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

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
"Is the action on me? Did he check or bet?"

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be close to the best option, except for the second sentence. I've asked, "Did you check?" and ended up unwillingly checking. Now I make a habit to ask, "What was the action?" and not mention any particular action until it's the one I've selected.

That said, good floors don't make decisions out of spite or "to teach the player a lesson." I agree that enusing action makes it complicated but that wasn't what the OP was about so I won't bring it up. If it's clear the player asked a question, it's a question, not a verbal declaration.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
best practice for players

"dealer, what was the action in front of me?"



[/ QUOTE ]

Good, good.

[ QUOTE ]

or
"what was the previous player's bet?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not so good, unless you know that the opponent bet and are asking the amount. (In that case, "Bet" could not be reasonably interpreted as an action by you.) Following a check, this utterance could be interpreted as a bet. At least in NL you're only on the hook for one big blind, but you might regret reopening the betting accidentally.

[ QUOTE ]

or
"what did he say?"



[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly good.

[ QUOTE ]

or
"what was his wager?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, probably OK, since I've never heard "Wager" used as a verbal declaration at a poker table even though it's a synonym for bet. No reasonable floor could rule that you'd said, "Wager" as a binding verbal declaration.

[AKQJ10]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor at a game of bridge, chess, or pinochle. Imagine.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically you reraced.

[Quadstriker]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. The major problem in this scenario is of course when a players intonation makes people act behind him or inducing a reaction in the original better or all-in guy. The floor has a much tougher decision in these cases.

"All-in"
"all-in?"
Dealer indicates a second all-in was made.
First player turns over hand.

Now we gots a problem!

Edit: Now that I think about it. Seems like there are way too many variables to have a lock-solid standard ruling for this scenario. Good luck floormen!

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
In the context it is clear that it was a question (see the title).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not certain this can be assumed to be 100% true.

The title was written by the OP. What if the OP was Player B? Maybe it was clear that it was a question ONLY TO THE PERSON WHO INTENDED TO ASK THE QUESTION--it may not have been as clear to his listeners.

It's likely that if OP was Player B, that his words may not have come out of his mouth the way he intended. People involved in a big pot often focus their thoughts on the play of the hand, and don't pay strict attention to how they're communicating. The let the "AutoPilot" part of their brain handle the talking, and that doesn't always lead to coherence. I see this every night in the cardroom.

OP: were you Player B?

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the context it is clear that it was a question (see the title).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not certain this can be assumed to be 100% true.

The title was written by the OP. What if the OP was Player B? Maybe it was clear that it was a question ONLY TO THE PERSON WHO INTENDED TO ASK THE QUESTION--it may not have been as clear to his listeners.

It's likely that if OP was Player B, that his words may not have come out of his mouth the way he intended. People involved in a big pot often focus their thoughts on the play of the hand, and don't pay strict attention to how they're communicating. The let the "AutoPilot" part of their brain handle the talking, and that doesn't always lead to coherence. I see this every night in the cardroom.

OP: were you Player B?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually its pretty clear from the OP that the question involvd a situation where it was clear that it was a question. OP may be asking a biased question, that is true, bu read it to be something more along the lines of, I know he was asking a question and everyone knew it but can I angle shoot and get a ruling that he has to go all in.

[steamraise]

[ QUOTE ]
2/5NL stacks irrelevant. After the river is dealt Player A bets 60.00, Player B raises to 200.00, Player A, says, "I'm all in", Player B responds "all in?" as a question, not a statement.

Ruling?

[/ QUOTE ]

If player A and the dealer heard the question mark, no ruling required. It's player B's turn.

If player A says "call" and tables his hand, I rule player B called.


Kinda like people who tap on the table when thery're thinking.
Players behind take it as a check and go check check check.

When it's your turn and you do or say something that the players behind you take as action, it IS action.

[Gonso]

If the player was obviously asking if the other guy went all in, then wtf, answer yes and wait for his action. They're heads up anyway, so most players wouldn't say all-in to call. Unless a floor comes over and overrules me, which I doubt, Player B hasn't acted yet.

[ QUOTE ]
When it's your turn and you do or say something that the players behind you take as action, it IS action.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it might be action. If a guy sneezes and the next player thinks it's an all-in, that doesn't make it an all-in. What you might have thought you heard isn't going to matter if the dealer says he didn't act yet. If there's any ambiguity in another player's action, clarify the action with the player or dealer. I know what you mean with the wierd hand taps and things like that, I see it constantly. If it looks like check, fine, it'll be a check, but I've seen people's hand twitch or move a little and another player wants to demand it was a check, at some point you have to draw the line.

I always say that players should be careful of their actions and words, and that also goes for Player A in this case - he should not do anything until he's certain of what Player B's action is (ie, don't turn over your cards and so on). Making a major play while the actual action is a little fuzzy -and then demanding that the action be ruled one way or another afterwards- is bad business and bad poker. This all goes back to protecting your hand, you might as well clarify ambigious plays and and yourself the headaches.

[steamraise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When it's your turn and you do or say something that the players behind you take as action, it IS action.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it might be action. If a guy sneezes and the next player thinks it's an all-in,

[/ QUOTE ]

What I obviously meant is if you do or say something that could easily be taken as action,
and players behind takie it as action, it is action.

If I'm the floor and the dealer says,
"This guy said "all in?" and the other guy said "I call". I heard the all in as a question."

And other guy says,
"I heard all in and called, I didn't hear a question."

I'm going to rule the "all in?" was an all in bet.