[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For all those that think the call is not binding - even for the $400 that was in his hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Who thinks that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bav and I think RR agreed with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, not quite. I think the story is a bit fuzzy as to where the chips were as this happened, and that matters enormously. Also depends on the particulars of the room (like betting lines, betting walls, forward motion is binding, yaddayadda).

If the guy has a stack in hand and is cutting them out beside his cards and just thinking and stacking and restacking as people often do, there ain't no bet yet, and saying "call" out of turn at that juncture is meaningless. He is effectively calling 0.

If the guy has gone forward with the chips and is clearly in the process of betting but we're unsure of the amount, it's more entertaining. If the place has a virtual betting line wall (that is, a betting line that they claim acts is an invisible wall that runs up to the ceiling and any chips passing through that wall are committed), then the guy going forward with one full stack has already bet it and he's just stacking it in nice piles. And the guy saying "call" is at that point calling the bet that has already been made by plunging a handful of chips through that wall. That's fine (though I hate betting lines, it'd make this particular decision trivial).

But if this is a normal sorta poker room where you get to go forward with a fistful of chips and cut out in the betting area exactly what you want, and are not considered "done" until you pull your hand back... we're in mid-bet. Ick. The wager is underway but incomplete.

One ruling kinda falls out of the "out of turn action may be binding and will be binding if the action doesn't change" rule... At the point the guy said "call" the wager was $300 and may or may not have been complete. Fine... if the guy doing the betting had stopped, the out of turn action will be binding on the $300 now sitting on the felt. But if he wants to keep adding to the bet, the out of turn action ceases to be binding. I'd be ok with that. Not thrilled, but ok.

And if the guy doing the betting had just gone ahead and plopped down the rest of the $400 in his hand, I'd even be even tempered about the floor deciding it was clear all $400 was going to be wagered and the guy who said "call" musta known that. I won't throw a fit over the floor ruling the bet was clearly intended to be $400 and the guy doing the call is on the hook for $400. IF the guy doing the betting hadn't lost his mind...

The guy doing the betting suddenly blurting out $2000 would seem to make it clear that his bet was *NOT* complete in his own mind, and that our belief that he was intending to bet $400 was wrong. He was only in phase one of a multi-fisted, multi-stage wager that was going to involve counting out stack after stack on the felt (while somehow not being called for string betting). So we're back to no wager having been completed, and so the call ain't binding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously if player 1 is counting chips in front of the betting line/wall the out of turn player isn't bound to the call.

But, if player 1 is in the process of betting and hasn't verbally declared what his bet is or taken his hands off his chips as he is betting than player 2 calls, player 2 is bound to a minimum of what is currently being bet of $400 if not the full $2k (I'm not saying he should be bound to the full 2k, but he should be bound to the amount that atleast was in the hand of the bettor, that's at floor's discretion).

Here's why. Exact same situation, player 1 is betting and is currently cutting out the third stack. Now instead of calling player 2 declares all in out of turn. Obviously player 1 is bound to his bet that has crossed the betting line right?