Are these words binding?

[billyb]

At Planet Hollywood im vegas Verbal Declarations are binding. even out of turn.

that was in the 3/6 limit.

[Fish R Friends]

[ QUOTE ]
At Planet Hollywood im vegas Verbal Declarations are binding. even out of turn.

that was in the 3/6 limit.

[/ QUOTE ]Isn't this different? Your verbal declarations out of turn can influence other player's action more significantly in limit hold'em.

[Fish R Friends]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who say this isn't binding, what about if the player had just said "call" before the raiser put in the full amount of the raise? Clearly this is a verbally binding call, yes?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not in my book. You cannot call a bet that hasn't been made. You cannot commit yourself (at least not by accident) to calling any amount an opponent chooses to put in. ... I'd still consider it a threat, not a binding promise. It isn't his turn. He cannot pre-commit himself to a wager of unknown size.

[/ QUOTE ]

The opposite is true as well, "I'll put you all in." is not considered a bet in our local card room. They've focused on it lately due to angle-shooting. You must state the amount you intend to bet or raise.

As has been previously stated, what the player is doing in the OP can be considered angle shooting. It might be somewhat slimmy but, it is not binding in NLHE.

[pfapfap]

In limit there's no question as to what the bet will be, so it can be binding. Where I play, it's binding if a player asks for it to be, otherwise the dealers let it slide if the person changes his/her mind (this is for check or bet/raise, not fold, which is mucked immediately). If the status of the bet changes by the time it gets to the person, however, it's not binding.

It's only really a problem at lower limits, and nobody there really knows what they're doing anyway, so it doesn't influence much.

[Fish R Friends]

[ QUOTE ]
It's only really a problem at lower limits, and nobody there really knows what they're doing anyway, so it doesn't influence much.

[/ QUOTE ]That is most certainly true. At the higher limits, I always presume angle unless otherwise obviously hammered.

[Wyman]

Then, what about

"Whatever you bet I'm gonna call or raise"
"I'm not folding no matter what you bet"

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
Then, what about

"Whatever you bet I'm gonna call or raise"
"I'm not folding no matter what you bet"

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is, are you asking from a bettor's viewpoint, wondering how much to bet, assuming the other guy might be required to call, or from an angle shooter's viewpoint, wondering how much BS you can get away with and not have to call anything?

[DeuceKicker]

Maybe semantics, but binding or no (I vote no) is this really an angle shot?

An angle is something bordering on illegal, and most likely unethical, that takes unfair advantage of some unsuspecting or trusting guy. Saying, "I'm calling no matter what" seems like gamesmanship/bluffing/whatever, but not unethical.

[LasVegasMichael]

Depends on the room.

Usually, if a bet is made/announced out of turn, it is only not binding if more significant action occurs prior to said players actual turn.

However, some rooms take it a bit further.

For example, at TI the other night, a guy said, out of turn to another player who was about to act,: "If you raise, I'm going all in".

At TI, this is binding, UNLESS more significant action occurs in front of the verbally declaring player.

If applied to the above situation in the OP, it would indeed be binding, regardless of the amount of the raise, unless more significant action occurs after the raise.

[Deorum]

Others have pretty much covered everything, but I'll just reiterate because the answer really is very clear cut, and deserves all the reinforcement it can get.

The ruling depends on the room, but it should not. If the amount of the raise has not yet been stated, then the action is still on the player making the raise. Hence, the verbal announcement is not in turn. Some cardrooms have rules which state that "out of turn verbal declaration is binding" which is a ridiculous rule. These cardrooms are trying to eliminate angles which are not there, and by doing so are creating new angles. Sure a guy could influence action by stating something out of turn. But it reveals more information if the declaration is binding than if it is not. The bettor does not have to believe him, and can act normally if there is no such rule in place. If there is such a rule in place, then he has to take it into consideration, and that may quite possibly influence the way the hand is played significantly.

In general, it is a bad idea to create new rules to stop potential angles, especially if those angles are rarely shot. If you think somebody is shooting angles in your cardroom, kick them out. But do not create new rules to try to correct them, as what you usually wind up doing is to simply create new ones.

The example about it being binding in limit is not the same when the anouncer acts directly after the bettor, as in limit when somebody says "bet" or "raise" the action is no longer pending, it is immediately passed to the next person because there is only one amount that the bettor can bet.