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

okay maybe it isnt always enforced, but i have never been to a card room where verbal wasnt binding as a rule

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

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

So would an "all in" not play just like the "call" doesn't play according to you?

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

Post this without the "Preliminary situation" (hand #1) and the "frustration" or "angleshooting" commentary on hand #2. [Just the facts, ma'am]. See if you get different results. I'll bet you do.

Unfortunately, some posters seem to think that what happens in the past hand should affect the decision in the current hand and that's simply not the case. They are independent events and should be treated as such. If someone was trying to tell the floor about the misannounced Kings hand for this current $2000 bet situation, the floor needs to drown it out for what's happening in the now (just like the readers need to drown out hand #1).

Yes, it seems like karma got him in hand #2 (but in general, karma seems to strike much later), but did he really deserve what he got? I don't know if I could bind him to $2000, and would probably bind him only what would be considered a "normal" bet, which is the size of the pot with the disclaimer that I'm not a dealer or floor or anyone in authority so I have no idea if this ruling would be correct.

Garland

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

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

So would an "all in" not play just like the "call" doesn't play according to you?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok... there's just no way you and I are reading this story the same way. What I gleaned is one player had $400 in hand and was cutting out stacks of $100 and was not done. Exactly where the chips were and what was happening was a bit fuzzy. At that time, the next guy says "I call". There ain't no bet yet. So the original bettor does NOT get to now pause and say "ok...I bet 50 billion dollars--haha, you have to call me." It's a ridiculous notion that someone who accidentally (or on purpose) acts out of turn by saying "call" when they think a bet is complete can have basically written a blank check.

So either I misunderstood the original tale and somehow $2000 magically appears from somewhere prior to the guy saying "call", or all y'all insisting this is binding for absolutely any amount up to and including his whole stack are on crack.

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

They are playing n/l, tablestakes. So you can make the arguement that saying "call" before opponent says an amount is, indeed, binding. Again, this is high stakes and experienced players. And past actions do matter -- I've played in a club where if you said "you got me" or any concession type words on river, your hand was dead. But they made that rule with certain angleshooting regulars in mind. If an honest player in a low stakes game said that while flipping over a low pocket pair on a scary board, and in fact had the winner, they would probably not have invoked the rule.

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

[ QUOTE ]
or all y'all insisting this is binding for absolutely any amount up to and including his whole stack are on crack.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a scary decision because of where it was made. I would expect the floor at Bellagio to know better.

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

Seriously, the first hand has no relevance on the second hand except to bias the results against the player. You're looking for validation, not insight.

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

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

So would an "all in" not play just like the "call" doesn't play according to you?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok... there's just no way you and I are reading this story the same way. What I gleaned is one player had $400 in hand and was cutting out stacks of $100 and was not done. Exactly where the chips were and what was happening was a bit fuzzy. At that time, the next guy says "I call". There ain't no bet yet. So the original bettor does NOT get to now pause and say "ok...I bet 50 billion dollars--haha, you have to call me." It's a ridiculous notion that someone who accidentally (or on purpose) acts out of turn by saying "call" when they think a bet is complete can have basically written a blank check.

So either I misunderstood the original tale and somehow $2000 magically appears from somewhere prior to the guy saying "call", or all y'all insisting this is binding for absolutely any amount up to and including his whole stack are on crack.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what would your answer be if the out of turn action was an all in?

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

I'm with bav on this one.

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

So what we're saying here is that we're going to allow this angle (albeit a dual angle I suppose) to work this one time, with a stern warning that future instances will have consequences. I have no problem with this, just trying to simplify and clarify for my own understanding.