A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

10-20 NL

Player 1 is a Bellagio regular who seems to be friendly with the floor and is likely a winning player. Doesn't seem to be an angle shooter at all, in fact in discussion he seems to be personable and honest in matters not related to poker.

Player 2 is more of a Wynn regular who is sort of arrogant but mostly quiet.


About an hour before this situation takes place my end of the table was discussing action out of turn and what constitutes action and what is binding. We discussed it for some time.


Preliminary situation-

We're four handed and Player 2 raises his button to $100. I call from the BB w/ QJ. I check call all three streets on a board that reads J-4-4-7-2 rainbow. I considered folding to his $500 river bet but when he started announcing my hand "J-T, QJ, etc" I called and he said "Kings" and flashed his hand in a manner that I would see only one card, a king. I never muck my hand until the other player has completely tabled his, and he reluctantly and slowly tabled K-T. Then he mildly berated me for my call.

Fifteen minutes later....


PF action is unsure, but Player 2 limps in and Player 1 raises, Player 2 calls.

Flop is

9-4-6 with a flush draw

Player 2 checks, Player 1 bets about $180 and Player 2 calls. The turn pairs the 4 and it is checked around.

The river is a brick and Player 2 checks to Player 1. Player 2 is obviously frustrated and has been for a while now, and Player 1 grabs a stack ($400) and starts cutting the chips into $100 stacks (not in front of him, but in motion to bet) as Player 1 is just about to finish cutting the third stack (obviously still in the motion of betting and has NOT completed his bet) Player 2 announces "Call" out of turn. Immediately after Player 2 announces call, Player 1 announces "Two-thousand" while cutting the third and fourth stack of chips.


Floor is called and rules Player 2 must pay Player 1 the $2,000 river bet. Player 1 had about $2500 when the river card fell and Player 1 had him covered. Obviously drama ensues.


I like the ruling and I like the rule, but i'm not sure how I feel about this situation. Player 2 tried to angleshoot me to a certain extent, and in the above situation Player 1 took advantage of a frustrated and out of line opponent who was most likely trying to influence Player 1's bet amount when he announced "call" out of turn. Obviously Player 1 wasn't going to bet $2,000, but I think Player 2 thought that he might get a cheaper showdown by announcing "call" out of turn.



What are your thoughts on both players, this situation, and the rule that action out of turn is binding in this case (action out of turn is binding unless the action changes before it comes to the player who acted out of turn".




-Tex

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

I don't like the ruling. Player 1 is angleshooting if he expects the call to be binding.

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

yea I mean he is totally angleing here but the call is correct. The player was just counting chips , he could of just as well been counting his stack to see what hes got left .

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

I think both Player 1 and Player 2 were angleshooting. Because Player 2 did it first, it seems only fitting that he was hoist on his own petard.

However, I would have ruled that he had a choice of paying $400 and folding, calling the $2,000, or raising all-in. I'm not sure that my ruling could be supported by any known poker rules, but I think it is the fairest outcome given the behavior by both players.

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

Its obvious Player 2 is shady. I say props to Player One for quickly regocnizing what Player 2 was trying to do and making him pay for his unethical behavior. kharma is a bitch

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

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)?

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

Interesting....like the floor'ruling...admired #1's play

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

I am a Poker dealer and I dont know what specific rules the Belligio has, but most rules are the same when there is no betting line present.

If a player is cutting chips and is in the process of making a bet, and anounces a bet. The verbal bet is binding.

If a player acts out of turn, his action must stand.

For instance if Player 2 says "raise" instead of call, then player 1 says "two thousand", Player 2 has to make the bet at least 4000

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

Player #2 is an angleshooter and deserves what he got. Experienced players, with fairly big money in play, simply have got to be held to ettiquette otherwise the angleshooters will destroy the game with ongoing antics, up to and including cheating.

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

[ QUOTE ]


If a player acts out of turn, his action must stand.



[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree. From Robert's rules of Poker:

[ QUOTE ]
An action or verbal declaration out of turn may be ruled binding if there is no bet, call, or raise by an intervening player acting after the infraction has been committed.


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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.

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

[ QUOTE ]
So what we're saying here is that we're going to allow this angle

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the angle?

$460 pot.
Player 1 grabs $400 and is cutting the chips off in the betting area.
On the third $100 stack.
Player 2 says "I call"

What is Player 2 trying to do?

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

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]player 1

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

The other day I was dealing a hand (1-3 NL) and a guy bet out of turn, the guy who was skipped asked how much the bettor had, then checked, they guy who origionally bet then wanted to check, I called the floor knowing what the floor would say, of course the bet still stands.

The rules are not made for kharmic reasons or to try to screw people out of money. They are made to make the game as fair as possible, are they all as fair as fair as they could be, maybe not.

But with any game, I dont care if its bowling or basketball, there are rules to the games that apply to all who play. Pay attention to the rules, and to the game in general. Its your fault if you didnt know that saying "call" out of turn means that you have to call what the other player bets.

Dont hate the player hate the game. And if you think a rule is unfair, try to petition to get it changed.

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

Short answer

[ QUOTE ]
I'm with bav on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Long answer

OP's biased the forum with hand one.

P2 in hand one is trying to cheat and failing miserably

P2 should have to call at max what P1 is fiddling with (If P1 has $1200 in front of him and $800 in stacks back with hs chips, only $1200) but I can see a pot sized bet being payed as a decent answer and last bet made on flop/turn a good alt.

And Mr. Rick, thanks for making me look up petard.

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

[ QUOTE ]
The other day I was dealing a hand (1-3 NL) and a guy bet out of turn, the guy who was skipped asked how much the bettor had, then checked, they guy who origionally bet then wanted to check, I called the floor knowing what the floor would say, of course the bet still stands.

Its your fault if you didnt know that saying "call" out of turn means that you have to call what the other player bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that hand you describe, no action has taken place to alter the bet, so it stands (If someone bet $20, does the out of turn guy who bet $10 still bet $10? No.)

So, according to how you view the rules, if two guys are playing a game with no cap (let's say 2/5 NL) and the pot's $50. Guy B says "call" OOT by accident, can Guy A now say "I'm all-in for $10000"?

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

[ QUOTE ]
And if you think a rule is unfair, try to petition to get it changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, the rule is ok, but the Floor's interpretation of it borders on criminal.

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

If I got called over as the floor on this, I would have to rule that P2 was obligated to call whatever P1 had in his hand, and could now fold or call the remaining 1600.

My reasoning behind this is the same as I use in most out of turn actions. "What assumptions would an honest player making an honest mistake have made here". In this case, an honest player could have assumed all the money in his hand was being bet, as such that is what he intended to call. Therefore he is obliged to call that. It is not however the amount of the bet, and he should not be on the hook for the whole 2K.

Now, in some cases there are some obvious past histories. If P2 has a history of angle shooting, and has been warned. Then absolutely he did it on purpose, and was trying to get a benefit. Rule him all-in for the 2K.

As a floor you have to be impartial to the history of the table. A ruling has to be the same whether you like someone or not. If an honest player had said call out of turn, you wouldn't make him put in 2K. The only reason it was ruled he had to put in 2K is that you don't like the guy and the floor is getting toked from P1. Or potentially there is history of P2 being a scumbag and the ruling was made for that reason.

In a straight up honest situation tho, I never rule P2 is obligated for 2K.

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

[ QUOTE ]
But with any game, I dont care if its bowling or basketball, there are rules to the games that apply to all who play. Pay attention to the rules, and to the game in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well one rule is that the same action taken by different players can have different meaning and another rule is that the floor should rule in the interest of fairness even if this means doing something other than a literal interpretation of the rules. I have seen many people wave around rules, but they tend to be unaware of these rules.

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

[ QUOTE ]


Now, in some cases there are some obvious past histories. If P2 has a history of angle shooting, and has been warned. Then absolutely he did it on purpose, and was trying to get a benefit. Rule him all-in for the 2K.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again.
What is the angle?

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what we're saying here is that we're going to allow this angle

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the angle?


[/ QUOTE ]

the angle would be if someone intends to bet $800 but only grabs $400 in chips, and as they are cutting, they realize they don't have enough, and announce verbally "800". it's maybe an angleshoot if the opponent doesn't let them get to the verbal declaration, by saying "call" pre-emptively.

i think you go by whatever is in the rulebook on this one. but of course casinos are such great places, there is no universal rulebook, just a sheet of poker room guidelines that half the floor probably hasn't read in years.

i don't mind allowing this "angle" because the bettor can prevent it by grabbing the correct amount of chips.