Floor!!! what's the ruling???

[Rick Nebiolo]

Before the recent explosion in popularity, mostly experienced players played no limit and pot limit poker, and part of that experience was some sense of how to protect oneself against angles.

Although the standard rule (in this case copied from Bob Ciaffone’s online book) is “A wager is not binding until the chips are actually released into the pot, unless the player has made a verbal statement of action.” I’m fairly sure Bob would agree that in this case strict adherence to this rule would be unfair.

Player B already had a clear answer regarding how much was bet when Player A cut his stack into four equal piles of five. If he was still not sure and honorable, he could have announced that he wanted to check the stack and wasn’t yet calling. Obviously he wanted a read and was taking advantage of perhaps some weakness in the rules, which just weren’t designed for the explosion in big bet poker.

I’d rule it a call but realize that many floor would feel they are put in a tough spot and would do otherwise.

IMO the big bet poker rules need to be cleaned up in spots to reflect modern realities (and my guess is that Bob Ciaffone would agree).

Here is a variant of the above problem: Player A (known angle shooter but great action) is first to act on the river and has about $700, with about $400 on the table and $300 in three stacks of twenty $5 chips in a chip rack. He takes the rack and slowly slides the rack well forward towards the pot. Before he releases his hold on the rack, Player B clearly says, “call”. Now Player A (who was apparently bluffing) tries to pull his rack back, and screams at the dealer and table that he hadn’t released his bet.

You are the floor and are called to the table. How do you rule?

~ Rick

[KC50]

In my example which actually happened, the floor wasn't called until after the fact. Nothing was said or done by the dealer and after player B said he folded, the pot was pushed to player A without dispute of player B's action. It was only then when another player (we'll call player C) who offered his opinion that player B took a shot to obtain a read and then said he folded. Player C then asked for a floor to make a ruling.

After the floor was called and told what had happened the first thing he said was that this was a tough and delicate situation. He explained being the pot had already been pushed without any dispute by player A that nothing will be changed with the case in question by the 3 party.

However, he did explain that anytime a player moves with chips in a forward motion it may/could be considered a call or bet. He also said that in this case had he been called during the course of play with the pot not awarded, he would have deemed such action by player A a call. Player B had asked for a count and obviously was given such (by player A). He then voluntarily moved a stack next to player A's which was obviously done to get a read then once he got it he folded.

Rick,

In your scenario, I would put this in the same category and deem the action taken a bet even though chips were not released by definition.

Thanks to you and all the others for their input.


KC

[steamboatin]

I notice that many players will reach out with a stack of chips and then turn their hand over and tap the table with the back of their hand to check. I take this as a sign if a weak player but I would really like to be there if they ever play in a room with a forward motion rule. I bet they squeal like a pig when they have to leave the chips in the pot.

I understand soom rooms have a line just in front of the players and any chip that crosses the line has to stay.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I notice that many players will reach out with a stack of chips and then turn their hand over and tap the table with the back of their hand to check. I take this as a sign if a weak player but I would really like to be there if they ever play in a room with a forward motion rule. I bet they squeal like a pig when they have to leave the chips in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree this a sign of weakness. Regarding forward motion, in a game with perfect players (whom I'd rather not play against since their tactics are probably as good as their manners), a player making a "perfect bet" will keep a little room between his cards (which are of course protected by a marker) and his stacks. When cutting off chips he cuts them behind his cards but in front of his stacks. Once they are all assembled he pushes them forward. If it takes more than one motion (because there are too many stacks) he makes sure you know more chips are coming when the first group of stacks come out. Anyway, that is my understanding of the right way (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Among other duties I host the $100 and $200 fixed buy in No Limit games at the Bike and we have tons of new and novice players. The games are extremely pleasant and there isn't much angle shooting (yet, but I'm afraid it will grow). I try not to nit up the games with too much etiquette advice, but I do see players taking one stack of twenty or so chips and moving forward holding it in their palm upside down cut out a bet of lets say six chips ($30 or $6). A forward motion rule would mean all chips in the hand must play. Of course this would still lead to arguments regarding forward motion versus simply cutting chips in front of your stacks. Which leads to your line quoted below...


[ QUOTE ]
I understand some rooms have a line just in front of the players and any chip that crosses the line has to stay.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have lines on the table but they are for "ergonomic purposes only" i.e., to encourage players to push in their chips so the dealer doesn't have to reach. I'm not sure it would solve all problems (or create new ones) but maybe its worth a discussion. It's on my "threads I want to start" list, but it will have to wait since I won't be around much this week. I have heard good things about a properly used line though.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
After the floor was called and told what had happened the first thing he said was that this was a tough and delicate situation. He explained being the pot had already been pushed without any dispute by player A that nothing will be changed with the case in question by the 3 party.

However, he did explain that anytime a player moves with chips in a forward motion it may/could be considered a call or bet. He also said that in this case had he been called during the course of play with the pot not awarded, he would have deemed such action by player A a call. Player B had asked for a count and obviously was given such (by player A). He then voluntarily moved a stack next to player A's which was obviously done to get a read then once he got it he folded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this floor made a very good ruling.

Another situation I'd like to revisit (after searching the archives for the old material - never easy on 2+2) is the Charlie Shoton (sp?) versus Noli hand from the WPT where (if memory serves - I don't have Tivo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) Noli had announced he was raising Charlie and Charlie said call before Noli had established the amount of the raise. Noli was apparently bluffing, asked for a ruling, and was allowed to raise the minimum. Of course it could have worked out differently e.g., would Charlie have to now call an extreme overbet if Noli was strong? Could Charlie have been playing an angle knowing his verbal declaration was not in turn? Anyway, I would need to do more research to get this straight and come up with good questions.

[ QUOTE ]
In your scenario, I would put this in the same category and deem the action taken a bet even though chips were not released by definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the ruling made by the floor.

Regards,

Rick

[KC50]

Another situation I'd like to revisit (after searching the archives for the old material - never easy on 2+2) is the Charlie Shoton (sp?) versus Noli hand from the WPT where (if memory serves - I don't have Tivo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) Noli had announced he was raising Charlie and Charlie said call before Noli had established the amount of the raise. Noli was apparently bluffing, asked for a ruling, and was allowed to raise the minimum. Of course it could have worked out differently e.g., would Charlie have to now call an extreme overbet if Noli was strong? Could Charlie have been playing an angle knowing his verbal declaration was not in turn? Anyway, I would need to do more research to get this straight and come up with good questions.

Rick,

I remember this hand. I would have to believe that he would contracted to call whatever raise Noli decides to make due to his verbally saying call in response to Noli declaring raise. Noli has all the best of this situation being all he said was "raise" without declaring how much and now can raise any amount he wants. He obviously decided on the minimum due to the fact he was bluffing and his opponent announced call. You agree?

KC

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

House dependent.

I recall while in Vegas several casinos specifically said that chips moved beyond cards constituted a bet. At Mandalay the dealers reminded players of this (and about the high hand jackpots) at every push. Got pretty annoying.

[Fletch101]

At Foxwoods, I have been told be some of the old timers there that(at least for the WPT satellites) that placing chips between your cards and the pot constitutes a bet. I just reviewed the Foxwoods tournament rules and was not able to confirm this either way.

Fletch

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember this hand. I would have to believe that he would contracted to call whatever raise Noli decides to make due to his verbally saying call in response to Noli declaring raise. Noli has all the best of this situation being all he said was "raise" without declaring how much and now can raise any amount he wants. He obviously decided on the minimum due to the fact he was bluffing and his opponent announced call. You agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my initial thought. But my friend pointed out that Shoton's call was not "in turn". Generally, verbal action in turn is binding, out of turn it is just table talk. So if Noli had the nuts and put Shoton all in with a massive raise (bigger than initially planned), and Shoton a merely good hand not able to stand a big raise, could Shoton back out of his commitment? I'm not sure.

It's probably been discussed before. The way I've set up my browser I'm having trouble looking up the older archives. I might try again during the Patriots-Miami halftime.

~ Rick

[KC50]

That was my initial thought. But my friend pointed out that Shoton's call was not "in turn". Generally, verbal action in turn is binding, out of turn it is just table talk. So if Noli had the nuts and put Shoton all in with a massive raise (bigger than initially planned), and Shoton a merely good hand not able to stand a big raise, could Shoton back out of his commitment? I'm not sure.

I don't think so Rick.

Think about this. If that were true would he also be able to fold when Noli raised the minimum. If this were true then it would give "everyone" the license to do this "every time" anyone just "announced raise". Then it would be stupid when your opponent just announced raise, not to say "call" out of turn if you knew that you could back out of your verbal statement. Make sense?

Kind Regards,

KC