Rules Question

[Robbr25]

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.

[eddo31]

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.

[Talking Poker]

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.

[Talking Poker]

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.

[jillaj]

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.

[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