Ruling Question
 

Player A calls before the flop, so do 4 others. Flop comes, player A bets like 1/5th his stack. Player B is next with 3 others behind him. He says to Player A "will you call if I put you all in". Player A then says jokingly "I'll call whatever you want". Player B then goes all-in, the other players fold, and Player A folds but his cards haven't yet reached the muck.

Should Player A be forced to call Player B's bet?

Re: Ruling Question
 

No, action occurred between his verbal declaration and his turn to act. He's simply a jackass.

Re: Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Player A calls before the flop, so do 4 others. Flop comes, player A bets like 1/5th his stack. Player B is next with 3 others behind him. He says to Player A "will you call if I put you all in". Player B then says jokingly "I'll call whatever you want". Player B then goes all-in, the other players fold, and Player A folds but his cards haven't yet reached the muck.

Should Player A be forced to call Player B's bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

A?

And my guess would be no, given that between him saying that and his fold B and 3 others have acted.

Re: Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Player A calls before the flop, so do 4 others. Flop comes, player A bets like 1/5th his stack. Player B is next with 3 others behind him. He says to Player A "will you call if I put you all in". Player A then says jokingly "I'll call whatever you want". Player B then goes all-in, the other players fold, and Player A folds but his cards haven't yet reached the muck.

Should Player A be forced to call Player B's bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Since there were others to act before action got back to player A, I believe this whole verbal declaration binding garbage doesn't count since the other 3 players have to act before he does.

Re: Ruling Question
 

Fixed the original. Thanks.

Re: Ruling Question
 

No, since there is action between his verbal declaration at the table (which is really not directly proposing anything, he did not "Yes, I call") and his turn to act.

Re: Ruling Question
 

Evrybody seems to be answering this question as though the issue is whethger or not players acting between Player A and Player B effect whether Player A's action was in turn or not.


That is not the issue. Player A and Player B are not allowed to make a deal such as I'll bet if you promise to call. As far as i am concerned as long as there are other players in the hand Player B should not be allowed to Ask Player A the question and Player B should not be allowed to answer. I know many people think this is just table talk and part of poker, but if that is how you look at it, then it can't be binding because its just table talk not action.

Re: Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Evrybody seems to be answering this question as though the issue is whethger or not players acting between Player A and Player B effect whether Player A's action was in turn or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we are, because Clarkmeister specifically asked:

[ QUOTE ]
Should Player A be forced to call Player B's bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Player A and Player B are not allowed to make a deal such as I'll bet if you promise to call. As far as i am concerned as long as there are other players in the hand Player B should not be allowed to Ask Player A the question and Player B should not be allowed to answer. I know many people think this is just table talk and part of poker, but if that is how you look at it, then it can't be binding because its just table talk not action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly the table talk should not be allowed either, but again, that's not what Clarkmeister asked about.

Re: Ruling Question
 

Player A should not be forced to call Player B's bet. "I will call" if you do something is not the same as "I call." And if it were somehow construed to mean "I call" it is not binding because it is action out of turn affecting other action.

Player B should be reprimanded and warned by the floor for asking Player A what he will do with others in the pot.

Re: Ruling Question
 

Clark,

No.

Re: Ruling Question
 

Good deal. Thanks everyone.

Re: Ruling Question
 

Slight hijack.

What if there are no other players in the hand? If the Q&A goes the same, player B asks THEN acts, is player A allowed to do whatever or is he bound by his previous answer? I would assume he can still fold, but everyone is using the other players as the reason to the original question.

Re: Ruling Question
 

Player A can say whatever he wants when it's not his turn to act. His words were said when it was still Player B's turn to act, in which Player B had still not acted. Nothing is binding for him until it's his turn to act, therefore, he has the right to muck, regardless of what he said.

Re: Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Player A can say whatever he wants when it's not his turn to act. His words were said when it was still Player B's turn to act, in which Player B had still not acted. Nothing is binding for him until it's his turn to act, therefore, he has the right to muck, regardless of what he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the rule used at The Palms. If a player makes a verbal declaration (in particular, stating he's all-in) whether it's his turn or not, he is committed long as he has cards in front of him. I've seen a drunk fellow do this to himself twice in the span of 10 minutes in the NL2/5 game. He kept shouting "I'M ALL-IN" at random times during play, and the dealer and floor kept warning him "if you ever do that when you have cards, whether it's your turn to act or not, you're pushing all your chips in". Twice he had to push ~$500 in against his will (both times he got called--he lost the first and got lucky and won the 2nd).

Re: Ruling Question
 

A lot of people here need to review the rules of what is binding action. PLayers C, D and E folding have no effect on if A has to call.

The reason A does not have to call is because he declared that he would call when there was no bet, and thus if there is action of a raise, then he is not bound to call. B raised after A said he would call, thus it isn't binding.
If B raises, then A says he will call, and everyone folds to A, A must call. If B raises, A declares a call, and then C calls, A does not have to call DEPENDING on the house rules.

Re: Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player A can say whatever he wants when it's not his turn to act. His words were said when it was still Player B's turn to act, in which Player B had still not acted. Nothing is binding for him until it's his turn to act, therefore, he has the right to muck, regardless of what he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the rule used at The Palms. If a player makes a verbal declaration (in particular, stating he's all-in) whether it's his turn or not, he is committed long as he has cards in front of him. I've seen a drunk fellow do this to himself twice in the span of 10 minutes in the NL2/5 game. He kept shouting "I'M ALL-IN" at random times during play, and the dealer and floor kept warning him "if you ever do that when you have cards, whether it's your turn to act or not, you're pushing all your chips in". Twice he had to push ~$500 in against his will (both times he got called--he lost the first and got lucky and won the 2nd).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Palms rule is specific to an All-in declaration in the NL game.

But that is not the point here anyway. In this case the Player didn't declare an an all-in -- he made a conditional statement "If You Bet I Will Call" This can not be binding because it is specifically against the rules (at least when there are more than two players in the hand)

Re: Ruling Question
 

Clarky,

Was this a hypothetical or did it really happen? If so, give us a story, pronto.

Re: Ruling Question
 

If B is a good provider, someone might take a few minutes and explain to him that stupid questions may provoke stupid answers.