How much is the raise?

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I'll put him all in" cannot possibly be misconstrued to "I'm all in".

[/ QUOTE ]
How about this situation I had come up. Player 1 says "I put him all in" Player 2 immediately announces that he calls and pushes his whole stack in. Player 1 starts protesting that he didn't mean he put player 2 all in, he meant he put player 3 all in.obviously you understand that player 3 had a smaller stack than player 2.

Stop saying "I put him all-in" you can't put him all-in, only he can put himself all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]
The bet was ambiguous. When an ambiguous bet is made, if you don't want to let the guy making the wager clarify then the default is that it becomes the smallest possible wager given the ambiguity, not the largest.

I've never seen someone say "I'll put him all in" and refer to one of several players yet to act. But yeah, I'm sure that happens, and yeah, that becomes ambiguous barring any obvious specification of which player he's referring to. 19 times out of 20, though, there's no doubt what was intended.

I agree, coming up with a specific amount to wager would avoid these issues and most of the time wouldn't slow the game much. But when there are 14 full stack and 3 partial stacks with a couple oversize chips in front of one player and two stacks of oversize chips in front of another who obviously covers, letting the big stack place the wager as "I'll put him all in" will save everyone a lot of time.

[JJT]

[ QUOTE ]
KITN ? what is that?

[/ QUOTE ]
"Kick in the nads." Or nuts.

[JJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Stop saying "I put him all-in" you can't put him all-in, only he can put himself all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is one thing that really bothers me. But I'll say, "You can't put me all in, only I can do that. You raise, I call, re-raise, or fold." And usually, 'cause I'm a woman, fold out of spite. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[psandman]

why should the bet become the smallest stack.hy should the player who caused the problem be the one to benefit.e definately benefits here since he gets the free knowledge that Player 2 would have put all his chips in here.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
why should the bet become the smallest stack.hy should the player who caused the problem be the one to benefit.e definately benefits here since he gets the free knowledge that Player 2 would have put all his chips in here.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's player 2's fault for speaking up. Player 2 should have simply asked "how much is it?" and not tried to force it to be the one possibility most in his favor. And for all we know, player 2 knows the wager will actually be the smaller of the two and is running his own angle to try to convince the original raiser that he holds something huge.

My theory on the smaller of the two is just a theory. But it's based on the oversize chip rule logic. You throw out a wager without saying something that could be construed to be either a raise or a call, and it's always a call. But I don't recall ever seeing in print anything that says an ambiguous wager is always decided to be the smallest choice--'fraid I did kinda make that one up on the fly. But there is precedent.