A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling

[LiveInPeace]

[ 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. 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't think he wrote a blank check, but he made the mistake therefore he should pay for it. I don't think player 1's options ought to be restricted because player 2 acted out of turn. That opens up angleshooting calls out of turn to prevent people putting any more in the middle while the bettor is in the middle of their action.

It's clear to me that player 1 is still permitted to bet $2000. Somewhat less clear is whether player 2 should be required to call the full amount now that the action has apparently changed. But the point is that the action hasn't changed because the action had not been completed. Entirely player 2's mistake and IMO player 1 is entirely justified in taking full advantage of it.

[KenProspero]

Bav:

A question for you. What should a player do when someone tries the 'miscall' trick. Let's eliminate the obvious case where you believe it's an honest mistake. (I confess to once having called a flush only to embarrasingly turn over my cards and find that one of my hearts was actually a diamond).

In this case, Player 2 was obviously trying to cheat.

My initial thought -- I'd call the floor and tell him/her what happened. Depending on how the floor handled it, I'd probably ask for another table (making the not-too-subtle point that I don't want to play with cheaters and angle shooters).

Any thoughts?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]


exactly. That is very close to what happened here although it is possible the "call" guy was trying to shoot his own angle in there.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
What should a player do when someone tries the 'miscall' trick...

My initial thought -- I'd call the floor and tell him/her what happened. Depending on how the floor handled it, I'd probably ask for another table (making the not-too-subtle point that I don't want to play with cheaters and angle shooters).

[/ QUOTE ]
I usually tell him myself and let him know what I think. If I get back ANY lip which might indicate he isn't convinced and intends to try it again, I ask for the floor to come explain things more clearly than I was able. And that way the guy gets his one warning so if he does decide to repeat his performance he can be shown the door. It'd depend on my read of the player whether I wanted to involve the floor--just ain't usually worth it but in the case like was described here where the guy miscalled his hand and actually intentionally showed a single card... nope, that'd piss me off royally and I think I'd just ask the dealer to bring the floor over (while not stopping the game... no need to hold up while we wait).

[MicroBob]

this guy sounds like a real tool from that first hand.
Not only misdeclaring his hand and doing the show-one-card trick...but then actually berating the OP for calling.

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For all those that think the call is not binding - even for the $400 that was in his hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Who thinks that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bav and I think RR agreed with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, not quite. I think the story is a bit fuzzy as to where the chips were as this happened, and that matters enormously. Also depends on the particulars of the room (like betting lines, betting walls, forward motion is binding, yaddayadda).

If the guy has a stack in hand and is cutting them out beside his cards and just thinking and stacking and restacking as people often do, there ain't no bet yet, and saying "call" out of turn at that juncture is meaningless. He is effectively calling 0.

If the guy has gone forward with the chips and is clearly in the process of betting but we're unsure of the amount, it's more entertaining. If the place has a virtual betting line wall (that is, a betting line that they claim acts is an invisible wall that runs up to the ceiling and any chips passing through that wall are committed), then the guy going forward with one full stack has already bet it and he's just stacking it in nice piles. And the guy saying "call" is at that point calling the bet that has already been made by plunging a handful of chips through that wall. That's fine (though I hate betting lines, it'd make this particular decision trivial).

But if this is a normal sorta poker room where you get to go forward with a fistful of chips and cut out in the betting area exactly what you want, and are not considered "done" until you pull your hand back... we're in mid-bet. Ick. The wager is underway but incomplete.

One ruling kinda falls out of the "out of turn action may be binding and will be binding if the action doesn't change" rule... At the point the guy said "call" the wager was $300 and may or may not have been complete. Fine... if the guy doing the betting had stopped, the out of turn action will be binding on the $300 now sitting on the felt. But if he wants to keep adding to the bet, the out of turn action ceases to be binding. I'd be ok with that. Not thrilled, but ok.

And if the guy doing the betting had just gone ahead and plopped down the rest of the $400 in his hand, I'd even be even tempered about the floor deciding it was clear all $400 was going to be wagered and the guy who said "call" musta known that. I won't throw a fit over the floor ruling the bet was clearly intended to be $400 and the guy doing the call is on the hook for $400. IF the guy doing the betting hadn't lost his mind...

The guy doing the betting suddenly blurting out $2000 would seem to make it clear that his bet was *NOT* complete in his own mind, and that our belief that he was intending to bet $400 was wrong. He was only in phase one of a multi-fisted, multi-stage wager that was going to involve counting out stack after stack on the felt (while somehow not being called for string betting). So we're back to no wager having been completed, and so the call ain't binding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously if player 1 is counting chips in front of the betting line/wall the out of turn player isn't bound to the call.

But, if player 1 is in the process of betting and hasn't verbally declared what his bet is or taken his hands off his chips as he is betting than player 2 calls, player 2 is bound to a minimum of what is currently being bet of $400 if not the full $2k (I'm not saying he should be bound to the full 2k, but he should be bound to the amount that atleast was in the hand of the bettor, that's at floor's discretion).

Here's why. Exact same situation, player 1 is betting and is currently cutting out the third stack. Now instead of calling player 2 declares all in out of turn. Obviously player 1 is bound to his bet that has crossed the betting line right?

[jsmith5]

[ 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.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
But, if player 1 is in the process of betting and hasn't verbally declared what his bet is or taken his hands off his chips as he is betting than player 2 calls, player 2 is bound to a minimum of what is currently being bet of $400 if not the full $2k (I'm not saying he should be bound to the full 2k, but he should be bound to the amount that atleast was in the hand of the bettor, that's at floor's discretion).

[/ QUOTE ]
Telling him the bet is $2000 but since you said call midstream you have to forfeit what was in the bettor's hand if you don't want to cough up all $2000 and go to showdown has just split the baby. But it beats what the Bellagio floor actually did.

Seriously, I think the bettor turned into an angle shooter when he blurted out 2000 and accidentally in the process lost his ability to claim the call was binding. I'd be on his side if he'd just finished stacking the $400.

[Yads]

[ QUOTE ]
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...

[/ QUOTE ]

It was Wednesday night. One of the regulars (maybe OP) was telling us this story Thursday afternoon.

[MasterShakeJr]

[ 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 ]

I've seen several instances where someone had 3 or 4 stacks of red, a players has said, "I'll put you all in" and 'poof', 3 black chips appear from behind the red stacks. I've never seen an instance where those "hidden" blacks were in play. I'm sure there are rooms that allow it but the rooms I've played in make in very clear that your highest denomination chips (or cash if it plays) must be in full view, but I suppose "When in doubt, get a count." (Kind of rhymes [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])