Another Ruling Question

cooker3 · 23-02-2007 1:34am #1

Tournament in the Jackpot tonight.
Blinds are 50-100 and player 1 raise to 300, player 2 re-raises to 1,000. Player 1 then says and I quote "I will call you all in" trying to put player 2 all in. Player 2 still has chips behind him.
So is the all in valid or is it just a call?

fixer · 23-02-2007 6:41am

it's a call.

Shadowless · 23-02-2007 9:40am

I dunno, I think his intention is clear. I know it's a donkey thing to say and all but you have to make allowances for beginners sometimes.

bohsman · 23-02-2007 9:43am

Its clearly a call, I dont understand what else he could mean? Is he saying that he'll call if the other player goes all in?

Shadowless · 23-02-2007 9:54am

bohsman wrote:

Its clearly a call, I dont understand what else he could mean? Is he saying that he'll call if the other player goes all in?

I'm pretty sure he's going all-in here. I hear this in home games alot and it means they'll raise enough to put the other guy all-in if he calls (in my games anyway). I don't understand it at all but I just let it go.

Now if only I could get my head around the see-check...

bohsman · 23-02-2007 9:58am

Ill call you and raise you isnt allowed either so I wouldnt allow this.

Coillte_Bhoy · 23-02-2007 11:27am

"I will call you all in"

I presume in a similar situation if player 3 says "i'll put you all in", this is allowed as he's stating his intentions clearly?

bohsman · 23-02-2007 11:30am

Coillte_Bhoy wrote:

I presume in a similar situation if player 3 says "i'll put you all in", this is allowed as he's stating his intentions clearly?

I dont get this one either, I would not be happy if someone else put me all in, one person to a hand etc.

Coillte_Bhoy · 23-02-2007 11:53am

Originally Posted by Coillte_Bhoy
I presume in a similar situation if player 3 says "i'll put you all in", this is allowed as he's stating his intentions clearly?

I dont get this one either, I would not be happy if someone else put me all in, one person to a hand etc.

Sorry, i meant Player 2:o

bohsman · 23-02-2007 12:15pm

Coillte_Bhoy wrote:

Sorry, i meant Player 2:o

"I'll put you all in" is one of my pet hates, people should make their own bets not try to make others go all in.

Coillte_Bhoy · 23-02-2007 12:32pm

"I'll put you all in" is one of my pet hates, people should make their own bets not try to make others go all in.

I agree with you but its very common in pub tourneys. Their argument is that it's the same as asking a shortstack how much he has left and then raising by that amount.

LuckyLloyd · 23-02-2007 1:30pm

This post has been deleted.

JP Poker · 23-02-2007 2:23pm

Coillte_Bhoy wrote:

I agree with you but its very common in pub tourneys. Their argument is that it's the same as asking a shortstack how much he has left and then raising by that amount.

That comment does seem to occur alot in pub games. However, i personally never rule that this is an all-in, it is just a call.

As well, if a player says "I'll put you all in" then the player is only allowed to min raise. They have not made a proper bet, but the intention was to raise.

I explain to the player that they have to either go all in themselves or ask the other player how much they have left and bet accordingly

MickL · 23-02-2007 5:03pm

I hear this so much in d drunken cash games,, of course its a call nothing else

EXAMPLE player A raises Player B Says i call you all in Player C hears i call and is calling Player As initial Raise,,, WTF He said call!!!
People Must remember rules are to protect the innocent like Player C in this case!!!

NickyOD · 23-02-2007 9:17pm

This is a tough ruling. Semantics are pretty important in poker but I tihnk there are times where you can show some leniency, particulary when a player makes his intentions very clear, and there's no way in hell his intention is to just call Player 2s bet here. He wants to raise. What's less obvious is whether he wants to go all in or bet the size of Player 2s stack.

If I was dealing the table I would ask him to clarify how much he wants to bet and if he says he's all in I would allow the bet to stand. I've heard beginners say this a lot and their intent is always the same.

justbringit89 · 23-02-2007 9:20pm

been is this situation many times .. its def a call

Mr. Flibble · 23-02-2007 9:25pm

I think if its said fluidly, as in not I call you . . . all in, then it should stand as an allin.

His intent isn't to say I call and then I'll put you all in, hes saying I'll put you all in.

People always say "I'll raise you if you do the fandango" or whatever. This is never held to be a raise because they haven't finished their statement, and their intention is clear.

NickyOD · 23-02-2007 9:57pm

Mr. Flibble wrote:

People always say "I'll raise you if you do the fandango" or whatever. This is never held to be a raise because they haven't finished their statement, and their intention is clear.

Exactly. or if someone says "Ok, I'll raise the white flag" does that mean he has to raise? Of course not.

fixer · 23-02-2007 10:00pm

JP Poker wrote:

That comment does seem to occur alot in pub games. However, i personally never rule that this is an all-in, it is just a call.

As well, if a player says "I'll put you all in" then the player is only allowed to min raise. They have not made a proper bet, but the intention was to raise.

I explain to the player that they have to either go all in themselves or ask the other player how much they have left and bet accordingly

I just saw barry greenstein say this either on UPC Cash Poker or High Stakes Poker. Shocked me to hear it from a pro!

cooker3 · 23-02-2007 10:48pm

Hmmmn interesting replies.

The tournament is the 20 freezeout so it does have it's fair share of beginers which may have an impact. He said it the sentence fairly fluently and I am pretty certain his intention was to go all in. I was dealing and playing and I said it was a call, he argued as well as someone else not involved in the hand so I called Sarah over. She said his intention was to go all in so all in stood and player 2 insta folded.

I personally disagreed with the decision but I can see the points Nicky makes especially as it's a beginers tournament in many ways. I still rule it a call though probably.

bohsman · 24-02-2007 12:10am

so if someone fluidly says "Ill call you and raise you" that stand too?

Mr. Flibble · 24-02-2007 12:39am

bohsman wrote:

so if someone fluidly says "Ill call you and raise you" that stand too?

I think that should be just a call as its a verbal string bet. It is a different use of the word call than how the guy saying 'I call you all in' used it. He's not saying 'I call you, all in'. He's saying I'm doing something to put you all in, and just happens to be using the same word (call).

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 24-02-2007 12:46am

like betting out of turn its stands and is a call... a verbal declaration is binding... i am all in ah cr@p was only joking i have 2 7 off.:eek: :eek:

Mr. Flibble · 24-02-2007 12:58am

Eliana Fluffy Harvest wrote:

like betting out of turn its stands and is a call... a verbal declaration is binding... i am all in ah cr@p was only joking i have 2 7 off.:eek: :eek:

What if they say very seriously "I'll raise you if you bet" when the action is on you, then you check? Do you have to raise?

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 24-02-2007 1:18am

Mr. Flibble wrote:

What if they say very seriously "I'll raise you if you bet" when the action is on you, then you check? Do you have to raise?

yes he has to raise min the other players bet otherwise the player stating "i'll raise you if you bet" has a clear advantage of winning the hand uncontested. I have seen this confirmed by a number of TD's TBH i have not seen this at some of the bigger tourneys more home games and drunken cash tables

Mr. Flibble · 24-02-2007 1:43am

Eliana Fluffy Harvest wrote:

yes he has to raise min the other players bet otherwise the player stating "i'll raise you if you bet" has a clear advantage of winning the hand uncontested. I have seen this confirmed by a number of TD's TBH i have not seen this at some of the bigger tourneys more home games and drunken cash tables

Thats not the situation I'm describing. I mean something like this:
You are second to act on the flop with player A before you and player C after you. Player A bets. You turn to player C and say "I'll raise you if you raise" and then you try and call player A's bet. Should you be forced to raise player A's bet as the first words you say are "I'll raise"?

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 24-02-2007 1:50am

Mr. Flibble wrote:

How is his advantage any greater than saying "If you bet I will raise you"?
Would he have to raise if he said that!?

because it may make the other player check and the initial player to bet out and take the pot...its all mind games, he is more or less saying i have you by the balls

MickL · 24-02-2007 4:32am

Nicky is Makin a Point the if a player says he is raising a white flag that it wouldn be takin serious!!

Well it would as the Player is making a Vergal Declaerationh that he is raising regardless of the situation and any TD should Give him a 10 min ban from d table for been a Smarta2s
this is a Prime case off rules been used to explocit the ignorent and innocent if the player beside the WHITEFLAG raiser heres the Verbal decleration of raise and folds the winning hand because he expect a raise is this not the unfair on another player and rules gettin explocited???

Mick

The Clamper · 24-02-2007 9:41pm

When is a rule not a rule?
when its a beginner!!!!
i think not

if you allow newbies to get away with this, then the newbie wont learn

maybe its coz i'm an enforcer, but the rules are the rules are the rules

break them at your peril

this is a call, if i am in charge, but Sarah called it and the judgement stands
the tourney director has the final say, even if its wrong, its still final and therefore correct at the time

even when a TD is wrong, they are right, thats it

now back in your box

oh, did you know they have the internet on computers now??

:cool:

BigCityBanker · 24-02-2007 10:13pm

JP is correct, Clamper has set forth why.

Sarah was wrong to overrule you imo, you learn by your mistakes!!

Mr. Flibble · 25-02-2007 12:55am

JP Poker wrote:

if a player says "I'll put you all in" then the player is only allowed to min raise. They have not made a proper bet, but the intention was to raise.

This would be a terrible ruling. If you think his intention is to raise then it is as clear as day that he is trying to raise the amount the opponent has. If you don't think he is trying to put the guy all in then you can't think he is trying to raise.

BigCityBanker wrote:

JP is correct, Clamper has set forth why.

Sarah was wrong to overrule you imo, you learn by your mistakes!!

Why? Can you answer my last post? How has Clamper cleared it up except for dismissing it as a beginner mistake?

NickyOD · 25-02-2007 6:39pm

FFS. If he wants to call why you he say "I'll call you all in. Sarah made a good ruling because she believed the players intentions were bloody obvious, and forcing him to just call is pedantic nitpicking in the extreme.

I would let him raise but ask him not to say it that way in future, the same way I would be lenient with any beginner player within reason.

Here's another one.

Player A Bets the flop
Player B immediately says "All In"
Player A shocked exclaims "All in?"

How do you rule?

DeVore · 25-02-2007 10:59pm

you can't call someone all in. But you can say "I'll call you.... <pause> all in" when you get a reaction. Or if you dont like the reaction just stop after the word "you". This is a call.

With your "all in" question Nicky, if someone acted on the shocked players "all in" (for example said: "yeah I'm all in too!") then I would make it stand.

DeV.

DeVore · 25-02-2007 11:03pm

ps: conditional declarations like "If you move a chip forward, I'm going to go all in" are non binding. I might give a warning for speech play depending on the situation and its repetition but conditionals are not binding.

DeV.

Mr. Flibble · 25-02-2007 11:52pm

DeVore, if you say it fluidly then surely it should be no more binding to a call than saying 'I'll put you all in if you ..." is to a raise? If you can't call somebody all in then it should not be treated as anything at all.

I'd like to see how a rule regarding this is phrased to differentiate between those two circumstances.

Another Ruling Question

Comments