Contracts And Poker: The Oversized Chip Rule

The blinds are 200-300. The big blind pulls back his three 100 chips and, without saying anything, pushes out a 500 chip. Is this a call or a raise?

Having played in many different card rooms during the WSOP, I can confidently report that the number one problem with the rules is the Oversized Chip Rule.

Most players have no problem with this rule in the most common situation. If the big blind is 200 and a player pushes out a 500 chip without saying anything, everyone understands this is a call rather than a raise.

Let’s consider for a moment why this is. The problem is that the overchip (the 500 chip that is over the amount needed for a call) has created an ambiguity. An ambiguity is a situation where something may have two meanings. Here, the meanings might be a call of 200 or a raise to 500.

How do you resolve an ambiguity? Ambiguities come up often in the law, and historically the law has said that in resolving an ambiguity, we should take an objective approach rather than a subjective approach. That is, we don’t care about what was inside the head of the party who created the ambiguity. So when resolving an issue, the dealer should never ask a player, “What did you intend?” It just doesn’t matter.

How do you resolve the problem objectively? One thing to look at is which interpretation is more reasonable. Here, calling is the more passive act while raising requires something extra, so it may be reasonable to require the bettor to take that extra step of declaring “raise” if they intend a raise. If all else fails to resolve an ambiguity, the law often resorts to the rule of contra proferentem, which means you rule against the person who caused the ambiguity. Applying that approach, the player doesn’t get their raise unless they make clear that intent.

Sometimes an ambiguity just has to be decided one way or the other, so we create a presumption that one of the meanings governs, and if you want the other meaning, you have to rebut the presumption. This is the approach taken in the Tournament Directors Association (TDA) and WSOP Rules, which state in effect that there is a presumption that the bettor has called and the bettor must overcome that presumption by declaring a raise. TDA Rule 44 states it this way:

TDA 44:  Oversized Chip Betting (Overchips)

If facing a bet or blind, pushing out a single oversized chip (including your last chip) is a call if raise isn’t first declared. To raise with an overchip you must declare raise before the chip hits the table surface. If raise is declared but no amount is stated, the raise is the maximum allowable for the chip. If not facing a bet, pushing out an overchip silently (no declaration) is a bet of the maximum for the chip.

Players who understand the rule when initially putting out a chip sometimes get confused when they are in the blinds. A typical situation arose in a tournament I was playing at the excellent new poker room at Resorts World.

The blinds were 100-200. When it was the small blind’s turn to act in an unraised pot, he pushed out a 500 chip on top of his 100 chip. The dealer looked at me in the big blind I said, “Check.”

She said, “The bet is 600.” I said, “No it’s not. The small blind put out an oversized chip without saying anything, so it is a call.” The dealer was genuinely surprised when the floor confirmed that the bet was a call.

This ruling is consistent with the rule’s statement that “If facing a bet…, pushing out a single oversized chip… is a call if raise isn’t first declared.”

The player might say something like, “But I could have just put a 100 chip out to make a call, so putting out the 500 must indicate that I was making a raise.” But that argument is subjective – we don’t care why he did what he did; we only look at what he did.

A variation on this problem came up in a tournament at Aria. The blinds were 200-300. Two players limped by pushing out 500 chips, and we know those are calls. The big blind pulled back his three 100 chips and pushed out a 500 chip. The dealer said, “Raise, 600.”

Surprisingly, the player complained that he intended a call. “Everyone else has a 500 chip in front of them,” he explained.

As in the usual case, intent does not matter. But should it be ruled a raise when a player pulls back a blind and puts in an oversized chip that is big enough to constitute a raise?

I once saw this happen at the Talking Stick in Phoenix, and there the floor ruled that it was a call. The player argued that pulling back the original chips was enough to overcome the presumption that putting in an overchip is a call.

The floor shrugged and said, “Maybe you just wanted some change.” In other words, we don’t care about your intent. Or in the words of the rule, “If facing a bet…, pushing out a single oversized chip… is a call if raise isn’t first declared.” It should not matter that the original bet is pulled back.

Finding this action to be a call would also be consistent with a rule that is in the WSOP Rules but not in the TDA Rules. This rule does not seem to apply to the blinds, but does address the situation where chips are pulled back and replaced by a larger chip. WSOP Rule 98 provides in part:

Prior Bet Chips Not Pulled In: If a player with prior-bet chips not yet pulled in faces a raise and bets silently, the bet is ruled as follows:

a. If prior-bet chips don’t cover the call: …
2. If all prior chips are pulled back: an overchip is a call;

This rule is awkwardly worded, since in the section on bets “not pulled in” it tells us what the rule is “If all prior chips are pulled back.” Still, I think it is clear that if we think of the blinds as “prior bet chips,” then under Rule 98.a.2., if the chips are pulled back and an overchip is pushed in, it is a call.

It might be helpful to create a rule expressly for the situation where a player pulls back all his or her chips and puts out an overchip; contrary to the WSOP rule, I think it should be held to be a raise to conform to what most players intend.

The lesson for players is simple. In all these situations, it doesn’t matter what you had in mind. You can’t go wrong by clearly stating your intention. ♠

Scott J. Burnham is Professor Emeritus at Gonzaga University School of Law in Spokane, Washington. He can be reached at [email protected].