A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling

[iron81]

My understanding of the general rules is:

1. Chips cut into the pot represent a bet. A bet has been made at the instant the chips are cut.
2. Action out of turn is not binding.
3. Barring a forward motion rule (which the Bellagio does not have), chips in your hand which you do not release do not represent a bet.

Seems to me the best ruling is: Player 2 is obligated to call what Player 1 had already cut into the pot ($200) because that was clearly his intention. However, Player 1 should not be deprived of making whatever bet he wants because he was not done acting. Therefore, Player 1 may increase his bet size to whatever he wants, which Player 2 is not obligated to call.

Similarly if Player 2 had said "all-in": Player 1 had already released $200 into the pot, he bet that and should be stuck with it. The AI stands and Player 1 may fold or call with the $200 in the pot. I like it this way because the shot taking Player 2 gives Player 1 an advantage if Player 1 is bluffing, but Player 1 clearly meant to bet at least $200.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Verbal is binding as long as their bet is still in progress.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see that rule in writing.

I believe it is a basic part of NL poker that to commit to a wager you are required to know how much it is. It's why hidden large chips don't play.

[/ QUOTE ]

What casino doesn't allow "hidden" large chips to not play? If a player moves all in and has a 5k chip mixed in with the others, it's the opponents responsibility to get a count/know how much the other player has. I've never been in a game where everything on the table wasn't in play, whether it was "hidden" or not.

[/ QUOTE ]


If I declare all-in without pushing in my chips and I have the black chips hiding behind them.

Or I carefully push out 3 stacks of red to make it look like $300 but I have 6 black-chips purposefully hiding in the back where he couldn't see them then obviously this is an inappropriate angle-shoot.

I really don't consider myself to be very knowledgeable on poker-rules at all. But some of the ideas being tossed around by some who actually seem to think they are knowledgeable really blow me away.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never been in a game where everything on the table wasn't in play, whether it was "hidden" or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words you have never played live NL in a room that actually has $5k chips.

[iron81]

Addendum: I would rule the way I had done if Player 1 hadn't announced his bet yet. However, in the given hand, he did. I'm lost here whether Player 1 is obligated to bet $2k or if he has the option to make a different bet once the floor is called over and ruled that Player 2 has called $200 but that Player 1 may continue betting.

[grdred944]

[ QUOTE ]
P2 should have to call at max what P1 is fiddling with (If P1 has $1200 in front of him and $800 in stacks back with hs chips, only $1200) but I can see a pot sized bet being payed as a decent answer and last bet made on flop/turn a good alt

[/ QUOTE ]

My take on this is that P2 has the responsibility of not acting out of turn and if P1 has not bet and then completes his bet (albeit a more than probable angleshoot to put in 2K)P2 should have known better and is stuck with the burden of calling, raising, or folding.

However, if P1 has not pushed chips forward and is merely cutting them out you cannot tell him he has to bet only the amount he is currently cutting behind his cards. If he had them forward, didn't announce prior to pushing them out and then reached back it would obviously be a string and this issue would be moot. But to regulate P1's bet based on action behind his cards is way worse than holding P2 accountable for his verbal declaration.

[MicroBob]

But if you do it that way then doesn't that open the door for player 1 to kind of hesitate and/or hold his hand there to make it kind of look like he's finished while he's really just reserving the right to push all-in if he can induce a call?

Lots of players, especially n00bs, innocently and/or ignorantly jump-the-gun when saying "call" and allowing the guy to bet whatever he wants at this point would just lead angle-shooters trying to bet as slowly as possible to try to get to this kind of opportunity.

So in the original post it seems likely that the guy who said "call" was potentially angle-shooting himself and trying to keep the bet-size as low as possible for his call.

But it's kind of difficult to distinguish between a guy who is trying to do this and some n00b who simply says call too soon and doesn't realize the betting-action hasn't finished yet.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
Player 2 is obligated to call what Player 1 had already cut into the pot ($200) because that was clearly his intention. However, Player 1 should not be deprived of making whatever bet he wants because he was not done acting. Therefore, Player 1 may increase his bet size to whatever he wants, which Player 2 is not obligated to call.

Similarly if Player 2 had said "all-in": Player 1 had already released $200 into the pot, he bet that and should be stuck with it. The AI stands and Player 1 may fold or call with the $200 in the pot. I like it this way because the shot taking Player 2 gives Player 1 an advantage if Player 1 is bluffing, but Player 1 clearly meant to bet at least $200.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you. That's a concise way of saying what I've been too long-winded sputtering on about.

[andyfox]

According to OP, player 1 wasn't going to bet $2,000, he only decided to bet that much when player 2 prematurely said "call."

Yet another reason to not like no limit.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

Player 2 is obligated to call what Player 1 had already cut into the pot ($200) because that was clearly his intention. However, Player 1 should not be deprived of making whatever bet he wants because he was not done acting. Therefore, Player 1 may increase his bet size to whatever he wants, which Player 2 is not obligated to call.

[/ QUOTE ]


So if I only want to call as little as possible then all I have to do is say, "I call" while he's still cutting his chips? If he's especially slow at cutting his chips when he is betting then I can essentially only have to call $25 or something every time my opponent is intending to bet $100.

In other words, I don't think this is correct either.

As RR would be likely to point out, a little common-sense here on each individual situation is probably in order.

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I know it's kind of a side issue..but it really interests me..what if someone did bet 10k or something ridiculous and the opponent was ruled as having to pay..and he simply refused to pay and started leaving..?

[/ QUOTE ]


this same thing happened at the wynn and when a player was likely going to bet $800 on the river he announced $8000 when the other player called out of turn and they made him pay it.

i have a friend who has at the bellagio and got involved in an all-in pot where the other player had loaned his buddy next to him $1000 from his stack w/o announcing it to the table and only the dealer knew. (obv his buddy was waiting on chips) So they get it all-in and after my friend calls his all-in and loses the hand the other player tells him he had loaned his friend $1000 while waiting for chips. Floor rules it's in play despite it not being in front of him/no one at the table knowing except the dealer and the two players (sitting right next to eachother). The worst part iirc was that the player shoved his stack in the middle and announced all-in, so all of his chips in front of him were in the middle. Keep in mind that there's $100, $500 and $1,000 chips in this game so it's pretty easy to ship someone $1,000 w/o it being noticed. Floor ruled he had to pay it or be barred for life.

I would imagine that being barred from the poker room = barred from the casino, and depending on the operating company, maybe barred from all properties that company owns.


I want to clarify something in this thread.


Player one paused when player 2 checked the river. He thought for about 5 seconds then grabbed a stack of $20 chips and extended his arm to the middle of the table, crossing the betting line (although there isn't a 'line'), and in a very smooth and fluid motion began cutting the stack into $100 stacks. he didn't do it slowly, he did it at a normal pace, but not at a break-neck pace like an asian female limit hold'em player might cut chips. as soon as he finished cutting the second stack and was in that split second between finishing the second cut and about to begin cutting the third stack when player 2 announces "call". and it wasn't a meek "call". it was a frustrated and fast, louder than ordinary, "CALL". so player 2 called before the third stack had even hit the felt, thus about exactly in the middle of player 1's bet.



-Tex