A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling

[LiveInPeace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Verbal is binding as long as their bet is still in progress.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see that rule in writing.

I believe it is a basic part of NL poker that to commit to a wager you are required to know how much it is. It's why hidden large chips don't play. It's why if you miss a raise and put out $5 to limp pre-flop in NL2/5 after it's raised to $40 you aren't committed. And most rooms I play in do not commit you to leave the $5 out if you try to call not having seen that it was raised, though some do (this topic has been discussed several times here and I agree with RR's basic thought that it's either a full bet or it isn't, and making someone leave a partial bet out there is a cop-out). And it's why out of turn action isn't supposed to be binding if the action changes prior to it getting to you.

If I say "call" out of turn after player 1 wagers $20, and then player 2 says "all-in", there is no room on the planet (I await the inevitable reply that says "yes there is") that will force me to call the all-in. This case isn't all that different.

You people advocating the $2000 is ok would REALLY be ok with this if the player hadn't been an angle shooting scumbag and the exchange had been a verbal "I'm gonna bet something" followed instantly by "call" (perhaps because the guy usually plays limit and just had a brain-fart 'cause he was in a NL game)? You really believe at that point the guy who said "call" just wrote a blank check? Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't think he wrote a blank check, but he made the mistake therefore he should pay for it. I don't think player 1's options ought to be restricted because player 2 acted out of turn. That opens up angleshooting calls out of turn to prevent people putting any more in the middle while the bettor is in the middle of their action.

It's clear to me that player 1 is still permitted to bet $2000. Somewhat less clear is whether player 2 should be required to call the full amount now that the action has apparently changed. But the point is that the action hasn't changed because the action had not been completed. Entirely player 2's mistake and IMO player 1 is entirely justified in taking full advantage of it.