Re: Give your ruling
 

I say it is a call- verbal declaration is binding- he needs to learn through his mistakes- maybe next time he will make sure of his bet before he declares it

Re: Give your ruling
 

If any precedent in this game declaring first verbal action binding has been set, I'd have no problem ruling it's a call.

However in our low stakes home games, we'd normally allow the SB to go all in, as long as there was NO pause from call to all-in.

The decision shouldn't change depending upon which player makes the ruling though.

Re: Give your ruling
 

It's a tough one, but in a cash game I definitely allow him to push. In a tournament it's a bit thornier, and I may hold him to a call if others object. It's not like his chips aren't going in on the flop anyway and it's not like they're folding if he pushes preflop.

What leans me to allowing it is that there was no action after his. It's clearly not an angle-shoot, just a brain fart while thinking aloud. If anything, those holding him to a call are shooting more of an angle, forcing him to go against what he clearly intended to do because of a nitty little technicality of language. In certain older games, "I call and raise" is acceptable action, so there's an out there, too.

Bottom line, SB hasn't finished his action yet, he can do whatever he wants.

Results: according to many of you, the wrong ruling
 

RULING I ruled it was obvious that he intended to go all-in and just stumbled (this was before the action continued, I didn't know his hand at that point).

Part of my ruling at the time (I was E2, btw) was because:

a) I'm generally loathe to rule against short-stacked players in questionable situations.

b) It wasn't a clear "Call...(delay)... (change mind)" situation (and others, later on in the evening, thought that SB hadn't clearly/fully said call).

RESULTS The WE1 eventually folded, I easily called with nines and the SB turned over AQ. When the King-high flop hit, WE1 stormed away in disgust (claimied he had a King- must have been King-suited, or he was making a move) and my hand held up.




I felt okay with my decision at the time, even though I benefitted from the result, but I had second thoughts the next day due to the following:

a) I was friends with both players, I've just played with SB for a lot longer in a different home game. That's why I added that description, to see if it would affect anyone's decision.

b) WE1 is a founding member of my game, so I wasn't happy about having to rule against him. It didn't leave him in a great chip position, where getting the "free" flop look probably would have propelled him into the money.

c) We have a "verbal action out of turn is binding" rule in place, that I'm currently in the process of changing (based on discussions here on 2+2), so there was a precedent for verbal action being binding.

d) I was involved in the hand and obviously would benefit from having dead chips and fewer opponents.

e) I don't like making rulings in hands that I'm involved in, due to risk of bias (or that perception). There wasn't anyone else at the table that I felt would be able/willing to accept the responsibility for that decision.... and I didn't want to impose upon anyone at the time to take that responsibility.

Re: Results: according to many of you, the wrong ruling
 

Sounds good to me, tho' I understand your wariness to rule. If others didn't think his actions was complete, I think you can sleep easy.