"All in?" asked as a question, not a statement - ruling?

[fatshark]

I once was playing and after I open raised, another player 3 bet it. Folded around to me, I say,"It must be a race." as I toss out the extra bet. The dealer made me cap it; I called floor, who backed the decision of the dealer.

It was cheap lesson that you must be carefull what others may percieve what you are saying. In retrospect, I can see the point of the dealer, but that's just me.

[iron81]

I assume everyone would make the call binding if Player A instatabled the nuts?

[GTL]

if i said, "all in?" in a questioning manner and was forced to call i wouldn't be upset. people definately angle and if i was in the hand i wouldn't force the person to call if i didn't think they were angling. people should be careful though, because if you say all in you're at the mercy of the floor.

[PantsOnFire]

Most players say "call" in Player B's position so it is highly likely that this was a question, especially if it sounded like one. From what you describe, I would support Player B if the floor came over.

If the floor ruled the Player B called, then I'd be happy internally that I don't use such ambiguous language as to have a ruling against me at a very bad time.

[SammyG-SD]

I have seen a lot of people use this as an angle. One of the poker rooms I go to in Southern California started the all-in, chips and checks must be a visible motion.

[Sly Selea]

Another situation I have never seen occur at an electronic poker table.

[GreedIsGood]

Anyone who says "All in" or "Call" or "Check" in a no limit or game (or in a pot limit game, adding "Pot" to the list) when it’s their turn to act, gets to have this be their action. I don't care if they say it was a question or not.

Hell, I don't know how it is where the rest of you play, but in Northern California, half the players speak English as a second language, and expecting them to distinguish that the words constitute a question rather than an action is not reasonable.

Verbal actions are binding. If a player is going to say something that can easily be misconstrued as an action, then he has no one to blame, other than himself. If they want to question what the action is, use complete sentences. It’s not like they’re sending a text message here. Adding the words “Did he …” or “Did he say …” in front is not that hard.

[Quadstriker]

If the only word(s) out of your mouth is a valid poker action, i.e. "bet" "call" "all-in" "check" you'd better be prepared for that action to stand no matter what punctuation marks you claim to have been putting behind it.

You can always ask for a ruling, but the floor will back the dealer most times in such a situation.

Here's how it will play out:

Dealer: "Floor to table 19,217!"

*Floor walks over 30 seconds later after ending his very important conversation with the cocktail girl. All the while the dealer is listening to 9 peoples recounts of "he said she said you did this no i didn't i did that"*

*Floorman arrives*
Dealer: On his action this gentleman here *open hand gesture* said "all in". This player here with the action to him then said "All-in."

*About here is when player B cuts in with "I was asking if he said all in! Not moving all in!" Players minorly bicker for 10 seconds about who said and did what again.*

Floorman: "Verbal declarations of action in turn are binding. The words 'All-In' constitute a legal binding poker action.
Player: "But I was asking!"
Floorman: "The chips must to go in the pot. The words 'All-In' constitute a legal binding poker action."
Player: "I was asking if he moved all in!"
Floorman: "The words 'All-In' constitute a legal binding poker action in turn."

*Repeat 14 times. Floorman finally tells players to turn hands up and the dealer to run it out. Dealer does so. Player B of course sucks out on the river and scoops the pot.*

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
If the only word(s) out of your mouth is a valid poker action, i.e. "bet" "call" "all-in" "check" you'd better be prepared for that action to stand no matter what punctuation marks you claim to have been putting behind it.

You can always ask for a ruling, but the floor will back the dealer most times in such a situation.

Here's how it will play out:

Dealer: "Floor to table 19,217!"

*Floor walks over 30 seconds later after ending his very important conversation with the cocktail girl. All the while the dealer is listening to 9 peoples recounts of "he said she said you did this no i didn't i did that"*

*Floorman arrives*
Dealer: On his action this gentleman here *open hand gesture* said "all in". This player here with the action to him then said "All-in."

*About here is when player B cuts in with "I was asking if he said all in! Not moving all in!" Players minorly bicker for 10 seconds about who said and did what again.*

Floorman: "Verbal declarations of action in turn are binding. The words 'All-In' constitute a legal binding poker action.
Player: "But I was asking!"
Floorman: "The chips must to go in the pot. The words 'All-In' constitute a legal binding poker action."
Player: "I was asking if he moved all in!"
Floorman: "The words 'All-In' constitute a legal binding poker action in turn."

*Repeat 14 times. Floorman finally tells players to turn hands up and the dealer to run it out. Dealer does so. Player B of course sucks out on the river and scoops the pot.*


[/ QUOTE ]

It will play out this way with an inexperienced floorman. In the context it is clear that it was a question (see the title). Anytime someone can say "he meant to do x, but has to do Y" something has gone horribly wrong; if everyone at the table can tell a player meant to do X not only can he do X, he must do X.

[goofball]

Just an awful awful ruling. Awful. I'd refuse to call there preferring to get 86d