Rules Question

[Talking Poker]

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.

[ChipFish]

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

[Talking Poker]

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...

[Zybomb]

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.

[eddo31]

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.

[Talking Poker]

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.

[Windbreaker]

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.