Tricky decision! "I put you all-in"

[Al_Capone_Junior]

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

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.

[AngusThermopyle]

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.

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.

[DrCool]

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

[dtbog]

[ 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".

[TiK]

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.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

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

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ 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

[somapopper]

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).