Final table of a small live tournament, dealer dealt. Blinds 600-1200. UTG is an inexperienced player, even though that shouldnt affect the ruling.
UTG says to the dealer "raise 2400".
Players start to fold (6 handed) and dealer is telling the player to put out 2400 on the table. Player says "no, I said raise 2400, which means Im putting out 3600". I explained to the dealer that the player is entitled to raise 2400 on top of the bb as he is requesting to do. The bb disagrees with me (bb is an experienced player). I explain that the player is telling the dealer how much he intended to bet, and nobody was at a disadvantage as play had stopped and nobody had announced a call of the bet. The bb said he was at a disasvantage because he should be able to call a min raise in the bb instead of 3x bb raise.
I said Id stick the hand up for inspection here. (Just to make it clear, UTG said raise 2400 and not raise TO 2400). In my opinion, once UTG explains what he meant to do to the dealer, then his intended raise of 2400 on top of the bb is perfectly fine.
Opinions please.
UTG says to the dealer "raise 2400".
Players start to fold (6 handed) and dealer is telling the player to put out 2400 on the table. Player says "no, I said raise 2400, which means Im putting out 3600". I explained to the dealer that the player is entitled to raise 2400 on top of the bb as he is requesting to do. The bb disagrees with me (bb is an experienced player). I explain that the player is telling the dealer how much he intended to bet, and nobody was at a disadvantage as play had stopped and nobody had announced a call of the bet. The bb said he was at a disasvantage because he should be able to call a min raise in the bb instead of 3x bb raise.
I said Id stick the hand up for inspection here. (Just to make it clear, UTG said raise 2400 and not raise TO 2400). In my opinion, once UTG explains what he meant to do to the dealer, then his intended raise of 2400 on top of the bb is perfectly fine.
Opinions please.
Comment