Give your ruling
 

Setup- year end tournament with added prize pool $, about a dozen players left (paying 7). Middle-late rounds with escalating blinds, so the pots now are very important.

Well-experienced player WE1 in early position and experienced player E2 on button, 6-handed. Both have been playing in your poker group from the beginning.

SB is much less experienced, almost no b&m poker room background, but has been learning some of the simple cardroom nuances and strategies. SB has been playing in the group for almost 2 years.
SB and one of the players have played together in another, more "normal" wild card home game for a number of years, before your poker group

WE1 raises to around 4BB UTG, folding to E2 (who has the biggest stack of the three, but not dominating). E2 chews on it for a while, then calls.

SB, who is very short-stacked, stutters/cuts off and says something like "cal- oh, I'm just going all in", putting in a reraise of another 5BB

WE1 protests, saying SB said call and should be held to the verbal action, and is quite insistent on the point. WE1 says during the furor that the call would be binding in a casino.

What is your ruling as the floor?

BONUS QUESTIONS: How would you change your ruling if you were:

a) WE1
b) E2
c) the host and friend of the SB

Fire away

Re: Give your ruling
 

Seems like a pretty easy situation to handle. He declared a 'call' other people heard him, then he changed his mind to 'all-in'. His first verbal declaration should be binding.

Re: Give your ruling
 

If he said call he should be held to the call, however its not clear to me that he said call. It sounds like he started to say it, and then stopped.his would be an easier ruling i was there to hear it.

Re: Give your ruling
 

I'd say its a call-in.

Re: Give your ruling
 

I'd make him call and explain the situation to him. The alternative is to go against the rules and apparently wishes of another player which is worse than abiding by the rules and telling the inexperienced player he has to call because that's what he said initially. Most of the time they don't mind either.

I do think WE1 is a douchebag if the player really is that inexperienced.

So if I'm:

WE1: I let his all-in stand
E1: I probably don't care either way. I will explain it to the inexperienced player if the host lets the call stand or I will try to convince the WE1 to just let his all-in count (if the host rules that the all-in counts).
Host and friend: I let the call stand, because any friend of mine is going to understand the situation if I explain it to him.

Re: Give your ruling
 

As the floor, I'd find out what the dealer heard and what any other player who might have been paying attention heard.

As WE1, since I heard call, I'd make that my ruling.

As E2, if I heard call, I'd make that my ruling.

As friend I would tell him he said call and his first verbal action is binding. He'd understand that he doesn't get any favortism because that would discredit my game, and as my friend he doesn't want to do that.

Re: Give your ruling
 

If he said call, it's binding.

Re: Give your ruling
 

I guess it depends on what you heard. Sounds like he said ca and never finished the word. I would lean towards letting him go all in.

Outside of that, he was facing a raise of 4BB and he had 9BB left. He is almost pot committed anyways. Both WE1 and E2 would of expected the SB to go all in or fold

Re: Give your ruling
 

I ask SB what he thought he said. If he says he said "cal..", then I say alright you called.

This is almost a like a verbal string raise.

Edit: I remember a game where a guy clearly said "call" and then tossed his cards in the muck. The floor came over and ruled that he can fold without paying the bet that he "called". He reasoning was that for two inconsistent actions, even though verbal bets are binding, the lesser action prevails in most cases. He also said the lesser action usually injures that other players in the hand the least. This was at Turning Stone 3/6 cash limit game.

Re: Give your ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I do think WE1 is a douchebag if the player really is that inexperienced.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
SB is much less experienced, almost no b&m poker room background, but has been learning some of the simple cardroom nuances and strategies. SB has been playing in the group for almost 2 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think SB is that inexperienced. If he's been playing in this group for almost 2 years he should have a better understanding of the rules.