A binding verbal action

NickyOD

Final table of a small imaginary tournament with 6 players left, 4 get paid. I am second in chips. The chip leader and I are miles ahead of the field and the payouts are top heavy. I've raised the last 3 pots and taken the blinds without showing a hand. Next hand its folded to me on the button and I have A-2. I reach for my chips and before I bet the BB who is chip leader tells me if I raise again he will go all in. He has not looked at his cards yet. What should I do, and is this announcement a binding verbal action?

fuzzbox

Raise, and no its not

RoundTower

fuzzbox wrote:

Raise, and no its not

agree. Same as if you announce "checkraise" and check (try this some time if you haven't).

califano

Say "Ok then" and just call. But raise or re-raise him on the flop. He wont like that much better.

El Stuntman

giggle maniacally, say 'great!' and shove all your chips in the middle?

you are fav over a random hand after all...

NickyOD

fuzzbox wrote:

Raise, and no its not

Why isn't it?

OilBeefHooked2

NickyOD wrote:

Why isn't it?

because its a speech play?

NickyOD

david-k wrote:

because its a speech play?

If someone says "raise" out of turn is it considered speach play? How is this any different?

JTheViper

Same thing happened in the pokerevents tourney in the red cow last night.

Folded to the SB who calls and the BB checks.

Flop is 79J rainbow. SB says check, BB checks.

Turn is 3 (still no flush posibilities) Sb declares "Check it down" , BB says "OK"

River is 8. Sb Goes All in. BB calls for a ruling on the declared "Check it down"

What should the outcome be?

OilBeefHooked2

NickyOD wrote:

If someone says "raise" out of turn is it considered speach play?

no

NickyOD wrote:

How is this any different?

thats a good question

jacQues

Very good thread. I do not know the exact answer.

My instinct tells me that any talk about "later" and also any talk about "if...then" is speechplay and therefore not binding.

"later" example: "check it down." You cannot declare your 'next' action, only your 'current' action.

"if...then" example: "I'll go all-in if you raise." You cannot declare your action on such basis, you must declare your action 'stand-alone' (even if your strategy is based on if...then).

Above is my instinct, I do not know the correct ruling and am interested to see someone post a definite answer.

jacQues

Doctor Fell

It's different because "raise" is a valid action, just like "call" or "fold". "I will do X if Y happens" is not a valid action according to rules of the game.

RoundTower

Nicky,

the standard rule is "verbal action out of turn MAY be binding". The usual interpretation of this is that a player's verbal action is binding if the action to him has not changed since he announced his intentions. So lets say I make it €20 utg and it is folded to the button and the small blind announces "call" but does not put chips in the pot. If the button calls or folds the small blind must call. If the button raises the small blind does not have to call and his €20 is not dead in the pot.

RoundTower

NickyOD wrote:

If someone says "raise" out of turn is it considered speach play? How is this any different?

It might be speech play, depends on the player's intentions. But it might also be binding action.

NickyOD

RoundTower wrote:

Nicky,

the standard rule is "verbal action out of turn MAY be binding". The usual interpretation of this is that a player's verbal action is binding if the action to him has not changed since he announced his intentions. So lets say I make it €20 utg and it is folded to the button and the small blind announces "call" but does not put chips in the pot. If the button calls or folds the small blind must call. If the button raises the small blind does not have to call and his €20 is not dead in the pot.

Yeah I concur with that.

However since the player has said "IF" you do this I "WILL" do this then he has clearly verbally declared his intentions, so if I do raise surely he should not be allowed to take this back? Yes/No. Surely he has made his intentions crystal clear..

RoundTower

"If you raise I'll go all in" isn't a declaration of action, any more than "If my other card is a diamond I'll go all in" or "I'll straddle next hand". "Raise to 60" or "fold", on the other hand, are.

strewelpeter

So what was the ruling in the Mad Cow?

I assume it was that the "checkitdown" was speechplay and did not stand.

OilBeefHooked2

Very good thread.

Anyone have a definitive answer?

NickyOD

strewelpeter wrote:

So what was the ruling in the Mad Cow?

I assume it was that the "checkitdown" was speechplay and did not stand.

I came across this before when playing and asked for the player who said to check it down to be disqualified from the hand for collusion. His hand was killed.

jacQues

NickyOD wrote:

I came across this before when playing and asked for the player who said to check it down to be disqualified from the hand for collusion. His hand was killed.

I assume that this happened when a player was all-in and the two players left in the hand 'agreed' to check the all-in player out?

Otherwise please explain to me how this situation was 'wrong'...

jacQues

NickyOD

jacQues wrote:

I assume that this happened when a player was all-in and the two players left in the hand 'agreed' to check the all-in player out?

Otherwise please explain to me how this situation was 'wrong'...

jacQues

Yes, sorry, should have made that clearer.

DeVore

Firstly, slap the guy who said "Check it down??" its extremely rude and also completely against the rules.

Secondly, the all in on the river is fine. Verbal isnt binding in this situation.

Thirdly, conditional declarations are never binding. "If you X I will Y" is completely unbinding.


Bizzare: I was sitting at the WSOP cash tables last year playing the lowest possible stakes when a huge game of 2k/4k started next to us. Right next to us in fact. Each players had by my rough count, between 1M and 2M on the table. 3 shotgun weilding guards patrol the table!

There was an American-Italian guy, straight out of the Sopranos in a 10k suit sitting next to a young preppie guy, presumably playing his fathers money!
Young guy says "you move a chip forward and I'm going all in" to the Italian guy. Sure enough, the mobster raises, the preppie guy folds. Mobster explodes in anger and calls the floor. The ruling is that its conditional and non-binding. Italian guy is now standing saying "I aint gonna play with you, you fnck, you aint got no fnckin honour you P.O.S." A row erupts and the young guy leaves. My whole table has been watching this transpire (with increasing alarm!) and the guy next to me leans over and says "I hope that guy find a back way out, its a big desert!"

DeV.

JTheViper

The ruling in the Red Cow was that the verbal Check it down did stand even though the player in the bb called the all in and lost before the TD's ruling was called for.

The result was that the BB got his chips back and that the pot(only the blinds) was won by the Sb who hit a straight.

I disagreed and felt because the bb called the all in that the bb should have won the river bets too.

J

Goodluck2me

if you say to check a pot down its collusion, but if you said go on there thrown out a bet or say bet3K your hand is not dead. i think its OTT to kill a plyers hand for saying check it down, the other player can still do what he likes surely? i can see its not great on the player all in but if they didnt say anything and decide to check it down he loses anyway.

DubTony

While it's up to the other player to decide what to do, in a bubble situation this can make all the difference.

Tonight playing online, (4 players left STT - I know, cant enforce any rules there) I pushed my shortstack from the button with A6clubs. An ace came on the flop and one of the other 2 typed "Check it down". The other typed OK. The turn was a 3rd spade and the river was the 6 of spades giving me 2 pair. The player who said "Check it down" had the 9 of spades and the other guy held AJo (no spades).

Ironically, when the guy who said "Check it down" hit his flush he bet half the pot. The other guy called, lost the hand and I was out.
If "Check it down" hadn't been said After the flop came down, AJ may have bet, pushing "Check it down" off the hand and I'd have won it on the river.

I like that somebody who says "check it down" should be disqualified from the hand. Might be better to disqualify completely or at least have a time penalty.

Goodluck2me

i agree with that too, but if someone told me to check it down id soon have no problem betting, id be keen to exploit their weakness, but at the same time so long as id enough chips id be happy to see a player go out. the guy who bet after telling the other guy to check took advantage of the free card he got, although its morally worng sicne when is poker moral?i know there is etiquette but any advantage you can gain you take id have thought...

strewelpeter

JTheViper wrote:

The ruling in the Red Cow was that the verbal Check it down did stand even though the player in the bb called the all in and lost before the TD's ruling was called for.

At first glance that didn't sound right to me. Those Poker Events guys usually seem to know what they are doing.
But when I think about it if you don't rule that the agreement to check it down was collusion, then you have to look at exactly what happened. Its the SB to act and he's the one who has called to check it down, thus declaring his intention to check the river; Isn't that the very same thing as blind checking? Now he decides to bet the flop but he has already called to check so I guess they were right to make the check stand.
Had there been another round of betting they would both have been free to do as they pleased.