something I hadn't seen before

slik · #1 10-14-2007, 12:46 PM

Here's the situation: UTG (seat 4) position player goes all in for about $30. MP1 (seat 7) calls the allin, but does not place any chips out, and his cards are very close to his chips near the rail. Folds to cutoff (seat 1) who not seeing any chips out from MP1, starts to put out chips in an attempt to call, and has put out $10 so far when he discovers that MP1 had already called. So I (cutoff) ask the dealer if I can raise and she says not only can I not raise, but that I must call as well (or lose the already $10 that I have place past the betting line). I decide not to call the floor on this (I had AA), but what would / should the ruling have been? I gave the relative player position because MP1 was as far away from me as possible basically, which is probably why I didn't hear him.

pfapfap · #2 10-14-2007, 01:37 PM

This is going to vary by room and floorperson, sadly.

Were I dealing, I'd have let you do whatever you wanted, as you misunderstood the action and there was no action after you. However, that requires using one's brain and being able to suss out situational context, so I'd not be surprised if the dealer was correct for that room. Tho' if you had actually said "call", it might get trickier. Also depends on the level of the game and who's currently sitting in it.

youtalkfunny · #3 10-14-2007, 01:59 PM

Another dispute at the table, caused by a player who wasn't paying attention to the game. This has to be the 12th one posted here this week.

From now on, these threads get this:

blueflame · #4 10-14-2007, 02:03 PM

another idiot who cant post a picture, you get this.
edit: omg gj you figured it out

jjshabado · #5 10-14-2007, 02:04 PM

To be fair to OP, I don't understand the people that do the verbal declaration but do no other action. It just makes these situations more common. When we're talking only $30 in chips there's no excuse for not moving your chips forward to show you've called.

SellingtheDrama · #6 10-14-2007, 02:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To be fair to OP, I don't understand the people that do the verbal declaration but do no other action. It just makes these situations more common. When we're talking only $30 in chips there's no excuse for not moving your chips forward to show you've called.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed - I'll only do the verbal-only thing if I'm closing the action.

RR · #7 10-14-2007, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To be fair to OP, I don't understand the people that do the verbal declaration but do no other action. It just makes these situations more common. When we're talking only $30 in chips there's no excuse for not moving your chips forward to show you've called.

[/ QUOTE ]

It takes one hand to adjust his sunglasses and another hand to adjust his IPOD, how would you suggest he put the chips in?

redfisher · #8 10-14-2007, 02:36 PM

I'd be somewhat concerned that you're playing in a room with an enforced betting line that only applies to players who aren't MP1. Or maybe it just applies to you.

Are there any other factors in play? You state that MP1 has chips, but doesn't move any forward. Is he shorter than the $30 with chips in transit? I don't think I've ever seen a verbal call of a $30 AI with action possible behind it. On further thought, I don't think I've ever seen a verbal only call of $30 period.

jjshabado · #9 10-14-2007, 02:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be somewhat concerned that you're playing in a room with an enforced betting line that only applies to players who aren't MP1. Or maybe it just applies to you.

Are there any other factors in play? You state that MP1 has chips, but doesn't move any forward. Is he shorter than the $30 with chips in transit? I don't think I've ever seen a verbal call of a $30 AI with action possible behind it. On further thought, I don't think I've ever seen a verbal only call of $30 period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since verbal declarations are binding, what he does with his chips is irrelevant in terms of determining what his action is.

MicroBob · #10 10-14-2007, 02:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Another dispute at the table, caused by a player who wasn't paying attention to the game. This has to be the 12th one posted here this week.

From now on, these threads get this:

[/ QUOTE ]

YTF - you really think he should be held that responsible for somebody across the table who perhaps mumbled call and didn't push his chips forward and was practically hiding his cards?
Things happen. I can be paying total attention but still miss something like this.

I've also played a lot of hands where both players in the hand go check-check and the dealer just sits there looking at both of them having completely missed that the action already happened. Their attention might not have been the greatest either but I acknowledge that it's possible for an attentive dealer to miss such action occasionally.