Question about TDA #41 Raise example from addendum.

[Nick C]

I have a question regarding the following example from the Addendum:
Example 3: NLHE, Blinds 100-200. On the turn A bets 300. B pushes out two 500 chips making the total 1000 (a 700 raise). It is 1000 to C to call. If C wants to raise, it must be "at least the largest bet or raise of the current round", which is B's raise of 700. So C's minimum raise would be 700 for a total of 1700. Note his minimum raise is not 1000, B's total bet.

Wouldn't a player pushing out two 500 chips, while facing a 300 bet, be held to a min raise? IMO, the above example would not indicate a raise of 700.

[chet]

Nick:

Why do you think he should be held to a minimum raise of 300 for a total of 600?  I don't understand where you are coming from. 

Chet

[K-Lo]

Wouldn't a player pushing out two 500 chips, while facing a 300 bet, be held to a min raise? IMO, the above example would not indicate a raise of 700.

I don't think so.  He is entitled to raise to the full amount of the bet put forth, and the two-chip rule does not apply.

If he said raise, and stuck out one 500 chip, he would have to top up his wager to a min raise of 600.

[Nick C]

Ken,

In the example given, there was no mention of raise...so are you saying that a silent push of two 500's automatically makes the raise the total amount?
For some reason, I'm leaning in the direction of the single oversize chip rule, and the forced min raise. A wager of one 500 and five 100's would clearly be a 700 raise.
It just seems to be a bit confusing for the Addendum.

[K-Lo]

In the example given, there was no mention of raise...so are you saying that a silent push of two 500's automatically makes the raise the total amount?

It will be a raise to the total amount, unless the multi-chip rule exception applies.

Although, I think I see where you are going with this... you could argue that if the person wanted to make a min-raise to 600, the betting of two 500 chips could be ambiguous (could be a raise to 1000 or to 600 and wanting change) and should be treated as a min-raise, just like betting a single 1000 chip would be ambiguous (could be a raise to 1000 or a call of 300 and wanting change)...

Currently, however, we (only) have exceptions for actions where it may be ambiguous as to whether a wager may be a call or a raise, but none for whether a wager may be a min-raise or a full raise.

As an aside... Although we have had the "single oversized chip" rule for ages, I've never really liked it and thought that it caused more problems than it solved. If someone had made the decision to make the default the bigger amount instead -- i.e. any chips that go into the pot stay in the pot and the wager is deemed whatever you put in the pot unless you verbalize otherwise -- it would certainly make enforcement much easier, and we wouldn't need so many exceptions for single oversized chips, multiple chips, etc. But somewhere along the line, someone made up the single chip exception to accommodate the common practice of putting a big chip silently in to call... and this opened up a whole, possibly unforeseen, set of other issues.

[Nick C]

Hi Ken,

Yeah, there are a lot of rules I don't like either. I do want to address part of what you mentioned; you wrote: " just like betting a single 1000 chip would be ambiguous (could be a raise to 1000 or a call of 300 and wanting change)..." The age-old rule (Oversize Chip) clearly would make the single chip a call...Period! I don't like any of the verbal, I prefer a clear action, but we have enough new changes to digest for now . Please, no more!

[MikeB]

I have a question regarding the following example from the Addendum:
Example 3: NLHE, Blinds 100-200. On the turn A bets 300. B pushes out two 500 chips making the total 1000 (a 700 raise). It is 1000 to C to call. If C wants to raise, it must be "at least the largest bet or raise of the current round", which is B's raise of 700. So C's minimum raise would be 700 for a total of 1700. Note his minimum raise is not 1000, B's total bet.

Wouldn't a player pushing out two 500 chips, while facing a 300 bet, be held to a min raise? IMO, the above example would not indicate a raise of 700.

The two silent 500's is a multiple chip bet under Rule 43, because removal of just one of the smallest chips bet (a 500) leaves more than the amount to call, which is 300 and well-covered by the other 500 chip. So it's a multiple-chip raise to 1000 total.

[Nick C]

Mike B, Ken, and Chet:   Okay

[Nick C]

I don't know how I got so turned around on this thread

Let's take the same scenario: NLHE, Blinds 100-200. On the turn A bets 300. B pushes out a single 500 along with a 25 (two chips). He would then have to complete the raise to 600...correct?

[Brian Vickers]

I don't know how I got so turned around on this thread

Let's take the same scenario: NLHE, Blinds 100-200. On the turn A bets 300. B pushes out a single 500 along with a 25 (two chips). He would then have to complete the raise to 600...correct?

That is correct, Nick.