Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
So Player2 is placing chips in the "betting area".
He has $400 in his hand. He has not declared an amount. He has cut off $300 in 3 stacks.

Assume Player1 does not say anything at that moment.

Could Player2 say "two thousand" at that point and go back to his stack, or would it be considered a string raise under Bellagio rules (I don't care about the rules anywhere else)?

[/ QUOTE ]


it's not a string raise unless his motion is stopped.

i.e., if he finishes cutting the chips then announces "two thousand", that's a string bet.

but as long as his hand is in motion cutting the chips and he's yet to make a verbal delcaration he can still verbally declare his bet.

i'm on both sides of the fence here. fwiw Player 2 tried to angle me and an arguement could be made that he tried to angle Player 1 into betting less on the river, so he got what was coming to him. it's more likely he was making a call out of frustration, but it's also very likely that Player 1 doesn't announce "two thousand" after he knows Player 2 must call if Player 2 hadn't been a douche in the hand against me and in general.

but, yes, as long as you haven't finished your action you can still make a verbal declaration.

i do this often, and never as an angle. i.e., i'm going to bet $140 preflop and i have a stack of chips in my hand and halfway through my bet i realize i have $100 or $120 whatever, I verbally declare my raise amount so I can go back to my stack for the remaining amount w/o it being a string bet.


-Tex

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

Both players sound like scumbags to me.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

I think it's a horrid ruling, if I understand the situation. Player 1 hadn't finished betting when Player 2 said "call", right? In which case, you CANNOT require player 2 call any amount at all that player 1 chooses to bet. No sir. Not a chance.

And what player 2 tried to do to you by miscalling his hand is an attempt to cheat. It isn't cute, it isn't original, and it isn't acceptable. It's a nasty angle and someone needed to ream him a new hole when he did it. But that doesn't give the table carte blanche to now cheat him back.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

honestly #2 is getting what he deserves. if you are going to angle shoot or be a dick every hand maybe he will learn a lesson from it.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a horrid ruling, if I understand the situation. Player 1 hadn't finished betting when Player 2 said "call", right? In which case, you CANNOT require player 2 call any amount at all that player 1 chooses to bet. No sir. Not a chance.

And what player 2 tried to do to you by miscalling his hand is an attempt to cheat. It isn't cute, it isn't original, and it isn't acceptable. It's a nasty angle and someone needed to ream him a new hole when he did it. But that doesn't give the table carte blanche to now cheat him back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is a verbal call not binding? Player 1 is obviously angleshooting again trying to get off cheap. Now if he had argued that he was calling the stack that was in the hand of player 2 ($400) I think that would be the only way he didn't verbally bind himself to the call of $2k.

What if Player 1 verbally declared all in while Player 2 was cutting his chips, would that not be an all in?

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a horrid ruling, if I understand the situation. Player 1 hadn't finished betting when Player 2 said "call", right? In which case, you CANNOT require player 2 call any amount at all that player 1 chooses to bet. No sir. Not a chance.

And what player 2 tried to do to you by miscalling his hand is an attempt to cheat. It isn't cute, it isn't original, and it isn't acceptable. It's a nasty angle and someone needed to ream him a new hole when he did it. But that doesn't give the table carte blanche to now cheat him back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is a verbal call not binding? Player 1 is obviously angleshooting again trying to get off cheap. Now if he had argued that he was calling the stack that was in the hand of player 2 ($400) I think that would be the only way he didn't verbally bind himself to the call of $2k.

What if Player 1 verbally declared all in while Player 2 was cutting his chips, would that not be an all in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I could bind player 2 to the $400 at least, I buy that. I really don't think the call should be binding, and him saying 'call' is just an angle like someone saying "i'll call whatever you bet", or in minbet when they check and then hold the amount of a river bet in their hand, implying they will call. I would say he can't be bound, but if he is bound, it should just be to the amount that was in Player 1's hand.

And I would have told him what's what after that BS KT hand and told him in no uncertain terms not to do that again. I berated the hell out of an angleshooting slowrolling POS in Seattle, so I'm not just being internet tough guy. Hate scumbags like this. I think Player 2 deserved to pay the 2k on GP for being a dbag, but under the rules, it's not just.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

OP did a very good job of biasing the responses by including the first hand.

"Player2 is a scumbag and so should get reamed. Therefore, whenever a ruling comes up, it should go against him, to the maximum."

Hope you guys play Player1 and need a ruling from his friend the floorman. Wonder how much of a tip he got for the extra $1600.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since when is a verbal call not binding?

[/ QUOTE ]
When there hasn't been a bet yet.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

Verbal is always binding, but here's a question for you. What should the floor call be if, while player one is betting and player 2 says "call", and Player one responds "check"?

I would think its obvious that player one is betting, so at very least he would have to bet what is in his hand.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Verbal is always binding

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[ QUOTE ]

What should the floor call be if, while player one is betting and player 2 says "call", and Player one responds "check"?

I would think its obvious that player one is betting, so at very least he would have to bet what is in his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Player1 has to bet the larger of
1. the minimum legal bet
2. the amount of chips he has already placed in the betting area