How should the Poker Room have handled this:

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
says the exact words "I have to call"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a call, and it's binding.

[ QUOTE ]
Make them put the chips over the line. This makes any doubt disappear, and makes enforcement far simpler

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this either. What if a player announces call, but when you instruct him to push his chips forward, he refuses and decides he doesn't want to call after all? Worse, the betting player is forced to expose his hand first, and what, now he has to figure out if an obvious call is really a call and see the chips come forward?

At some point players have to learn that verbal action is binding, and the best way to prevent misunderstandings is to avoid making ambigious declarations in the first place. Why put that onus on other players, dealers, and floors in the first place?

[Ruprecht]

I can imagine that some internet players may actually think out loud at home, and perhaps that habit caused the problem in this case.
But thinking out loud is probably more of a TV phenomenon. Players seem to think that it is somehow appropriate. If cardrooms begin to use the "He was just thinking out loud" ruling, there is no end to the stunts that we will see in poker.
This player took a shot, and was rewarded for the shot by the cardroom floorperson.
1. The player made a statement that could easily and readily be interpreted by his opponent to be a call.
2. Since the statement was made in turn, greater burden must be placed on the person making the statement. A statement or action in turn has almost always been regarded as commitment to that act in poker. It is a key element of the rules-making process in poker rooms.
3. The bettor has not done anything out of line. There is no indication of the bettor doing anything to mislead or confuse the opponent, or to cause the opponent to mistakenly say or do anything.

The floorperson erred in this ruling, on 2 key points-- no advantage should be given to a shot-taker, and the original bettor has not violated any ethics of poker by assuming that he had been called. He may not have gotten the clarification many of us would have asked for, but he was not unethical.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
PROTECT YOUR HAND, GOL-DANGIT!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry Pfapfap, but I don't agree and I get a bit peeved when people keep bringing the old "protect your hand" argument out for everything. When someone makes a verbal action and tables his cards to show intent what do you expect the other player to do? If he asks "was that a call" he's giving the other player an option to change his call and fold. Maybe if this were a beginners game and everyone was new but at a typical table this shouldn't be allowed and the dealer needs to step up and run the game correctly, as it's also their job to protect the players from an obvious angle shooter like this guy was.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
I can imagine that some internet players may actually think out loud at home, and perhaps that habit caused the problem in this case.
But thinking out loud is a TV phenomenon. Players seem to think that it is somehow appropriate. If cardrooms begin to use the "He was just thinking out loud" ruling, there is no end to the stunts that we will see in poker.
This player took a shot, and was rewarded for the shot by the cardroom floorperson.
1. The player made a statement that could easily and readily be interpreted by his opponent to be a call.
2. Since the statement was made in turn, greater burden must be placed on the person making the statement. A statement or action in turn has almost always been regarded as commitment to that act in poker. It is a key element of the rules-making process in poker rooms.
3. The bettor has not done anything out of line. There is no indication of the bettor doing anything to mislead or confuse the opponent, or to cause the opponent to mistakenly say or do anything.

The floorperson erred in this ruling, on 2 key points-- no advantage should be given to a shot-taker, and the original bettor has not violated any ethics of poker by assuming that he had been called. He may not have gotten the clarification many of us would have asked for, but he was not unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all it is common in cardrooms in Vegas to hear people do this thinking out loud routine.

Second my point is that as a dealer it is usually obvious to me when a player is doing this (yes from time to time a dispute occurs) its gnereally obvious from the tone the player says it in, what other things the player has been uttering, his volume as well as his usual course of play. My point is that none of this comes through in this story and the dealer who was present was in a much better position to make this call than anyone posting here.

[whorasaurus]

The floor ruling was absolutely correct. Of course its an angle shoot, but as long as casinos allow hands to be exposed in a HU situation, this garbage will continue to happen. Villian can talk about calling all day, but until he says "Call." or "I Call," nothing is binding. Remember RULE NUMBER ONE, and next time you find yourself with the nutz, take 2 seconds to remember what happened this hand.

[Cornell Fiji]

This reminds me of a hand that I played and posted about (below) a while back. The post is long but was interesting to me... although that might just be because it involved me.

Cliffs: WPT tournament. I said "I think I have to call" believing that the other player was all in and then realized that the other player had 40k chips behind and I mucked. Another player at the table then tried to get me to put more money in the pot because I said the magic 'call' word. The floor determined that I did not have to call.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This hand took place at the World Poker Tour in Fallsview last week. This is a little bit of a rant and I don't know what I am accomplishing by posting this; if you don't want to read a rant stop reading here.

It was the end of day 1 and I had 65,000 chips and am 1st in chips at my table. The blinds were 300/600 with a 50 chip ante. I had recently been moved to my table.

I open for 1,800 with A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] in MP2 and the cut off throws in a 5k chip raise. The CO has his arms covering his chip stack and it appears that he has made an all in raise. The action folds back to me and I try to calculate if I have the pot odds to call his all in bet. Trying to get a read on him I say something along the lines of "I might have to make a really loose call here because you are all in... I have a real junk hand but I might be pot committed to a call... I think I might have to call..." At which time I see that he has about 40k behind and I turbomuck my hand.

The dealer pushes the pot to the CO and this is when the fun began. The ten seat pipes up and says "He said "call" he owes 5k more." and the dealer (who is clearly a new dealer and is a passive asian guy) looks to me wanting me to throw in 5k more.

I immediately call the floor over. The ten seat is the first person to speak up and says "he said call and then threw his cards in, he owes 5k more" and I defend myself saying that I had only said "I think that I might have to make a loose call, and in no way does that constitute a call"

The floor leans over to the dealer to ask if I had said "call" and the dealer indicates that I had. [censored].

At this point I start vehimantly arguing my case. I say that I had only said "I think I might have to make a loose call, I only said this because I thought that the raiser was all in and when I saw he had more chips I quickly threw my hand away... 'I think I might have to call' certaintly does not constitute a call"

4 more floormen arrive on the scene.

I continue to argue my case and I see that the one seat has tourettes or a nerve disorder of some sort and is nodding as I am talking. (The one seat played a lot like a 2p2er and if you are reading this I had a good time playing with you) I know that he is not agreeing with me but I decide that I need all of the help that I can get here and I tell the floor "look, the one seat agrees that I did not call, everyone knew that I did not call, lets shuffle up and deal the next hand"

The ten seat says "he said I call, he never said I think I might have to call"

Eventually the floormen confer and decide that I do not owe the chips.

At this time, since I have won my argument, I go off on the cut off. I tell him exactly what I think of him "you are a a dirty player, you are a worthless human being to try to steal chips like this and you have no honor etc." No profanity used as I couldn't afford to miss any hands.

The floors tell me to let it go and I do not want to risk time in the penalty box so I stop arguing.

At the end of the night the one seat calls me over and tells me that he had been at that table all day and was pretty sure that the ten seat, the cut off, and another player had been playing as a team: raising people off of pots, checking down big hands etc. and had been acting shady all night.

At least I got to keep my 5k in chips... there was certaintly a time that if I did not argue my case that the money was going into the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Ruprecht]

I would want to rely on the dealer for rulings. It is not the dealer's role to interpret. The dealer's role is to explain to the floorperson precisely what happened, and leave opinion and commentary out of it.
It is the job of the competent floorperson to make any judgement call necessary.
Also, when you say "of course it is an angle shoot", how can you possibly defend the decision ? Ruling in favor of an angle-shooter can never be correct.

[rjoefish]

I think the difference here is that he said it then tabled his hand. The two actions, put together, lead me to believe that any reasonable person would accept that as a call, whether it be verbal or physical. With this kind of precident you can just do this every hand and while people will catch on to how [censored] lame you are the new people at the table will most likely fall for this every time. I would hope the casino would put a stop to this type of play at the start but they did not say a word to the guy, even after my friend complained that if it wasn't a call it was an illegal move to table his hand without calling.

[UbinTook]

This was absolutley a call and the floor should have forced the player to place the chips in the pot. This was an angle, period.
If the player had stated "I should call" it would be another story.

When i deal any game, if a player wants to contend for a pot, he MUST place something in the pot to visibly indicate that he is indeed calling.
Player: "i call", or "i bet"
Me: Time, Sir, you must place chips in the pot before the cards are shown (or something similar).
It is something that i am concious of at all times, because it happens so often( verbal declaration with no movement of chips).
This isnt TV, you must put the chips in to showdown. They are'nt that heavy.

Others are correct, even thought the OP got shouldnt have gotten screwed out of these chips, he could have saved himself the aggravation by just waiting until the pot was correct before showing his hand.

[Ruprecht]

[ QUOTE ]
This was absolutley a call and the floor should have forced the player to place the chips in the pot. This was an angle, period.
If the player had stated "I should call" it would be another story.

When i deal any game, if a player wants to contend for a pot, he MUST place something in the pot to visibly indicate that he is indeed calling.
Player: "i call", or "i bet"
Me: Time, Sir, you must place chips in the pot before the cards are shown (or something similar).
It is something that i am concious of at all times, because it happens so often( verbal declaration with no movement of chips).
This isnt TV, you must put the chips in to showdown. They are'nt that heavy.

Others are correct, even thought the OP got shouldnt have gotten screwed out of these chips, he could have saved himself the aggravation by just waiting until the pot was correct before showing his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately for poker, there are far too few dealers like you. So many dealers have no idea how to prevent the problems from occurring.