Bad floor decision.

Where I disagree is when OP says he knows the guy wanted to call but “I honestly hoped that according to the rules he would be forced to raise so I could go all in”

He was trying to use an ambiguous rule to his advantage. If he just HOPED no biggie but he did more than that. He called for the floor trying to extract more money even though he knew the intent was a call.

I never wanted an incorrect ruling to get more money. If the correct ruling was that he had to raise I would have been glad. I was no trying to get an incorrect ruling to favor me.

Don’t really see how the 26.00 dollars somehow cost you. 100s if not 1000s of dollars.

i mean its obviously this. coming online to look for ways of revenge on the floor's job / livelihood bc he feels entitled to fish's stack that "he probably would have called off" is truly psychopathic behavior imo.

I got into a similar situation in a tournament many years ago. I made a bet of like 2200 and the other player in the hand put out 5200 (A 5000 chip and 2 100 chips) without saying anything. The dealer didn't say call or raise, he said nothing. So I did nothing. After about 15 seconds where the dealer could have pulled in the bets and given the other guy 3000 change I asked the dealer what was going on hoping the dealer would say it was a raise. The dealer said it was a raise and the other player said it was a call but because he had said nothing it was ruled a raise So I re raised to a lot and the other player had to fold or put in all of his chips which he did (and i won the hand).

I also accidentally raised once in a tournament in the SB in a similar way as above but I folded to the re raise once the dealer said I had raised.

If a player accidentally raises it is not up to his opponent or the dealer to pretend it didn't happen. It is entirely reasonable for the player (like OP here) to ask if it is a raise and if so to re raise. I have seen a few times where the dealer will say it is not a raise when a player puts out chips so that he can make getting change easier. I typically will try to help the player moving forward understand to put one chip out there first and then the other chips so it will always be a call.

Now putting out $126 chips which is more than half the previous raise can be considered an angle if the player says "call" but if the player doesn't say anything and it is called a raise then I would consider it a false tell not an angle.

It’s actually incredible how you have completely misjudged me.

It’s like you came up with the worst idea of me that you could and went with it.

This is a situation where I believed the floor made an incorrect decision that costs me 100s of dollars.

So I wanted to stack a fish? So what? I think most people here would like to do that on a repeated basis. Let’s be honest most players want play poker and make money.

I wanted to get a guy in Trouble? Well, if he did make an incorrect call that costs me 100s of dollars I think that something should have happened. I think he should have been made aware that he made a bad decision and if he doesn’t even get talked to he will continue to make bad decisions. I didn’t want him to get fired. IF the decision is bad I didn’t want him to think it was consequence free and I wanted him to make better decisions in the future.

Before you lose it, I am not the only one that thought his decision was wrong at the time. Some of the other players questioned the decision as well. Based on the feedback I’ve gotten on this thread it seems most people agree the decision was the correct one. I still question the logic behind how if he puts out 200 then the 55 doesn’t count but if he puts out 400 the 55 absolutely counts but the rules are nuanced and it sounds like some rules override other rules so I will not be pursuing this matter any further.

I think you probably didn’t read the entire thread. The issue was he bet 55, I raised to 175, he then added 200 dollars in large chips. If the bet would then be considered 255 he would have to raise to 295 which would then allow me to shove and at that point the pot was so big and the amount behind so small that he would have called the all in for maybe 300 more.

I read your first description not realizing it was only an example but the hyperbole is now clearer.

Based on what I have read, In the casinos I play in the UK, I dont believe this would have been a raise as the chips he put into the pot he cant call without putting both of them in.

On another note can I cant blame someone for asking ruling, Dont know if this is in the USA. ut the casinos I play, this just makes you look bad I would never even try to get a ruling on someone who was clearly trying to make a call and then blame the floor too.

Rules are rules but have some integrity too, especially if this is an amateur player,

Do you know the definition of an angle?

Angles are using knowledge of rules to gain an advantage. That is exactly what you clearly expressed.

It isn’t that you asked for a ruling. It is why you asked. You knew what was intended but wanted to use your knowledge of the rules to gain advatange.

Then when that happened, rather than believe the floor just made an error, you went looking to get retribution. And this after a single event. You literally said you wanted to get him in trouble. You did not say (first) you wanted him to learn. You wanted to get him in trouble.

Now

The difference is that when he puts out two $100 chips that puts $255 in front of him. Had he only put in one chip, it would be insufficient to make it a call of your $175 bet. Hence his action is a call. Think of it this way - suppose his stack consisted entirely of one red, two green and some number of black chips. He used up his reds and greens to make his $55 bet. All he has is blacks. How is he supposed to make a call in that case? He MUST put out two black chips. No other options exist. Hence the act of adding two black chips to a prior $55 bet is interpreted as a call.

With the same stack, he had no need to put out FOUR black chips to make a call. Hence that action is indeed a raise. The actual stack composition doesnÂ’t matter; the actions are the same regardless. Two black chips is a call, four is a raise.

Suppose he had only his $55 initial bet plus a couple of $500 chips; no black chips. How is he supposed to call your bet? The only way is to add a $500 chip. Hence, even if he does have other chips, if he threw in a $500 chip alone, itÂ’s a call. By contrast, even though itÂ’s the same amount, if he puts in five $100 chips, itÂ’s a raise. There is no situation where a player could possibly need to use five blacks to make the call, so it is a raise.

I understand the concept that 1 100 dollar chip would not be enough for the call. What I would expect him to do is to put in the 2 100 dollars chips and pull back the 55 which would without a doubt indicate a call. The fact that if you put in 400 dollars in 100 dollar chips and you dont touch the 55 means the 55 is included to me should suggest the 55 is included when you put out 200 and don’t touch the 55.

The oversized chip rule says it’s a call if all chips added during an action are needed to make the call. It says nothing about removing chips already bet. If he bet 55 ans you raised to 175, both black chips are needed - removing the 55 or not is irrelevant.

Suppose he bet 75 and you raised to 175 (or he bet 55 and you raised to 155). If he adds two black chips in this case, it’s a raise. That is because only one of those chips is needed to make the call.

I agree with most other posters that the intent was to call. I disagree that we should be trying to divine intent, though, in most cases. This is especially true where rules clearly dictate what the action is regardless of intent. Even if he clearly intends to call in my hypothetical above, I’d rule it a raise - the oversized chip rule does not apply. In your actual hand it’s a call due to the oversized chip rule. Intent is irrelevant.

Its how many chips you are adding to what is there. It has nothing to do with what is there, as Stremba said above.

However if he took back 1 chip and added the 2 $100 chips then it is a raise if the amount above the last bet/raise is more than half the last raise size. Similarly if he takes back the $55 and then puts it back in with 2 $100 chips then it is a $255 bet which would be a raise here.

Argh, TDA rules are so bad!!! Bring back RROP!

I have to say you're wrong here. OP wasn't trying to use his knowledge of the rules to gain an advantage. He was trying to make sure that the rules were enforced, period. There is nothing wrong with doing that, even if enforcing the rules correctly will likely result in your winning more money.

I also don't like your definition of an angle - if that were correct, pretty much everyone would be an angler. Someone I'm playing with may believe that a straight beats a flush, so in some situations he plays very poorly. However, I know that a flush beats a straight, so I will not make the same strategic mistakes that he does. I am using my knowledge of the rules to gain an advantage, but no one would say I was shooting an angle.

idk man it seems obvious to me the difference between the explicit rules of the game (Eg. players not understanding when kickers play, or what cards play/win on double paired boards, or not seeing a flush is possible), which have to be strictly enforced, and rules put in place to make the game less fair and/or less enjoyable if players could intentionally violate them (and basically all of them were created after people did).

Like I was recently at a 2-5 game where the biggest spot at the table announced raise and grabbed a bunch of greens and counted them out over the line for a total of 275 but then immediately went back to grab 3 more and put those out too. This is a clear string bet in basically any game. Nobody said anything, at a table with 6+ 500+hr/year players, because the intention was obvious and why would anyone want that guy to leave earlier and/or not come back because he had a bad time.

If you are genuinely confused in a giant pot, sure ask for clarifications and/or get rulings ... but why would you want to technically enforce all the rules all the time for little gain and possible huge downsides.

I did choose a silly example, but I still don't think his definition of an angle was a good one.

Knowledge of any rules gives someone an advantage.
An angle generally involves trying to trick someone.

In your example, I would also be likely to ignore the string raise. But if the other player in the pot called the string raise, that's not an angle.

Would assume with it's a call, and a very normal thing (forgetting that chips they put out are still there) less experienced players do... but double checking with the player is fine.