\"I\'m all in for $700(He actually has $1500)
 

"I call."
Mayhem insues.


What's the ruling?

Re: \"I\'m all in for $700(He actually has $1500)
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I call."
Mayhem insues.


What's the ruling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know at the California Casinos, if you had him covered and he stated "all-in", he's all-in regardless of his ability to count.

Re: \"I\'m all in for $700(He actually has $1500)
 

That's what was ruled here too, it felt dirty to me though.

Re: \"I\'m all in for $700(He actually has $1500)
 

yea, he's an idiot. He is definitely all in for what he has in front of him. "All in" has only one option, and that's for all his chips, despite what he thinks he has.

Re: \"I\'m all in for $700(He actually has $1500)
 

LOL at guy not knowing how much money he has infront of him.

Re: \"I\'m all in for $700(He actually has $1500)
 

he probably knew how much he had but just meant to bet 700. he should have learned his lesson about saying the words "all in" at the 1/2 table. it's much cheaper.

Re: \"I\'m all in for $700(He actually has $1500)
 

Pretty sure the rule is that the player has to go all in for all his $ and the guy that calls can reconsider now that he knows how much he went all in for. This is because the amount he is calling is actually much higher than what he thought he was calling.

Re: \"I\'m all in for $700(He actually has $1500)
 

Just ask the dealer "How much is he in for".

If you don't like the answer, call the floor.

Re: \"I\'m all in for $700(He actually has $1500)
 

pretty sure he is the dealer

Re: \"I\'m all in for $700(He actually has $1500)
 

Well there are some that will shoot this angle to get someone to call a bigger bet than they would have. But before anyone says "I call" they better make sure they know the exact amount. Both players acted poorly. But unfortunately the statements of "all in" and "I call" are the only two statements that matter and are binding.