[Lottery Larry]

RULING I ruled it was obvious that he intended to go all-in and just stumbled (this was before the action continued, I didn't know his hand at that point).

Part of my ruling at the time (I was E2, btw) was because:

a) I'm generally loathe to rule against short-stacked players in questionable situations.

b) It wasn't a clear "Call...(delay)... (change mind)" situation (and others, later on in the evening, thought that SB hadn't clearly/fully said call).

RESULTS The WE1 eventually folded, I easily called with nines and the SB turned over AQ. When the King-high flop hit, WE1 stormed away in disgust (claimied he had a King- must have been King-suited, or he was making a move) and my hand held up.




I felt okay with my decision at the time, even though I benefitted from the result, but I had second thoughts the next day due to the following:

a) I was friends with both players, I've just played with SB for a lot longer in a different home game. That's why I added that description, to see if it would affect anyone's decision.

b) WE1 is a founding member of my game, so I wasn't happy about having to rule against him. It didn't leave him in a great chip position, where getting the "free" flop look probably would have propelled him into the money.

c) We have a "verbal action out of turn is binding" rule in place, that I'm currently in the process of changing (based on discussions here on 2+2), so there was a precedent for verbal action being binding.

d) I was involved in the hand and obviously would benefit from having dead chips and fewer opponents.

e) I don't like making rulings in hands that I'm involved in, due to risk of bias (or that perception). There wasn't anyone else at the table that I felt would be able/willing to accept the responsibility for that decision.... and I didn't want to impose upon anyone at the time to take that responsibility.