[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
If the only word(s) out of your mouth is a valid poker action, i.e. "bet" "call" "all-in" "check" you'd better be prepared for that action to stand no matter what punctuation marks you claim to have been putting behind it.

You can always ask for a ruling, but the floor will back the dealer most times in such a situation.

Here's how it will play out:

Dealer: "Floor to table 19,217!"

*Floor walks over 30 seconds later after ending his very important conversation with the cocktail girl. All the while the dealer is listening to 9 peoples recounts of "he said she said you did this no i didn't i did that"*

*Floorman arrives*
Dealer: On his action this gentleman here *open hand gesture* said "all in". This player here with the action to him then said "All-in."

*About here is when player B cuts in with "I was asking if he said all in! Not moving all in!" Players minorly bicker for 10 seconds about who said and did what again.*

Floorman: "Verbal declarations of action in turn are binding. The words 'All-In' constitute a legal binding poker action.
Player: "But I was asking!"
Floorman: "The chips must to go in the pot. The words 'All-In' constitute a legal binding poker action."
Player: "I was asking if he moved all in!"
Floorman: "The words 'All-In' constitute a legal binding poker action in turn."

*Repeat 14 times. Floorman finally tells players to turn hands up and the dealer to run it out. Dealer does so. Player B of course sucks out on the river and scoops the pot.*


[/ QUOTE ]

It will play out this way with an inexperienced floorman. In the context it is clear that it was a question (see the title). Anytime someone can say "he meant to do x, but has to do Y" something has gone horribly wrong; if everyone at the table can tell a player meant to do X not only can he do X, he must do X.