Tricky decision! "I put you all-in"

[Mr. Curious]

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.

[JohnnyFX]

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.

[4_2_it]

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.

[ 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.

[sternroolz]

"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"

[ 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?

[ 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.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ 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.

[ 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.,

[swede123]

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