A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling

[BaldEaglePkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Now, in some cases there are some obvious past histories. If P2 has a history of angle shooting, and has been warned. Then absolutely he did it on purpose, and was trying to get a benefit. Rule him all-in for the 2K.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again.
What is the angle?

[/ QUOTE ]

The angle is saying call before the action is complete in order to try to get a cheaper showdown. Maybe I mixed the player numbers up... the story told clearly shows the "calling guy" as an angle shooter.... However the floor is not aware of this, unless there was previous history.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Now, in some cases there are some obvious past histories. If P2 has a history of angle shooting, and has been warned. Then absolutely he did it on purpose, and was trying to get a benefit. Rule him all-in for the 2K.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again.
What is the angle?

[/ QUOTE ]

The angle is saying call before the action is complete in order to try to get a cheaper showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

$460 pot.
$400 in hand.
You really think the bettor was planning on betting more than $400?
You really think the bettor was planning on betting $2000?

[budblown]

For all those that think the call is not binding - even for the $400 that was in his hand - what would your ruling be had the caller declared all in instead of call?

[AngusThermopyle]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Who thinks that?

[Black Aces 518]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the angle?


[/ QUOTE ]

the angle would be if someone intends to bet $800 but only grabs $400 in chips, and as they are cutting, they realize they don't have enough, and announce verbally "800". it's maybe an angleshoot if the opponent doesn't let them get to the verbal declaration, by saying "call" pre-emptively.


[/ QUOTE ]

no, he can still bet 800, player 2 just doesn't have to call the 800. he isn't angling to disallow the 800 bet.

[budblown]

[ 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.

[AngusThermopyle]

"A very interesting <u>ethics</u> situation"

Wonder how many here would do what Player 1 did (change his bet to $2000 when he intended to bet only $400).

[PokherJoe]

[ QUOTE ]

In that hand you describe, no action has taken place to alter the bet, so it stands (If someone bet $20, does the out of turn guy who bet $10 still bet $10? No.)

So, according to how you view the rules, if two guys are playing a game with no cap (let's say 2/5 NL) and the pot's $50. Guy B says "call" OOT by accident, can Guy A now say "I'm all-in for $10000"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No you arent getting it, if Player A bets 10 and Player C acts OOT by calling 10, but Player B raises to 20, Player C can fold, or call the 20, BUT he may not raise to 30. This is a rule to keep Players A and C from colluding against Player B. And Yes he gets his 10 back.

However in NL, if Player A bets 10, and Player C acts out of turn and Bets 30, But Player B wants to make it 20 and does, technically Player C still has to make it 30.

Many times these grey areas are at the judgement of the floor, if a floor thinks a guy is trying to angle the other players they will usually stick to the book, however if it seems an honest mistake they will let it slide. Which of some players hate, they want hard and fast rules for every situation. That is why almost all card rooms have a little sign that says "Management's decisions are final"

In your senerio you arent being specific, and maybe i wasnt either. If Player A is first to act and is just sitting there thinking, and Player B blurts out "CALL!", he doesnt have to call, because there is no bet, and no betting motion. But if Player A is betting where there are no betting lines and you can "cut chips into the pot", as long as there is no string bet, Player B has to call what Player A bets if he says "call" during the betting motion but no amount is determined. I'll agree its a sticky situation and calls like this will differ from casino to casino, and even Shift to shift at the same casino. Its up to the floor.

Personally I like to know how much im calling before I call, and i organize or announce my bets before I make a bet. So this doesnt happen to me often. I kinda did once and I got hosed, so now I make sure all actions are completed before i make any of my own.

The problems with any rule(like laws) there are going to be loop holes. Often when u close one loop hole another will open up. And anglers (or lawyers) will take advantage of what they can. It doesnt mean its right.

If I were flooring I would probably make the Player call what was in the betters hand, but that is not what the rules are.

[RadGrad2005]

If Player 1 had not yet finished acting, then Player 2 acted out of turn when he said, "call."

If player 2 acted out of turn, then should his action should not be binding.

Out of turn action is only binding, if at all, when there is no intervening bet, raise, or call. In this case, there was an intervening bet.

The floor absolutely made an incorrect ruling.

[Phat Mack]

I don't see Player 1 as an angle shooter at all. He was cutting his chips, saying to himself (as we all have done), "How much will he call?" when Player 2 took the decision out of his hands. Player 2 would do better keeping quiet.

jmo