NL Ruling Please

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but you see, the pedantists(*) insist you cannot put someone else all-in, you can only put yourself all-in. So in this case you have to ask for the stacks to be counted to the dollar so you can wager exactly the correct amount.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't have a problem with a player saying "I bet as many chips as Player X has" which would eliminate the need for a count request. But I think its incumbent upon the better to make his intentions as clear as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is your complaint simply you don't like the phrase "I'll put player X all-in" and you'd be a-ok with exactly the same situation unfolding long as the guy said "I bet as many chips as player X has"?

Or is it that you want the other player to specify exactly which player he has in mind matching stacks with and you object to the use of "him"? In which case, sure, that's important.

Usually when I see someone say "I'll put him all-in" it's heads-up, and yeah, that's a pointless and silly thing to say at that stage. Just say "I'm all-in" and we don't have to fret the phrasing. But let's not pause the game to lecture the player as to how he can't put someone else all-in.

But when it's 3-way or 4-way and someone says "I'll put him all-in" they generally point or in some way make it clear they're referring to the shortstack who just bet $40 of his $85 stack. And when they don't the dealer should pause things and demand clarification; the next player to act doesn't get to unilaterally decide which player the raiser was referring to.

Getting hot and lathered over "you can only put yourself all-in" is like getting upset because W says "nukular". You don't have to use the term yourself, but trying to make the world conform to Webster is a hopeless windmill tilting endeavor.

[GreedIsGood]

Naw, you didn't yell out 'Time!' when the dealer burned for the turn, so you're stuck with the board. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

To the OP, you don't get the $15 dollars. Yes, the dealer could have pulled it in, but you also could have said "I raise all in on the turn if he has anything left." You also could have stopped the dealer while he was dealing outthe turn/river. And, of course, it works both ways. If the other player had won, he'd have only got the $140 from you.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
But when it's 3-way or 4-way and someone says "I'll put him all-in" they generally point or in some way make it clear they're referring to the shortstack who just bet $40 of his $85 stack. And when they don't the dealer should pause things and demand clarification; the next player to act doesn't get to unilaterally decide which player the raiser was referring to.


[/ QUOTE ]

The only isssue I have with this (a very small one) if it is a 3-way unless the person he is "putting all-in" an an obvious amount of chips the bettor is not entitled to a count, only a view. He needs to bet an amount as he cannot bet "whatever he has" if he lacks the ability to figure out how much the other guy has (heads up it makes no difference at all because "putting him all-in" is the same as "all-in").

[liquid]

[ QUOTE ]
(*) Yes, it seems I just made up this word. What's the noun form of pedantic? This obviously SHOULD be a word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a pedanticisterist myself, the noun form of pedantic is... wait for it...

pedant.

[psandman]

Its both things. One when its not heads up if you are going to bet this way its incumbent on you to be clear whose stack you are referring to. I have no problem with you pointing as long as its obvious (but for some reason many players don't like to act in clear and obvious ways - as evidenced by the number of players who like to check by making the slighest motion possible).

As for the phrase. You are correct its nothing to get hot and lathered over, but it is still wrong. Its not lik pretend that i don't understand when someone says this, but its still a stupid phrase and I think its fine to come on to the internet and say --YOU SHOULD NOT SAY THIS BECAUSE IT IS STUPID. But no, I won't get into an argument with you at the table over this, because there is no value to it.

[bav]

Gotta figure out how to figure out quicker we're in frantic agreement.