Flamingo Ruling

[ThinkQuick]

Three players to river, one all-in, so guy and gal are active.

Guy bets 50
gal says 'ok i fold' and as she is sliding her cards forward she says 'wait wait i call' and throws in her 50

guy tables his hand (low straight)
gal tables her hand (high straight (tho. didn't realize it (hence the 'tough' decision)

all-in guy tables his hand (high straight as well)

guy then argues that gal said she folded and her hand should be dead.


floor ruling: if no person was all-in, floor would have said that by accepting her action he allowed her hand to be alive.
However, since there was an additional person all-in that shouldn't be hurt by the guys' decision to accept her action (and hence lose half his pot), the floor decided that the woman could not call. therefore guy and gal got their 50 back and all-in guy took the pot.

[MCS]

I have no idea how you could say "I fold" and be allowed to have a live hand.

[Spook]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea how you could say "I fold" and be allowed to have a live hand.

[/ QUOTE ]a fold is a fold, her hand is dead no matter how many people are all in.

[Randy_Refeld]

In this case her hand should be ruled live. When she said she wanted to fold and then changed her mind the delaer should have called the floor, but didn't. The players in the hand could have asked for the floor, but didn't. She put her money in and the player with the low straight was prepared to take her money if he had the best hand. If she can lose money she certainly can win money. The floor was right that the all-in player creates an additional problem; however, he still has an active roll in the hand and can object to the action and get a ruling. Because her bet was put in jeopardy her hand must be live.

edited for typos

[eviljeff]

[ QUOTE ]
active roll

[/ QUOTE ]
...
[ QUOTE ]
edited for typos

[/ QUOTE ]

keep editing

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
active roll

[/ QUOTE ]
...
[ QUOTE ]
edited for typos

[/ QUOTE ]

keep editing

[/ QUOTE ]

I miss a lot of typos; I usually play poker while I am posting here.

[AngusThermopyle]

Let me guess. All-in guy is a "regular".

Since neither guy exposed their hand or said anything between the time she "folded" and the time she "changed her mind", and since the hand never hit the muck, the action stands.

[UATrewqaz]

Verbal actions are binding I thought? If you say I fold you're hand is folded in my book.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Verbal actions are binding I thought? If you say I fold you're hand is folded in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

When facing a bet this is true. A fold cannot be undone; however if the lead bettor allows the caller to change her mind in practice it will be at the table (e.g., Player A bets the nuts, Player B starts to fold (either with forward motion or verbally) and tries to change action to a call. Player A obviously clams up and gets the extra bet. The floor isn't called and the dealer will let accepted action to play.

~ Rick

[ThinkQuick]

[ QUOTE ]
The floor was right that the all-in player creates an additional problem; however, he still has an active roll in the hand and can object to the action and get a ruling.


[/ QUOTE ]

This was how I felt as well. The floor described the all-in player as "totally unprotected" in the hand, and unable to prevent her hand from being ruled live. However, he certainly could have called for the floor himself to rule her verbal declaration binding and kill the hand.

If I were the all-in player (no idea whether he was a regular) I also wouldn't have spoken up, as I wouldn't have suspected I was chopping with this woman making an agonizing decision, but that's what you get for being nice..

Anyways I thought I'd post it here because I disagreed with Sean the floorman despite the fact that he told me he was trained in LA and knows all rules and their interpretations.