Rules Question
 

I'd like opinions on the following scenario:

It's a NLHE ring game and the question regards the last betting round.

Player A, with roughly a $30 stack, bets $10.
Player B says to Player A, "I'll put you all in" then pushes in a stack of $5 chips worth about $95.
Player C, says "Call" and pushes in his entire stack, which is more than the $95 pushed out by Player B.

Player A folds.

Player B says his bet is only the $30 required to cover Player A's stack, because he said "I'll put you all in" BEFORE pushing chips into the pot. Player B also says Player C cannot raise, because Player C has already said "Call."

What is player B's legal bet, $30 or $95?

Player C can't raise after saying call...BUT I would say it depends if player B was clear in saying he was putting PLAYER A all in. If player C was calling player B putting HIM all in then he should be getting all the chips in.

Ultimately Player C should have just said I'm all in instead of call, right?

hard to say who meant what here.

It was very clear that Player B intended to put Player A all in. Sorry for not making that clear in the original, I'll edit it.

The question centers around how he did it, by overbetting the amount required to do so by putting in $95 instead of $30.

After more people reply, I'll tell you how the issue was resolved.

I see, $30 total for player B would be my guess then, since he couldn't "put player A all in" for more than that.

My feeling is if player B says to player A, I'll put you all in...then proceeds to push all his chips into the middle, someone should point out the mistake at that point right away. Eg. The action should be stopped before anyone makes another decision, and anything above $30 should be pulled back. However, if no one mentions anything and then Player C says call then pushes all his chips in....it's too late now. Both players should have all their chips in and no one should be able to pull money out of the pot.

To me, it's almost like instant replay in the NFL. If the refs make a bad call, the coach can throw the red flag, but if the next play has already started, it's too late. You can't stop the action and go backwards.

If he pushes his chips into the pot, the amount he pushes in should be what he bet, not what he said. He said he puts A allin which his 95 dollar bet does. Player C called players B's bet which was 95 dollars. If player B only wanted to put as much as player A had he should have asked him how many chips he had and put exactly that amount in instead of overbetting.

I am in absolute agreement with this statement. Sadly, this didn't happen.

This is exactly how Player C interpreted things since he was still left to act in the betting round.

Wow, that's a crappy situation. Hopefully in a casino the dealer would have clarified player B's action before player C acted. As it stands, either player B or C could be angle shooting if they are so inclined. If the consensus was that neither player was trying to angle shoot then I would allow player B's intended declaration (basically, raise to $30) to stand and then allow player C to act (not be bound by his declaration to call what he thought was player B's all in). Player C could then fold, call, or raise. If either player B or C have a history of angle shooting I would be inclined to declare the hand null and void and return all chips in the pot to their pre-hand owners.

Edited to add: Upon further review, declaring the hand null and void would not be fair to player A, who has done nothing wrong in this hand. I now think that if I suspected either player B or C of angle shooting I would declare the action dead after player A's bet (when thigs got ugly) and only allow players B and C to call that bet. I know this wouldn't float in a casino, but this is a friendly home game, right?

Player B's bet is 30 dollars, not 95. When he said "I'll put you all in" this implies he is betting the rest of player As stack, 30 dollars total. Lets put this in simpler terms. Im UTG and look down to see Pocket Aces, playing a 1/2 NL Table. I announce a raise to 8 and then throw in 20 chips... the 12 extra chips then have to be returned to me, as I already announced me raise of 8 and can not change it.

This issue is, since nothing was said about player B putting more chips in the middle than his bet, can he really then take chips out of the pot after another player has acted? Player C clearly said call, so he absolutely can not raise in this spot.... the question is what is he calling? Legally he is calling 30 dollars, but there is more money than that in the pot, and this was not corrected...so it becomes confusing.

What happened?

Edit: This is precisely the reason that "I'll put you all in" is NOT a move in poker. Either your all in, or you raise a certain amount (enough to put them all in), You can ask how much he has left, and then bet that amount... but with other players in the hand, there is no move that you "put someone all in" its confusing.... this is used for home games, and when in a casino, can lead to complicated situations, like the one above.

Technically, player B going all in himself is putting player A all in.

This is a grey area. However I believe if no one other player says anything, than it's too bad. The money stays in the pot. If player B only intended to put in 30, he would have put in 30. If no one comments and points out the error, than it stands.

It's the same thing as a string bet. Everyone knows it's not legal. However, if someone does it, and no one points it out...it should stand. It's the responsibility of the players involved in the game, and especially involved in the hand to point it out. If it's a friendly home game, and some people don't understand the rules as well as others, than others playing should point it out first.

Once the money is in the pot and no one says points out error, it's too late. Eg. Go play blackjack at the casino. If the dealer miscounts and takes your money when it's a push....but already collected the cards and you never say anything. Try to get your money back. I bet you there's no way you're gonna get a penny back after the fact.

This is why the "I'll put you all in" move is not a real move in poker. Because its a grey area whether it means I'll bet what ever you have left, or like you said, him moving in also puts player A all in as well and the bet is what he puts in

Here's how things were "solved:"

First, a few more incidental facts: It is a home game. There is absolutely no chance of angle shooting - any mistake made was an honest one without doubt. I am Player C and a good friend is player B.

Originally, I put my stack of $95 next to his, and since I had the stone cold nuts, won the pot and dragged it. Player B then brought up the fact that his bet techincally was only $30 in a manner that suggested that the money was not important, but getting the bet right for the sake of obeying the rules was.

It was my house and I felt it inappropriate for me to make the final decision seeing how I was involved.

My original thoughts were that his bet of $95 was the real bet, because with me left to act, he could have been making an isolation bet to get me to fold.

However, I felt I made a mistake by not stopping to clarify what the bet actually was. When you hold the nuts and see a monster bet in front of you, well...you can see how I acted way too quickly. But, I felt he made a mistake by being a bit wreckless with his bet, regardless of his intentions.

I've played with Player B several times and consider him above reproach with respect to being honest.

We had 14 players on 2 tables playing and we polled the most knowledgeable of the bunch on what the ruling should be.

It was unanimous that the bet should have only been $30. I still disagree with that somewhat, HOWEVER, the additional $65 is simply not worth any strain on friendships that a ruling in my favor could incur.

So I gave back $65 to Player B and we all moved on.

You are a nice guy. My friend announced a raise to a certain amount in a casino before and put in too many chips accidently and had to keep the amount he put in play. He asked why that wasn't a string bet and they said that the only thing that mattered was when he said raise, not the actual amount. So when he put in more than he intended to in play, that was his actual bet. I would recommend to him for "the sake of getting it correct" that when he puts chips in the pot he should expect them to be counted as in play. The only time I would let it fly is when they are heads up.

You did the right thing. No need in potentially ruining a game, or a friendship, over $65.

Player B's bet stands $95.
Player C is only a call.

They can bitch all they want.

I agree with Chip. If someone says the words "all in", they are all in. Trying to be cool by saying "I'll put you all in" is stupid, and should only be said when you are heads up. Too bad for player B. Although in a friendly home game of course this changes.

Verbal bets are binding.
So, player B "puts all in" player A, i.e. raises to $30 (I assume he talked before he pushed the chips.)
Player C calls so he would call the $30. (Once again I assume he talked before he pushed the chips.)
Player A then gets to decide if he wants to call the extra $20.

i dont think that this is right at all. you are right that verbal bets are binding, but pushing chips into the pot is binding as well.

if you declare $50, and only put in 25, then you have to put in the other 25. if you declare 50, and put in 100, then your whole bet stays in the pot. when the guy said "i put him all in," and pushed an undetermined amount into the pot, then his bet should have been the amount tat he put in the pot, not whatever player A had left.

this is just a bad situation. the money involved isnt worth losing friends over, but the fact that it was a unanimous decision is ridiculous. i guess that this is a very good game profit wise, as playing against uninformed players must be +EV.

This is not correct and should have never happened. More below.

This is also not correct. Verbal declarations are binding. When a verbal declaration does not match an action, the verbal declaration takes precedence.

In both this post and the one I replied to above it, you guys are describing not the verbal declaration being binding, but whatever bet is LARGEST being binding, and that's not correct. In these two examples, the first player would have to put in an additional $25, but the second player would get $50 back. Both verbal bets were $50, so that's what the bets are. Regardless of how many chips are moved into the pot. Period.

Now.... on to the hand in question.

As has been stated, "I put you all in," is confusing, to say the least, but the INTENT of it here was to bet what Player A had left in front of him - in this case $30 total. Player B put in a stack of Red chips to make sure he had Player A covered, but he wasn't intending to bet the entire stack.

Player C (or anyone else) should have clarified the bet (counting Player A's stack) and returned $65 to Player B before Player C acted, but that wasn't the case.... so be it. Player C's verbal declaration was "Call," so that's wht he did - he called the $30 bet. Now Player A has the option of calling for his last $20 or folding, and that's the end of the action for this round of betting.

It's an ugly situation, but you guys ruled correctly.

I don't see how his intent wasn't the 95 dollars in chips. That is what he put in the pot. Poker isn't a game of intent but what is actually done. I intend to win but it doesn't always happen.

This isn't correct (your first statement), and I'll tell you why:

If I said "Raise to 100" and then get a read on my opponent and realize I should have raised more, I can't slide 250 chips into the pot and have that bet stand. I said I was raising to 100 and that's that. I can't get away with only putting in 25 or 1000 or anything except for exactly 100.

Verbal declarations are binding. Your friend was seriously screwed by the casino... OR, we're not hearing the exact story. My guess is he didn't clearly state the amount of his raise, and thus wasn't allowed to take chips back after he put in more than he intended to.

Anyway, regarding the situation in this thread, if I'm player B and I say to Player A, "I'll put you all in" and toss a $1000 chip in front of me, my bet isn't $1000. It's the exact amount it takes to put Player A all in.

Yes, this is a stupid and unclear way to announce a bet, but I'm almost certain that's how this should be ruled.

Definitely an interesting situation though. Someone should write to CardPlayer or something and see if we can get an actual Tourney Director to give us an official answer.

I stand corrected. That's why TP wins the Big bucks :)

Don't be so fast to assume I'm right and you're wrong. I THINK I'm right, and it makes the most sence to me, but I'm certainly not SURE about this...

I agree with this as well. PLayer B clearly announced that he is going to put player A all in....thus no matter how much he puts in the pot, his verbal bet is what stands. Then player C called...... The amount put in the pot is IRRELEVANT. He announced what his bet was, and you can noit change that bet. Like TP said, you cant say raise, make it 3000, see an opponent is about to call and then put in 1200 (if you are bluffin) or 6000 (if you got it)

The only confusing thing is what the phrase "I'll put you all in" means. This is not a real move, which is why all this confusion exsists. Player B verbal bet is what counts not the amount he put in.....BUT the point which was brought up which is interesting.... what exactly is meant by I'll put you all in? I assume it's I'll bet whatever you have left...but technically if you raise to 100 arent you also putting the player with 30 dollars all in? If this "I'll put you all in" isnt thought of as a specific amount, just a comment, THEN the amount put in would be considered the announced amount....as putting that much in the pot, would be putting the player all in.

This is why the phrase I'll put you all in' should never be used -- either you are all in, or you bet an amount which covers your opponent.

i see what you are saying here tp, with the verbal declaration taking precedence in order to minimize angle shooting. i think i may have been confused with my previous comments, but i still think that this situation is a bit different.

when player b said "i put you all in", that does not specify any amount. 30 might put him all in, but 95 does as well, so i think that whatever is put in the pot is the amount of the bet.

i dont see how player b can reduce his bet when he didnt actually declare a dollar amount on it, he just said "i put you allin." correct me if i am wrong here, but without a concrete verbal declaration, i cant see thi sbet being reduced to 30.

Zybomb's post addresses this the best. You are hearing what he his saying as, "I'm going to bet more than what you have left. Here it is, I bet this many chips." And I am hearing what he was saying as, "I bet the exact amount of chips required to put you all in. Here, this stack should cover it. We'llk sort out the change I get if you decide to call."

Clearly two very different things. Based on how it was described, it sounds to me as if Player B's INTENT was to bet the exact amount Player A had in front of him, but as we all know, intentions don't mean much in poker. Actions do. In this case, if I was the floorperson, I would have ruled as they did last night, making Player B's bet equal to Player A's stack, and making Player C's call equal to that... but that's just my interpretation. I can see how it could be interpreted the other way as well.

We need to get an official ruling on this. Maybe someone could email Matt Savage or Linda Johnson or any of a number of other people that could get us a definitive answer.

The biggest problem with all these verbal declarations being binding is that:

A) No one pointed out the problem at the time when it occurred.

B) The player that pointed the error was in fact the person that created the problem and stood to benefit from any ruling different to the original.

C) All decisions were made after the end result of the hand were known.

Like I said, this is the same as a string bet situation in the casino.

If a player in the casino tried to do a string bet, it's the responsibility of the dealer AND other players to point out the problem WHEN it occurred. If no one makes note of the problem when it occurs than the string bet should stand. Once the hand is showndown, you shouldn't be able to reverse the decision.

Why the hell wouldnt he just put in what player A had if he knew PLayer C still had to act behind him before player A, but anyway, even though he verbalized that he was intending to put player A all in, i think since he put $95
in the pot, thats his bet. Its his stupidity, and player C is also retarded for saying call and putting in more chips then are needed to call, but i guess he thought he was being put all in. Anyway, if I was sittin' at this table I would say, Player B's bet is 95 and Player C is to call the 95

you are 100% correct sir

I disagree. If you bet 200 and I say raise, make it 800, and I put 1200 chips in the pot, they will make me take 400 out