Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

This was submitted to me by a friend of mine, very interesting case:


Here is a poker ruling problem which occurred at a table I was dealing (I don't actually remember how the floor did rule).

2 5 Blind NL HU.

After the turn there is a pot that is probably around $120. Three players remain in the hand.

Seat 1 is shortstacked with less than $100 chips remainig. Seat 4 has a deep stack between $600-$700 and has not shut up all night, he has been constantly talking trash directing much of it to the player in seat 1 (nothing abusive). Seat 8 is also deep stacked with a approximately the same size stack as seat 4.

Seat 1 is first to act and checks. Seat 4 leans back and announces "I put him all in" immediately seat 8 announces call and starts pushing all his chips out. Seat 4 immediately starts objecting saying that he only meant to bet as much as Seat 1 had. He was facing seat 1 when he said it (seat 4 always faces seat 1).

1) How much did seat 4 bet?
2)If you rule that seat 4 only bet as much as Seat 1 had in front of him, May seat 8 now raise?

Tricky one to say the least.

I won't give my decision yet, but I will say this: "I put you all-in" is a terribly amateurish phrase, and here's a prime example why you shouldn't say it.

al

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

I think that "I put you all in" is a silly phrase but its a real number. His bet was exactly the guys stack and the call was the same as that stack.

The proper way, of course, is to ask for a chip count and just bet that amount.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

The bet is the amount Seat 1 has in front of him. To rule otherwise would be to punish him too much, even though it might send a message to him and others to stop the BS.

immediately seat 8 announces call and ...

Seat 8 can only call the bet. Again, as much as it would be nice to punish the use of the amateurish phrase, Seat 8 should have gotten a clarification of how much the bet was before he made his action.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

interesting, action is still on seat 1. If anything, seat 8 acted out of turn. By saying" I put him all in", seat 4's bet should be the less than $100 that seat 1 had left. Even if seat 1 folds, seat 8 is still calling the less than $100 bet.

Again, this is just my opinion, I could be totally off here but curious as to the outcome.

And yes, i agree, a donkish move by seat 4.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

Easy ruling here: Seat 4 gets the kick in the nuts

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) How much did seat 4 bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

He bet the size of Seat 1's stack; that was his verbal declaration.

[ QUOTE ]

2)If you rule that seat 4 only bet as much as Seat 1 had in front of him, May seat 8 now raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seat 8 (obviously) HAD the option to raise, until he said "call". At that point, he verbally declared "call".

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

If it is clear that Seat 1 is the "him" in "I put him all in," then the bet is the amount of Seat 1's stack, and by Seat 8 announcing call, can only call that amount.

My opinion
 

The really funny thing is, I don't know what the outcome was. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

My personal decision, with reasoning, is as follows...

Seat 4 obviously intended to bet what seat 1 had in front of him. Although a scenario could be argued that would force him to bet all his chips, it's not going to be the RIGHT thing to do here. He obviously meant to bet slightly less than $100, whatever seat 1 had. So that's the bet.

Seat 8 jumped the gun big time by calling all-in for his $800 or so. However, he did say CALL already, and a verbal statement made in turn is binding. A scenario could be argued that would state that he didn't have correct information when he acted, and should therefore be given a chance to raise. However, I think he should be held to a call.

Seat 8's action (or options) is a much closer decision (IMO) than seat 4's.

al

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Easy ruling here: Seat 4 gets the kick in the nuts

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell yeah! Hey there's a floor position open at my casino, you've got what it takes to do the job! Steel toed boots!

al

Re: My opinion
 

I believe seat 8 should be allowed to raise, because the mistake was primarily seat 4s and it doesn't seem as though seat 8 is attempting an angle shoot (although he should have clarified 4s bet if the situation was ambiguous).

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

Provided that you (the dealer) were not given the chance to say anything after Seat 4's "I put him all in", then the floor should rule that Seat 8 acted out of turn and that Seat 4 needs to clarify who he meant by "him". Once Seat 4 has clarified the person he was putting all-in, then Seat 8 will be allowed to act.

If you had given Seat 8 any reason to assume that the action was his (like announcing Seat 4's intent, etc.), then the ruling should still be what I said above, only you should get kicked in the nuts.

Either way, I think both Seat 4 and Seat 8 should get kicked in the nuts.

Re: My opinion
 

Your account says that Seat 1 checked, then Seat 4 made the all-in move. That means it's now action to Seat 8. That being the case then I would say that he can call for all of his chips no matter who Seat 4 meant to raise.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

Seat 1 should get kicked in the nuts for not having enough chips to cover both seat 4 and seat 8 and thus avoid this entire fiasco.

Re: My opinion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your account says that Seat 1 checked, then Seat 4 made the all-in move. That means it's now action to Seat 8. That being the case then I would say that he can call for all of his chips no matter who Seat 4 meant to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like the classic "I call $50 and raise you $300 more!" Errr...no you don't buddy you just called and now you do nothing more.

Doesn't really work out the way you described. You said "can call for all of his chips" you can only "call" for the ammount you are facing.

There are some rule books that have a provision for 'action not being binding if the player had a gross misunderstanding of the bet size' But typically that is used for the common scenario of a short stack all-in a verbal reraise all-in with no chip movement and then some 3rd player saying call. He was calling $40 but it turns out it was a $12,040 bet to him. This is a discrecianary ruling that I have seen made with either a complete refund or the option to leave the smaller ammount in the pot and fold for the larger bet or to call the larger bet. But in this case it is not a huge disadvantage to the player in seat 8. I think by acting hastily in this manner he has simply called and loses his right to further action until the next betting round.

My ruling: Seat 4 bets the ammount of Seat 1's stack and seat 8 calls that ammount.

Re: My opinion
 

"What kind of work do you do?"

"I used to be a punter for the Miami Dolphins. Now I kick people in the groin all day long"

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
interesting, action is still on seat 1. If anything, seat 8 acted out of turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's out of turn. Player in 1 checks, Player in 4 bets, Player in 8 calls.


Where is the out of turn action?

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
His bet was exactly the guys stack and the call was the same as that stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of cours ethat is true, but the question is which guys stack? the guy in seat 1 or the guy in seat 8? The guy in seat 8 obviously thought it was him.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Seat 1 is first to act and checks. Seat 4 leans back and announces "I put him all in" immediately seat 8 announces call and starts pushing all his chips out. Seat 4 immediately starts objecting saying that he only meant to bet as much as Seat 1 had. He was facing seat 1 when he said it (seat 4 always faces seat 1).

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of this depends on how and how quickly seat 8 acts. If seat 8 announces "call" and then deliberately starts putting chips in the pot, the smaller amount is what he is calling. If he announces "call" and at the same time pushes his entire stack in this could be a gross misunderstanding of the bet size which allows him to now act on the correct bet size.

This decision is much closer than most of the posteers here are indicating. Without further info I am inclined to say it is a call of the smaller amount, but I can construct a set of circumstances where he would be allowed to raise all in.

One fo the reasons working on the floor is sometimes called "walking the floor" is the floor should walk around his section and have a good feel for who is playing at the tables so he is better positioned to make a ruling based on what he judges to be the intent of the player.

Re: My opinion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Seat 4 bets the ammount of Seat 1's stack and seat 8 calls that ammount.

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious as to why your assumption is that Seat is speaking of Seat1's stack when he says this?

The guy leans back and says to the dealer "I put him all in" why is that not betting as many chips as Player 8 has in front of him?

Couldn't this be an angle shot by seat 4. He hopes that seat 8 thinks its a big bet that would put him all in and causes him to fold, but then if seat 8 actually calls he can then say that he was only betting the small stack.


Even if he is not angle shooting, isn't he the one that cause dthe problem so shouldn't he be ar the burden.


In contract law there is a principle that ambiguity is to be constued against the drafter. I think that would be a good equitable principle to apply. The guy in Seat 4 is the Guy who caused the problem by making an ambiguous bet. Shouldn't he be the one who suffers from his amibiguity.,

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

I agree with the folks that ask who acted out of turn. It seems somewhat clear that seat 4 is verbally committing a bet for whatever seat 1 has remaining. Seat 8 is then verbally committing to call this same amount. Action moves to seat 1 who can call all-in or fold.

Swede

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

I feel like sticking my thumb in seat4's eye, even if I'm just a railbird. I hate the phrase "I put you all in" so much it puts me on tilt. hmm.... maybe that's why people keep putting me all in.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

Randy,

I am curious why you seem to take for granted that Player in seat 4 's statement that "I put him all in" referred to player in seat 1.

Sure he is facing seat 1, but that can also be that he is facing the dealer. He's leaned back away from the table not into seat 1.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Randy,

I am curious why you seem to take for granted that Player in seat 4 's statement that "I put him all in" referred to player in seat 1.

Sure he is facing seat 1, but that can also be that he is facing the dealer. He's leaned back away from the table not into seat 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, perhaps he put the dealer all in. Surely the dealer has more in his tray than either of the players at the table. I really don't see where you're going with this one.

Swede

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, perhaps he put the dealer all in. Surely the dealer has more in his tray than either of the players at the table. I really don't see where you're going with this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where i'm going with this is that when a player makes verbal declaration it should be to the dealer. So the guy sitting in seat 8 has no reason to think that the player is talking about seat 1. Its not like the guy leaned in pointed at at the chips in front of seat one, He leaned back and said to the dealer "I put him all in" The fact that he was facing Seat 1 is deceptive becuaee he was actually facing where he should generally be facing. This is a different story if the three players are seat 3 seat 4 and seat 8, in that case if the player in seat four was facing seat three it would be an indication that he was talking about seat three. but what if the player in seat 4 just looked straight ahead and said I put him all in?

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey there's a floor position open at my casino, you've got what it takes to do the job! Steel toed boots!

al

[/ QUOTE ]

God help the person that has to work with YOU MAGOO! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

Haven't looked at other responses yet.

"1) How much did seat 4 bet?"

I'd allow it to stand where seat 4 bets the amount of seat 1's stack. His point that he only wanted to bet the size of seat 1's stack seems believable given a $700 bet into a $120 pot doesn't make sense. Obviously the decision should be accompanied with a bit of a warning that next time seat 4 shouldn't expect any break (or that you owe him a kick in the nuts).


"2)If you rule that seat 4 only bet as much as Seat 1 had in front of him, May seat 8 now raise?"

Although a case can be made that seat 8 could have asked for clarification of seat 4's bet, I'd now give seat 8 the chance to either just call or raise all-in. That said, I'm open to arguments against this position.

~ Rick

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd allow it to stand where seat 4 bets the amount of seat 1's stack. His point that he only wanted to bet the size of seat 1's stack seems believable given a $700 bet into a $120 pot doesn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fair statement, now how does it affect your response if the pot size was $600?

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd allow it to stand where seat 4 bets the amount of seat 1's stack. His point that he only wanted to bet the size of seat 1's stack seems believable given a $700 bet into a $120 pot doesn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fair statement, now how does it affect your response if the pot size was $600?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that could swing it the other way. Seat 4 has to bear some responsibility for his mistake or there would have to be a lot of evidence that seat 4 meant seat 1 (e.g., he was pointing at seat 1).

Perhaps kicking seat 4 in the nuts may be the best solution.

~ Rick

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Randy,

I am curious why you seem to take for granted that Player in seat 4 's statement that "I put him all in" referred to player in seat 1.

Sure he is facing seat 1, but that can also be that he is facing the dealer. He's leaned back away from the table not into seat 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't real clear, but normally when someone says they are putting someoen in it is a stack they have covered by a lot. If it is a stack that is close to their own the common statement is "I'm all in." The "putting" someone in implies their stack is a lot larger then the other player's.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't real clear, but normally when someone says they are putting someoen in it is a stack they have covered by a lot. If it is a stack that is close to their own the common statement is "I'm all in." The "putting" someone in implies their stack is a lot larger then the other player's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good point.

~ Rick

You are all way off
 

I'm shocked nobody has gotten this right yet..

The correct ruling is.. OP's friend gets the kick in the crotch. How can he tell this f'ing story and not remember what the actual floor ruling was?! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Oh, and Seat 4 is a tool.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

I agree. I think the "principle of obvious intent" is real important in these situations. Rarely, if ever, should someone be forced to do something that they obviously did not intend to do, no matter how bad their ettiquette.

al

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

you had all better learn to wait till the person shoves the money forward before acting. tv it might work but in real life poker you are going to get some rulings that would shock you. heed my words.

i have seen a player even push his money in and then take it back after he lost and have the house let him keep it.

i saw a person verbally bet 1500 dollars and only have 1495 and push all that in and the other person call with the winner. then the floorman ruled he gets his 1495 back as he didnt complete the bet he called out.

i have on many occasions seen a verbal bet called and the person making it declare that wasnt what he said and fought hard over the money and the house let him keep it.

as i always say a few times a year --hold your hand until the pot is pushed to you and dont act until the pot is correct with the money in it. do otherwise and the results are up to someone with no interest in you but having the lest amount of confrontation to face.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

It is quite simple. He made the statement I put him all in following the action of seat 1. His bet is the amount of seat 1 stack. If seat 8 said call then his bet is a call only. If seat 8 said I call all in then this can be considered a raise to all in and the action should continue.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

Seat 4 bets an amount equal to seat 1's stack.
Seat 8 calls.
Seat 1 acts as he wishes
Floor kicks both seat 4 and seat 8 in the nuts.
The crowds rejoice.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
you had all better learn to wait till the person shoves the money forward before acting. tv it might work but in real life poker you are going to get some rulings that would shock you. heed my words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point as usual. A lot of us who read 2+2 tend to be extra careful but my concern is that poorly written or bad rules combined with staff inexperience/lack of sense is going to create more and more ugly situations, alienating the best customers and slowing the growth of the game.


[ QUOTE ]
i have seen a player even push his money in and then take it back after he lost and have the house let him keep it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any chance for the whole story?


[ QUOTE ]
i saw a person verbally bet 1500 dollars and only have 1495 and push all that in and the other person call with the winner. then the floorman ruled he gets his 1495 back as he didnt complete the bet he called out.

[/ QUOTE ]

One LA club uses a policy/rule where any raise less than the minimum is a "fouled bet" and comes back (most other clubs use a half bet guideline to correct improper raises). IOW player A bets a stack of twenty $5 chips ($100) and player B shoves in two stacks of what looks like twenty chips each to raise the minimum (make it $200). If the stack of player B turns out to be one chip short and the floorman is called to the table the raise comes back. I would hope an extension of this logic isn't applied to the situation you describe but who knows.


[ QUOTE ]
i have on many occasions seen a verbal bet called and the person making it declare that wasnt what he said and fought hard over the money and the house let him keep it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In LA a gazillion languages are spoken and the games are often played in the noisiest part of the club. It happens here.


[ QUOTE ]
as i always say a few times a year --hold your hand until the pot is pushed to you and dont act until the pot is correct with the money in it. do otherwise and the results are up to someone with no interest in you but having the lest amount of confrontation to face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sad but true.

Good post Ray. Thanks for checking in.

~ Rick

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of us who read 2+2 tend to be extra careful but my concern is that poorly written or bad rules combined with staff inexperience/lack of sense is going to create more and more ugly situations

[/ QUOTE ]

Another serious problem to add to this is staff I DON'T GIVE A DAMN attitude about outcomes of situations.

For instance, if I made a terrible decision, it would bother me, and I'd want to do a better job next time. But I am probably more the exception than the rule. Many floors just don't really care, their word is final anyway, and they have no real passion for what they are doing.

Since the floor usually makes considerably less than the dealers, and have to put up with a lot more flak, they are often drafted as dual-rates. Even if they are full-time floor, they may not necessarily be highly experienced or even knowledgeable. There's nothing that FORCES a floorperson to KNOW the rules, especially if the casino is desperate to fill the position. Often times it's "take what we can get" when it comes to filling those positions. The person doing the hiring may not know any better either, often times they aren't poker people.

Because of this, don't expect the floor to make the correct calls, make sure YOU make the correct decisions when it comes to things like protecting your hand/action! I have certainly seen some real lu-lu decisions before. We could probably start a whole new thread on decision horror stories, but let's NOT.

al

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, if I made a terrible decision, it would bother me, and I'd want to do a better job next time. But I am probably more the exception than the rule. Many floors just don't really care, their word is final anyway, and they have no real passion for what they are doing.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true, for most people it is just a job and they aren't concerend. I made a bad decision in 2000 and it still bugs me.

Re: Tricky decision! \"I put you all-in\"
 

If I'm the dealer, this is easy:

(To seat 8): "Sir, you're acting out of turn. The player whose action it is hasn't announced a bet amount yet."

(To seat 4): "Sir, you can't put someone else all in. All you can do is bet a dollar amount, it's up to other players to call."

Seat 4 can then announce his bet amount, Seat 8 can call/raise/fold/whatever.

Seat 8 gets what he deserves for trying to angle shoot (which he's pretty clearly doing).