facing a bet, this technically means "I raise the amount of the pot".  The rule, as written, currently says "it does bind the player to making a bet" appears to leave open the possibility that the player could merely call a bet when asked to clarify his action, which is clearly nothing close to what likely was the player's intention.  I think a case can be made that the player should be held to a min-raise.

The potential "angle" that the rule leaves open is when a player says "pot", and then just puts in the minimum wager possible when asked to clarify his action.  Once could argue that this is similar to an "I call you and raise to X" type string bet, which we rule as a call.  Also, as Chet pointed out, the player who says "pot" did not actually use the word "raise".  So on the other hand, I think that a case can also be made to hold the player to the lesser action, being a call, if that's what he chose to do when asked to clarify his action.

Personally, I tend to lean towards supporting the first view -- i.e. the player should be held to a min-raise.  A "pot" bet clearly, IMO, signifies an intention to bet some "big" amount -- but that amount is just undefined because we can't count the pot.  However, the intended amount is clearly not in the order of a call.  

My suggested amendment to Rule 43 would be as follows:

Players are entitled to be informed of the pot size in pot-limit games only. Dealers will not count the pot in limit and no-limit games. Declaring "I bet the pot" is not a valid bet in games that are not pot-limit no-limit but it does bind the player to making a bet of a valid amount when not facing a bet, and to making a raise of a valid amount when facing a bet.  These declarations may be subject to penalty.

I agree with Mike that a penalty should be considered, and in my mind, if a player pots and then simply bets or raises the minimum when clarifying his action, with no attempt to bet an amount close to what "pot" probably would have been, then I think he has benefitted from making a large-sounding bet but risking the minimum, and this action should be penalized at the end of the hand.  

(As a different but related point, I think Rule 44 (String Bets and Raises) should also include the 'subject to penalty' language. Players who intentionally use a string bet knowing that they will be held to a call, as an angle to try to slow down the action should be penalized.  Similarly, players who intentionally say "raise" and then "call" knowing that they will be held to a raise, as an angle to try to induce a call should also be penalized.)

[chet]

K-Lo:  Had I bothered to read the existing rule, I would have posted differently.  I am not a Pot Limit player, never played it, probably never will. 

I think your post is well stated and I agree completely.  One point that I would like to bring up:

There are many players who specialize in Pot Limit games, usually Omaha of some form or other.  Some of them have never played anything else.  What would you propose if such an individual took the action under discussion and you knew this player was a virtual novice at no-limit?  I realize the rule holds this person to a bet, but do you make some form of one time exception given the novice status?

Chet

[Nick C]

fgmygrs;

I'm glad K-Lo said it, and I quote: " I think a case can be made that the player should be held to a min-raise." Perfect! Saying I bet the pot, (IMO) is a clear indication that a raise is intended. I'll even go a step further and say that the player making the statement had every intention to raise. Unless of course it's that low life, scumbag, angle-shooting, son-of-a-gun that thinks he can use every rule to take advantage of others.

Chet brings up a good point that should give the floor free use of good old rule #1. A quote from author Chuck Ferry:"the rules are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure." I believe K-Lo's example (mandatory min-raise), outlines the remedy for the improper verbal statement. A penalty could also be enforced, but I think one warning should prevent any future occurrence. I also feel that Chet's question pertaining to the novice player must always be considered. This is covered under rules of etiquette: Infractions are often done without intent or without knowledge that they are improper. I think, because of this, the intent, and presumed competence of the player must always be considered before any rule is enforced.

[fgmyers]

Thanks again gentlemen...You have been, as usual, a tremendous help!!!

[Brian Vickers]

I've only had to make this floor call a couple times and I've always ruled that the player must bet if he was facing a check and raise if he was facing a bet.  The bet or raise must be at least the minimum but the player can bet or raise more.  He is bound to an aggressive action at this point.
Glad to see that is the consensus.

[Spence]

There are many players who specialize in Pot Limit games, usually Omaha of some form or other.  Some of them have never played anything else.  What would you propose if such an individual took the action under discussion and you knew this player was a virtual novice at no-limit?  I realize the rule holds this person to a bet, but do you make some form of one time exception given the novice status?

Chet

Those players would know what the pot amount was and if asked to state a proper raise would still probably rase the pot though at that point there would be no harm or foul.

[Tristan]

Slightly off topic, but what would you guys rule if the bet is 700 and the next player verbalizes "make it 1000".  I'm just curious.

An argument could be made that they meant to raise, yet it wasn't half.

[Nick C]

Tristan,

Just when you think you've heard them all, someone comes up with a new one It is a call.

[MikeB]

Slightly off topic, but what would you guys rule if the bet is 700 and the next player verbalizes "make it 1000".  I'm just curious.

An argument could be made that they meant to raise, yet it wasn't half.

I like enforcing a min-raise here to 1400 total. What if the player verbalized "raise it... 1000". He's declared raise, and b/c he afterwords stated an amount less than a min raise he must make it a min raise. The phrase "make it" is not an official term of tournament poker and therefore is at the discretion of the TD on how to interpret it.

On the other hand, if the guy had only said "1000", then IMO that is equivalent to silently pushing out 1000 in chips, which is less than 50% of a min raise, and therefore a call.

[chet]

Mike:

Cannot this statement also be interpreted to mean the raise is 1,000 on top of the 700 bet, for a total of 1,700?

Chet

[Nick C]

Based on the original, question, how can you call this a raise? It's no different than tossing a 1000 chip into the pot, or two 500 count chips. I would have to assume that the player missed the 700 bet in front of him. I know of no rule that would support the intent to raise in this situation.