A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling

[Torello]

[ QUOTE ]
"A very interesting <u>ethics</u> situation"

Wonder how many here would do what Player 1 did (change his bet to $2000 when he intended to bet only $400).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the ruling should be he is required to only call $400.

However If I was player 1 I would have no problem calling out $2000 if and only if I thought my opponent was a douchebag angleshooter who deserved it, and in this case it appears that he was. If the floor ruled correctly that I only get $400, then I wouldn't complain, but if I get the $2000 then no problem either.... eye for an eye.

If it was someone that I had no reason to believe was a scumbag (98% of the time) then I'd just finish the $400.

[Percula]

So did this happen Friday night?

One the Wynn regulars showed up about 11'ish all pissed about something that happened at the B, but wouldn't go into details. If it was the same person, he was angle shooting and tried it again in the 5/10 at the Wynn Friday night.

It turned out a little different though, as my response was "Really?!? you call? So does that mean you call anything I decide to bet here since I haven't acted yet?" He STFU and left after donating his short stack...

[billybeartku]

I like the rule and screw player # 2. Who's that guy anyway? I play at Wynn quite a lot tho. And care to tell us what happened in the end? Did player 2 pay player 1 2k?

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In that hand you describe, no action has taken place to alter the bet, so it stands (If someone bet $20, does the out of turn guy who bet $10 still bet $10? No.)

So, according to how you view the rules, if two guys are playing a game with no cap (let's say 2/5 NL) and the pot's $50. Guy B says "call" OOT by accident, can Guy A now say "I'm all-in for $10000"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No you arent getting it, if Player A bets 10 and Player C acts OOT by calling 10, but Player B raises to 20, Player C can fold, or call the 20, BUT he may not raise to 30. This is a rule to keep Players A and C from colluding against Player B. And Yes he gets his 10 back.




In your senerio you arent being specific, and maybe i wasnt either. But if Player A is betting where there are no betting lines and you can "cut chips into the pot", as long as there is no string bet, Player B has to call what Player A bets if he says "call" during the betting motion but no amount is determined. I'll agree its a sticky situation and calls like this will differ from casino to casino, and even Shift to shift at the same casino. Its up to the floor.

If I were flooring I would probably make the Player call what was in the betters hand, but that is not what the rules are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Responding to the bold:
I disagree, but I could go either way on it.
I agree B would have to pay some/all of what A is cutting if there's no line, but not any of the stacks left behind.
I agree.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


If a player acts out of turn, his action must stand.



[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree. From Robert's rules of Poker:

[ QUOTE ]
An action or verbal declaration out of turn may be ruled binding if there is no bet, call, or raise by an intervening player acting after the infraction has been committed.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Intervening player meaning in a multiway situation. Just 2 players and that rule is in full effect otherwise someone could simply announce any action and never be held to it.

[Rottersod]

BTW TXRedMan, you wrote "player 2 tried to angleshoot me to a certain extent" in that first hand where he declared kings but you wisely made him show both cards. What he did was not an angleshoot, it was an outright illegal poker act since he called out a false hand with the intention of getting you to muck the better hand (he did put you on the J).

[vmacosta]

sorry if this has been mentioned already, but how is Player 2 shooting an angle by saying call prematurely?

All that does is assure him that he will win the minimum when his opponent is bluffing. It also allows him to lose the maximum when he is behind. If it was an angle it surely wasn't one that gave him an edge.

I think the correct ruling should be that Player 1 has the option of either leaving the amount that was already cut out on the table or putting in the rest of the chips that were in his hand (so it sounds like he can either bet $250 or $400).

All in all, I think it's pretty stupid how NL players can mess around with the chips forever nad do all kinds of stuff to try and get "tells" from their opponents. It takes forever and is really irritating. When you bet you should just state the amount you are betting and then count out the chips.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the correct ruling should be that Player 1 has the option of either leaving the amount that was already cut out on the table or putting in the rest of the chips that were in his hand (so it sounds like he can either bet $250 or $400).


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea if they still use the traditional rule there, but traditionally he can continue putting hcips in until his hands come to rest outside the bettting area.

[vmacosta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the correct ruling should be that Player 1 has the option of either leaving the amount that was already cut out on the table or putting in the rest of the chips that were in his hand (so it sounds like he can either bet $250 or $400).


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea if they still use the traditional rule there, but traditionally he can continue putting hcips in until his hands come to rest outside the bettting area.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are you saying? It sounds like the guy had $400 in chips in his hand and had cut out ~$200-300 by the time Player 2 had said call. How much should he be able to bet? Does he have a choice? Is the call binding?

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea if they still use the traditional rule there, but traditionally he can continue putting hcips in until his hands come to rest outside the bettting area.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always thought of this rule as typifying the "old ways". Every house where i've played NL in the past 4 years or so has adopted the "one motion or verbal" rule where bets or raises must be done with one motion or the amount must be announced prior to the actor's hand coming off the chips in his initial motion.

I imagine the traditional rule worked because (at least in cash games) there were prolly like &lt; 1000 people or so walkin' the planet who played NL more than 10 years ago.

I mean think about it. I announce "raise", I put out a stack. I then start twiddling my thumbs. After about 10 seconds the player to my left calls. I look over at him still twiddling my thumbs and say "sup bro, why are you actin' outta turn?"

I'm sure that back in the day everybody knew the rule and it wasn't an issue. But if you were to apply it to today's NL world I think you would get some great stories.