Single chip less than call amount

[Steven]

How would you rule if a player tosses in a single chip (with no verbal declaration) and the amount of that chip is less than the current call amount.

I can envision various scenarios from innocent mistake to possible angle shooting!

Are there times you might rule this a call or other times you might allow the player to fold and forfeit the single chip? The reason for enforcing the call might be to prevent an angle if action has continued behind!

Come to think about it, I guess this single chip scenario would probably not be much different than if the player had put in multiple chips that were less than the call amount.

[Nick C]

Hello Steven,

Interesting. If you were first to act and wagered less than the BB, as an example, we all know that the bet would have to be completed. Your example,
(IMO), is different and would depend on the size of the bet you were facing. If the bettor pushes a pyramid of chips into the pot, and you toss in a single chip that equates to a fraction of the required amount to call, then clarification must be sorted out.

This is when a good dealer can prevent more problems. Stop the action before another player acts, tell the calling player how much the proper bet is, and hope that he completes to the correct amount. If he refuses, call the floor. The final decision could leave the calling player in a situation that forces him to either complete the call, surrender his under-size chip, or the more lenient decision; retraction of the single chip because of a gross misunderstanding.

Remember, many decisions will vary based on a number of factors that are considered relevant...The reputation of the player is at the top of my list.

I know many of us like to establish a "cut and dry" blanket rule, unfortunately there can not be a specific rule for every possible situation that occurs. Therefore, I will quote one of my favorite writers, Chuck Ferry: "At times, a situation may arise which is not covered by the Rules. In such situations the floorperson shall weigh the facts and render the most appropriate decision."   

[K-Lo]

I agree with you, Steven, that whether the player bet a single chip or multiple chips, I would probably handle this in the same way.  

The single chip scenario though will probably occur the most frequently, in my experience, when the player believes that he is putting out an oversize chip when in fact he has mixed up the denominations and has put in one of a lower denomination then intended ("oh, I thought that was a 5000 chip, not a 500 chip").  The intention is generally to call with an oversize chip, so in these situations, a ruling of a call is clearly called for.

The other situation where this occurs often is when the chip covers a previous bet, but due to a subsequent raise that was missed by a player, the oversized chip does not cover the amount needed to call.  I would use my judgment here, and if the first bet amount, the subsequent raise, and the chip are all relatively small or close in value (e.g. a bet of 4K, raise to 8K, 5K chip thrown in), especially if "call" has been verbalized, I will be enforcing a call.  In more extreme situations (e.g. a bet of 2K, raise to 50K, 5K chip thrown in, "I thought the bet was only 2K"), I would tend to bind any chips that went into pot (i.e. the 5K) to the pot, and give the player the option to top-up the call or fold.  

I think each situation needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.  However, I will almost always insist that the player be forced at least to leave the chip that has already been thrown in, in the pot -- in practice, it is easy to explain to the player that chips that are placed in the pot in turn must stay in the pot.  

I acknowledge there is basis for, in theory, an exception that allows for a complete retraction of a bet in the event of a 'gross misunderstanding', but I would rarely rely on this to grant a full "refund", except perhaps in exceptional situations where the dealer and/or previous bettor(s) are at fault: e.g. bet of 4K, an all-in raise to 50K that was whispered by a player but none of his chips were pushed forward and no all-in button is used, and the dealer admits that he heard the all-in but did not announce 'all-in' to the table, and then a player at the other side of table throws in 5K unaware of the intervening all-in raise ... in this example, I would likely allow a full retraction of the bet.

Unfortunately, whether you decide to force a call, allow the player to fold and forfeit the chip, or even allow a complete retraction of the bet, there is really no way of preventing the angle in which a player feigns weakness and then decides to "reluctantly" call the full bet.  This is typically done when a player has a strong hand that he wants people to think is weak, hoping that faking his "mistake" will induce a squeeze, or future calls from the opponent.  Note that once the player claims to have made the mistake, the question of whether the player really did screw up or not will immediately enter the minds of the other players, and no ruling that the TD makes can alleviate that uncertainty.  

So the real interesting issue in my view, then, is if you are aware that the player has a history of playing this and other angles, is it appropriate for the TD to inform the players of the table to this fact to try to give at least some protection to the other players at the table?  A somewhat analogous situation occurred at EPT Madrid (discussed here: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=453.0).  Food for thought...

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

I've seen that one many times but each time I see it...well it makes me think of what I would do (now that I know the player), in that situation. I would give him 2 options:

      #1) If his hand is best, he gets the call amount only
      #2) If he loses he loses the amount equivalent to the min-raise

I would also circulate his "mug-Shot" to every poker room on the planet

Or, we could invite him to one of our local (private) games and hope that he accepts.  Problem solved!
         

[Tristan]

The single chip scenario though will probably occur the most frequently, in my experience, when the player believes that he is putting out an oversize chip when in fact he has mixed up the denominations and has put in one of a lower denomination then intended ("oh, I thought that was a 5000 chip, not a 500 chip").  The intention is generally to call with an oversize chip, so in these situations, a ruling of a call is clearly called for.

The other situation where this occurs often is when the chip covers a previous bet, but due to a subsequent raise that was missed by a player, the oversized chip does not cover the amount needed to call.  I would use my judgment here, and if the first bet amount, the subsequent raise, and the chip are all relatively small or close in value (e.g. a bet of 4K, raise to 8K, 5K chip thrown in), especially if "call" has been verbalized, I will be enforcing a call.  In more extreme situations (e.g. a bet of 2K, raise to 50K, 5K chip thrown in, "I thought the bet was only 2K"), I would tend to bind any chips that went into pot (i.e. the 5K) to the pot, and give the player the option to top-up the call or fold. 

I think each situation needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.  However, I will almost always insist that the player be forced at least to leave the chip that has already been thrown in, in the pot -- in practice, it is easy to explain to the player that chips that are placed in the pot in turn must stay in the pot. 

Agree 100%

[K-Lo]

As a follow up to this, I also appreciate that there is a question of whether or not the new Accepted Action rule now effectively removes the option of leaving chips in the pot and permitting the offender to fold rather than call..  The TDs who tend to be more strict in their rulings will insist that Accepted Action has effectively removed that option, while others would say that the option (to fold) is still available, and that Accepted Action does leave rule 1 rulings intact.  Any thoughts on this?  I think Accepted Action certainly sways the pendulum towards a more strict standard, but I don't think the intention was to completely take away the possibility of allowing the option to top up or fold.  There must be some element of discretion at play, I would think. Does anyone recall if there was relevant discussion at the last summit?

[Nick C]

Ken,

Without going back to review the 2 day summit, I know there was discussion about retracting bets, in certain situations. However, like so many varying situations, it was never clarified. I recall that I agreed with Jan Fisher on allowing retractions when bets were unclear, or before substantial action followed.

Some day, when I have a few free hours, I'll go back and take a look.

[K-Lo]

With the introduction of Accepted Action, I think some TDs are inclined to take away any option, putting more responsibility on the caller to be aware of the action that proceeded him.  This would be applied for any situation in which chips go into the pot -- a call, arguably, is in order with absolutely no option to top-up or fold. 

I am all for putting more responsibility on the player, but I think some discretion is still warranted depending on the situation. I question whether Accepted Action was in fact meant to take away TD's discretion.  I'm guessing TDs on the whole are probably divided on this issue.  It would be interesting to see what happens to Accepted Action at the next summit.

[Tristan]

I have to admit, I was a bit unclear on that when AA came into play.  I wasn't at the summit and it was kind of open for interpretation.  Our establishment jumped on the more strict interpretation and it wasn't until after I talked with you all that I had it switched back to allowing the option to top-up or fold.

I will say, with the strict version in effect, people, after one mistake, paid a lot of attention to what was going on!

That being said, it was pretty harsh...

[Nick C]

Here is the link to Day one of the 2011 TDA Summit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_-Km9TnMLk

Go to 2 hours and 20 minutes and continue listening, you will find some interesting discussion about out of turn. I really like what Jan says (at about 2:35) about hands being killed or mucked unintentionally...I'll quote: "Keep your damn hands on your cards!"