A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling

[jsmith5]

2 things happen in this hand:

1. Player 1 bets more chips than he holds in his hand
At least once a round in this game you see people who think they have 180 but only have 140 verbally declare 180 as they start cutting their chips for a preflop raise. No one ever says anything about this. How is 180 different than them saying 500? It's not. Verbal is binding as long as their bet is still in progress. So 2000 on the river is perfectly OK.

2. Another player calls out of turn
If he pushed 400 chips to the middle before the other player was done betting, then he would have the option of calling the additional 1600 or letting go of the 400. Because he verbally declared "call" he is held to any amount. Player 2 is OBVIOUSLY shooting an angle by trying to make Player 1 bet less. Player 1 is merely using the rules to his advantage. It sucks for Player 2, but if you are going to play the biggest regular NL game in Vegas, you better know the rules.

[DesertCat]

[ 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 ]

He probably walks since the action was so unclear. At my local B&M, two guys exchanged verbal raises and reraises without moving chips. One guy flips over the nuts, the other says I never called, racks up, and leaves. Casino had winner (really the loser) fill out a police report, but wouldn't compensate him. Now if the police run into the cheater, how are they going to be able to prosecute? Tape has no audio. Even if a couple witnesses back up the winner, cheater can claim he was misheard, that he said "I can't call" or something similar.

This is why it's important to maintain proper betting action. Move the chips forward so the camera can see.

[EWillers]

[ 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 ]

It seems that the current status is that most casinos would not forcibly take the money from a fleeing player.

There are some good point made by those who seem to know in this thread. . .
2+2

[52s]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 < 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most places do the single motion these days. I think it is quite possible that this game was big enough to still be played the "old way." I was also looking at this following up post by the OP

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a line on the table, and as mentioned by Tx, often players grab less chips than they intended to bet and verbal their bet when they have their hand over the line putting out their bet.

The rule of thumb in this game is basically that as long as the player is in the betting process and has yet to pull back his hand he can add to the bet, but 99.9999% of the time the player verbalizes before going back for the rest of the chips/cash.


[ QUOTE ]
it's not a string raise unless his motion is stopped.

i.e., if he finishes cutting the chips then announces "two thousand", that's a string bet.

but as long as his hand is in motion cutting the chips and he's yet to make a verbal delcaration he can still verbally declare his bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

This sure sounded like they play this game by the traditional rules, but perhaps someone that plays in that game could chime in.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
Bav or OP: How much should player 1 have to put in the pot if player 2 had said "all in", rather than "call?"

[/ QUOTE ]
What would he be committed to if he himself just changed his mind at that point in the wager without anybody saying anything? If I reach out with a stack of chips, start cutting 'em out in the betting area, and then say "oh wait, I think I'll check" I ain't gettin' away with it. So that would be how much he's committed to. I honestly ain't sure what that number should be.

I'd like to hear RR's thoughts on it. But I'm leaning toward making the bettor leave $200 minimum. That's apparently how much was on the felt out in the betting area. OP said he was in the processing of cutting the third stack when "call" was spoken, so the third stack wasn't complete. I don't see how any reasonable person could claim after he's cut out two stacks of $100 and started on a third that the original bettor was intending to trim all the stacks to 3 chips or 2 chips and only actually bet $100. Again, I wouldn't throw a fit if you wanted to insist he'd started on the third stack so should leaving SOMETHING, but you can't know that he wasn't going to make that his final stack and trim it to $25 or $50. So fine, $225 if you want.

[52s]

re: hypothetical all-in

The first two stacks of $100 were physically out of Player 1's hand so those would have to stay in along with however much of the third stack had been let go in the process of betting.

Another goofy thing about this game is that quite often players will break down their bets into $100, $100, $100, and then drop $40 or $60 at the end. So it can't be presumed that, in this hypothetical, the entire $400 was gonna be bet either.

[rafiki]

Sounds to me like player 2 got off easy. Anyone who flashes 1K and says "kings" deserves worse...

[LiveInPeace]

Very similar thing happened to me in player 1's shoes, except I was bluffing. I move my hand forward with a stack full of chips intending to bet, not yet putting any in the middle, player 2 calls out of turn so then I tap the table and say check. It's not an angle shoot. It's legitimately changing mind given the new information. I don't think the original intention to bet needs to remain the same until the action is properly completed. I think if player 2 acts out of turn player 1 should be permitted to make any action that would still be allowed had player 2 not acted out of turn. Clearly the $2000 bet would have been allowed had the guy not acted out of turn in this case, at least in my casino it would have. The bettor's options should not be restricted by someone else's action out of turn. So I think it's the right ruling absolutely.

[bav]

[ 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. It's why if you miss a raise and put out $5 to limp pre-flop in NL2/5 after it's raised to $40 you aren't committed. And most rooms I play in do not commit you to leave the $5 out if you try to call not having seen that it was raised, though some do (this topic has been discussed several times here and I agree with RR's basic thought that it's either a full bet or it isn't, and making someone leave a partial bet out there is a cop-out). And it's why out of turn action isn't supposed to be binding if the action changes prior to it getting to you.

If I say "call" out of turn after player 1 wagers $20, and then player 2 says "all-in", there is no room on the planet (I await the inevitable reply that says "yes there is") that will force me to call the all-in. This case isn't all that different.

You people advocating the $2000 is ok would REALLY be ok with this if the player hadn't been an angle shooting scumbag and the exchange had been a verbal "I'm gonna bet something" followed instantly by "call" (perhaps because the guy usually plays limit and just had a brain-fart 'cause he was in a NL game)? You really believe at that point the guy who said "call" just wrote a blank check? Seriously?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what we're saying here is that we're going to allow this angle

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the angle?

$460 pot.
Player 1 grabs $400 and is cutting the chips off in the betting area.
On the third $100 stack.
Player 2 says "I call"

What is Player 2 trying to do?

[/ QUOTE ]


I thought it was obvious that Player 2 MAY be trying to call for as little as possible.
He sees the guy sort of pause and decides to jump on that situation.

Other player could realize that player 2 might do this so he slows down a little bit to try to induce a call while he was still technically in the act of betting.

Both players are scumbags. I mostly agree with bav on all of this and am really surprised so many thought the floor-decision was the least-bit appropriate.

It's obvious he wasn't going to really bet $2k. I think perhaps he should have the option to bet roughly $400 or so since that appeared to be the amount in his hand and I don't think he had an option to go back to his stack at that point since he hadn't said anything and had started his betting motion.