Ruling question - weird one I think

The_Chopper

Saw this in a cash game last night.

Straddled for 12 - 3 players see flop.

Player A checks
Player B checks
Player C bets 35

Player A raises to 90
Player B folds
Player C calls

Turn:
Player A dwells up thinking about what to do.........
Player C claims "If you bet 150 or more I'll have to fold"
Player A asks for a ruling?!?

Is this the same as a player betting or folding out of turn, should this be binding?

How woulkd you rule???

ollyk1

The_Chopper wrote:

Saw this in a cash game last night.

Straddled for 12 - 3 players see flop.

Player A checks
Player B checks
Player C bets 35

Player A raises to 90
Player B folds
Player C calls

Turn:
Player A dwells up thinking about what to do.........
Player C claims "If you bet 150 or more I'll have to fold"
Player A asks for a ruling?!?

Is this the same as a player betting or folding out of turn, should this be binding?

How woulkd you rule???

Not binding imo. If its a place that allows speech play headsup I'd see nothing wrong with it. If they don't allow speech play I'd warn player C. Other than that get on with the game.

hairyfairy00

I found this strange also Chopper, you know yourself that how often the rules change from day to day in that place!!

Mellor

I don't think it binding due the the fact that the player said "IF", it wasn't a definate action, it was out of turn but it wasn't declaring his intention, it depended on something to happen first.
Would be different if he said "dont bother betting, im folding"

cooker3

You can't make it binding as it depends on a conditional, if he makes it 150
if is the all important word here.

DeVore

Conditionals are never binding. What was the ruling?

DeV.

The_Chopper

cooker3 wrote:

You can't make it binding as it depends on a conditional, if he makes it 150
if is the all important word here.

Well if player A did bet 150 does player 3 now have to fold - cos that's exactly what player A did

Flushdraw

I dont think theres anything wrong with it. You cant make it binding. I wouldnt even make it binding if he didnt use the word IF

The Clamper

heads up, speech play is part of the game, also the word IF is used,

no foul, play on

phantom_lord

The_Chopper wrote:

Well if player A did bet 150 does player 3 now have to fold - cos that's exactly what player A did

that would be a ridiculous ruling imo!

The_Chopper

If everyone thinks this would be a ridiculous ruling - would you still think so if you were player A? Bet 150 and had the other guy move in on ya?

What happened was player A did bet - 175 and player C folded. However a ruling was called for and the house was in favour of the hand been folded either way.

NickyOD

DeVore wrote:

Conditionals are never binding. What was the ruling?

DeV.

Actually thats a bit of a grey area and something a lot of TDs have differing opinions on. See here

Player C is basically announcing his action out of turn, If Player A bets 150 then there has been no intervening action that changes player C's out of turn action. Some TDs would rule that he should then be fold forced to fold.

I would rule that Player C should fold if Player A bets 150 or more because that is what he said he would do.

Mellor

The_Chopper wrote:

If everyone thinks this would be a ridiculous ruling - would you still think so if you were player A? Bet 150 and had the other guy move in on ya?

What happened was player A did bet - 175 and player C folded. However a ruling was called for and the house was in favour of the hand been folded either way.

If I was player A and I bet 150 and he didnt fold, i would be happy
as I would only being betting into this player who is clearly angle shooting with a hand. It looks very weak, and I would expect to be ahead here.

Nicky I don't agree that he is announcing his action out of turn, he used the conditional which has already been mention, but he also said i'll have to

"if you bet i'll have to fold"
"if you bet i'll fold"

the two sentances are very different, one suggests an action, and the other suggests the best thing to do,

AS_PokerKing

sounds like he wanted him to bet the 150, but saying that is allowed

BIG-SLICK-POKER

Nicky is right this is a fine line on a verbal Declaration , I personally would not have made the player go all ... and taken it as table Banter .........

cooker3

The_Chopper wrote:

Well if player A did bet 150 does player 3 now have to fold - cos that's exactly what player A did

Nope, he can do what he likes imo. I basically just ignore he ever said it, I don't count a conditional like this as statement of intent.

phantom_lord

The_Chopper wrote:

If everyone thinks this would be a ridiculous ruling - would you still think so if you were player A? Bet 150 and had the other guy move in on ya?

yep.

Mellor

The_Chopper wrote:

If everyone thinks this would be a ridiculous ruling - would you still think so if you were player A? Bet 150 and had the other guy move in on ya?

Well, we'd be a bunch of pretty big hypocrites if we didn't

Tar.Aldarion

Not binding.

RoundTower

just treat it as speech play, it is not binding in any way.