Question on rules...

dirkey_wynne · 06-09-2007 8:35am #1

Hi all, long time no post. Long time no play.

Hit the Fitz last night to play for the first time in ages. Good to see Marq there to greet, a familiar face. Anyway, playing away, down to 18, three tables has just become two. As a player goes to sit down, in the BB at my table, he somehow thinks he's UTG, dealing in progress, puts all his chips over the line and says "I'm all in".

Dealer says "You're big blind...shhh" and gives his chips back, leaving the BB in there. Play comes around to me...I look down at AQ (there are a couple of callers already, so I'm assuming big cards as I figure they wouldn't call knowing he has to go all in as verbally declared...as is my understanding) so I lay down. Comes around to him. He checks.

Flop came AQx. I was sick. Another lad, two to my right said "i laid down because I thought he was going all in". Which is same as me.

I didn't say anything, make a question of the rules etc, as I had already mucked the cards etc so nothing could be done anyway. Question is though...now I'm most likely wrong, but I thought his verbal bet, and fact he put the chips over the line, meant it had to stand?

Mr Magnolia · 06-09-2007 8:43am

As far as I'm concerned verbals are binding.

shoutman · 06-09-2007 9:14am

I agree with the above. Dealers mistake imo.

5starpool · 06-09-2007 9:22am

He is not obliged to go all in here as far asa I am aware.

shoutman · 06-09-2007 9:25am

Verbal declaration should stand imo. It has heavily effected other peoples play. Obviously if it was done on purpose by the BB he would be warned and then time penaltys would have to come into place.

dirkey_wynne · 06-09-2007 9:37am

But, even if you take away the verbal, he had also physically put all of his chips over the line when he said it...

5starpool · 06-09-2007 9:47am

I believe that if you are BB, then this doesn't stand, and is only tantamount to saying 'I will go all in when it is my go'. I am open to correction though, and will be interested to hear some dealers/TD's opinions on it. I have sen this happen loads and dealers have told him to take it back, but maybe this was incorrect also, but I don't think so.

RoundTower · 06-09-2007 10:06am

not binding.

Mellor · 06-09-2007 10:09am

why not binding?
action out of turn is binding

5starpool · 06-09-2007 10:11am

Not on this occasion I believe. I don't think a player has the option to go all in on the BB before some action has taken place.

Waylander · 06-09-2007 10:13am

I would have thought it was binding. I thought any action out of turn like that was binding.

Hitchhiker's Guide to... · 06-09-2007 11:00am

RoundTower wrote:

not binding.

You consistently make arrogant posts like this. I.e. "I just have to say two words and that is the gospel, irregardless of the detailed conversation that comes before me". Would it not be better when you are making posts like this to say why you believe it is not binding? Given that other people have explained their opinions.

/sorry rant over, but i've been noticing it so much and it is really really starting to annoy me. You can be an arrogant player at the table and have that as a beneficial thing, but why carry that over into conversations where someone is asking for an opinion on something?

5starpool · 06-09-2007 11:09am

Roundtower2 wrote:

You consistently make arrogant posts like this. I.e. "I just have to say two words and that is the gospel, irregardless of the detailed conversation that comes before me". Would it not be better when you are making posts like this to say why you believe it is not binding? Given that other people have explained their opinions.

/sorry rant over, but i've been noticing it so much and it is really really starting to annoy me. You can be an arrogant player at the table and have that as a beneficial thing, but why carry that over into conversations where someone is asking for an opinion on something?

What the hell is that for? His post was not arrogant, and he was answering the question?

Chill out a bit.

Shortstack · 06-09-2007 11:24am

Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Action out of turn may be binding and will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call, or fold is not considered action changing.

This is from the TDA rules and my reading of this is that it should stand as the action has not changed as all the players called. If there had been a raise his all in would not be binding.

Mellor · 06-09-2007 11:27am

Roundtower2 wrote:

You consistently make arrogant posts like this. I.e. "I just have to say two words and that is the gospel, irregardless of the detailed conversation that comes before me". Would it not be better when you are making posts like this to say why you believe it is not binding? Given that other people have explained their opinions.

/sorry rant over, but i've been noticing it so much and it is really really starting to annoy me. You can be an arrogant player at the table and have that as a beneficial thing, but why carry that over into conversations where someone is asking for an opinion on something?

split personalities, they can be confusing things

shoutman · 06-09-2007 11:31am

Roundtower2 is just pissed cause when he went to sign up to this forum he found his desired username was taken, and by a fellow poker player none the less.

Hitchhiker's Guide to... · 06-09-2007 11:35am

5starpool wrote:

What the hell is that for? His post was not arrogant, and he was answering the question?

Chill out a bit.

Think i'm right on this. He consistently responds to vast discussions with comments that solely consist of answers such as 'no', 'yes', 'bad call'. These types of posts don't contribute anything to the discussion when everyone else says 'no, because', 'yes, because', 'i feel that was a bad call because'

This was demonstrated in the follow up posts to his post of 'not binding', with a few posts saying 'why is it not binding?'

I think it does display arrogance to feel that you can just give a one or two word answer, and not have to explain it, as if it is true because of who says it.

Hitchhiker's Guide to... · 06-09-2007 11:37am

also the OP was clearly asking for an argument that he could make in case it happens again. How was it helpful for him to be able to say the next time it happens; "well this guy on boards said 'not binding' "

Mellor · 06-09-2007 11:56am

Roundtower2 wrote:

I think it does display arrogance to feel that you can just give a one or two word answer, and not have to explain it, as if it is true because of who says it.

This seams to be the latest band wagon to jump on.
RT was simply giving his opinion that it wasn't binding.

There are only situations, that verbal action is binding.
Or that the BB cannot move in before any action, (as suggested by 5star before RTs post), and therefore not binding.

With RTs post, the "because" appeared to be agreeing with 5star.

Does it also annoy you when people quote a post and only reply with a . to agree.

LuckyLloyd · 06-09-2007 1:05pm

This post has been deleted.

BigCityBanker · 06-09-2007 1:16pm

You folded AQ against a blind hand?

Flushdraw · 06-09-2007 1:19pm

Mike has it right IMO. A verbal out of turn is not binding. Very clever angle shooting though by him. AQ FTW though. Ship it

Roundtower2 wrote:

"I just have to say two words and that is the gospel, irregardless of the detailed conversation that comes before me". Would it not be better when

One thing that really really annoys me is this "word".....where did it ever come from..its regardless ffs

smurph · 06-09-2007 1:22pm

LuckyLloyd wrote:

I would just like to give a bit of advice:

If anything like this ever happens at the table immediately put your hand up and call for the floor - while requesting that the dealer immediately stop what they are doing. I have a habit of calling the floor a lot - it's just better to get this stuff sorted on the spot rather than letting it fester. If you had gotten Marq or Denise or whoever to the table the minute you saw the dealer give his chips back you wouldn't be posting here today.

Not that I am getting at you btw, I don't think players complain to the floor enough tbf.

I agree with you Lloyd (shock horror gasp:rolleyes: ) in general the floor is not called quick enough...... which results in a big discussion about the rule and everyone at the table becomes an expert. Then when the TD is called over everyone tries to tell the story...... The dealer should tell the TD what has happened and everyone at the table shut up. I know the Fitz and the Sporting are trying hard to keep to this rule.

dirkey_wynne · 06-09-2007 1:28pm

BigCityBanker wrote:

You folded AQ against a blind hand?

Yes. My understanding was that he had to play. There were - iirc - 3 people at least after calling, to my mind, if they were thinking the same as me, they had big hands to be calling.

AQ is my horror hand anyway. It's the one I've got issues in my head with, as it is!

BigDragon · 06-09-2007 1:34pm

dirkey_wynne wrote:

AQ is my horror hand anyway. It's the one I've got issues in my head with, as it is!

And has been for at least the 3 years Ive known you.....

dirkey circa 2004 wrote:

AQ is called the ''Nuclear hand''.....deadly if handled incorrectly

Welcome back m8

Shortstack · 06-09-2007 1:50pm

Flushdraw wrote:

Mike has it right IMO. A verbal out of turn is not binding. Very clever angle shooting though by him. AQ FTW though. Ship it

Just to clarify:

In the case posted the all in should have been binding as there had been no change in the action. The only time it would not be binding is if someone else decided to raise before him.

If you were in this hand and had a monster the best thing to do is get a ruling and if the rules are applied as the TDA then just call initially and then the out of turn all in stands if no one else raises then you can subsequently call the all in and get horribly outdrawn

Hitchhiker's Guide to... · 06-09-2007 1:53pm

Mellor wrote:

This seams to be the latest band wagon to jump on.
RT was simply giving his opinion that it wasn't binding.

I've never jumped on any of those bandwagons, if you look at my posts. I didn't even see what was wrong with Cardshark's post on fatboydim (unless it was subsequently edited. I don't even think i've ever posted a negative comment on anyone on this forum ever.

dirkey_wynne · 06-09-2007 3:00pm

BigDragon wrote:

And has been for at least the 3 years Ive known you.....

Welcome back m8

Ha. Hey BigD, how're things with you? Good to be back, time to get myself playing and posting again, on a regular basis! Rusty as fook last night I was!

Theresalwaysone · 06-09-2007 5:26pm

Roundtower2 wrote:

You consistently make arrogant posts like this. I.e. "I just have to say two words and that is the gospel, irregardless of the detailed conversation that comes before me". Would it not be better when you are making posts like this to say why you believe it is not binding? Given that other people have explained their opinions.

/sorry rant over, but i've been noticing it so much and it is really really starting to annoy me. You can be an arrogant player at the table and have that as a beneficial thing, but why carry that over into conversations where someone is asking for an opinion on something?

This complaint seems awful familiar.

JP Poker · 06-09-2007 5:53pm

I would and have ruled the all in stood when the action came back around to the BB.

However UTG ect would only have to call whatever the BB bets is until the action reach the BB and he is then all in, with action then going around the table again.

The main problem i think with allowing the BB to not be forced to go all-in, as seems to be the case with the OP is it's a form of angle shooting to protect your BB.

There's an interesting read on hendom mob,
http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director2/if_you_raise_i_will_go_all-in

RoundTower · 06-09-2007 6:17pm

I usually explain my thinking, however I don't have time to answer everything in detail and I hope it is helpful to at least add my answer without an explanation.

Also there isn't much to explain in a question like that, the answer to "why?" is because that is usually the rule. In some card clubs it is different. If you run a card club and are formulating some rules asking what is a good rule in this situation, that is a different question.

themilkyone · 06-09-2007 6:29pm

im a dealer and have been for the past 3 or so years...my understanding of this is that if a player verbally declares something regardless of being in position of action it is binding.its the same as if a player calls pot out of turn in a cash game...the bet still stands and so it should in a tournament.otherwise its a form of protecting your big blind by angle-shooting...also if dealing was in progrees the dealer should have declared the players hand dead.new Fitz rules as of March 1st '07...players must be in their seats for when the first card is dealt!

Goodluck2me · 08-09-2007 1:19am

shoutman wrote:

Roundtower2 is just pissed cause when he went to sign up to this forum he found his desired username was taken, and by a fellow poker player none the less.

id the same problem with the lesser known Goodluck1me...ba$tard...

Mellor · 08-09-2007 1:34am

goodluck2me wrote:

id the same problem with the lesser known Goodluck1me...ba$tard...

You should hear what he is saying about you

Goodluck2me · 08-09-2007 1:56am

Mellor wrote:

You should hear what he is saying about you

fúcking clique...

mormank · 08-09-2007 6:38am

i have dealt a bit and i have td'd a bit..hmmm and i dont think it is binding. if i was dealing when it happened i would simply give him back his chips and said no its not your turn, you are big blind but then explained to the table that it wasn't binding. this would alleviate any folding of 'big' hands cos ye thought the player would be all in..and if i was on the floor and was called over when this had happened and someone insisted that his all in should stand i would simply state the tda ruling of in turn verbals ARE binding and that out of turn verbals MAY be binding. At the end of the day there is a way around every situation as a td i feel. hence the interest of fairness line. a td can make almost any ruling he wants...he generally wont, but he could.

connie147 · 08-09-2007 3:43pm

mormank wrote:

i have dealt a bit and i have td'd a bit..hmmm and i dont think it is binding. if i was dealing when it happened i would simply give him back his chips and said no its not your turn, you are big blind but then explained to the table that it wasn't binding. this would alleviate any folding of 'big' hands cos ye thought the player would be all in..and if i was on the floor and was called over when this had happened and someone insisted that his all in should stand i would simply state the tda ruling of in turn verbals ARE binding and that out of turn verbals MAY be binding. At the end of the day there is a way around every situation as a td i feel. hence the interest of fairness line. a td can make almost any ruling he wants...he generally wont, but he could.

By ruling he doesnt have to go all-in here, your not using the "interest of fairness line" at all. Players (including the op) have played this hand expecting the BB to go all-in when it becomes his turn to act. The BB has angle-shot his way into seeing a cheap flop. I've often seen where a bb is relatively short-stacked and decides to go all-in blind before the cards are dealt.If its in my club or where im doing td,he'll be told to take out the extra chips but he will be forced to put them all-in where the action is just flat called around to him.

DeVore · 08-09-2007 3:58pm

If a player declares Pot before it is his turn , and a play before him then pots it, I doubt very much that he would be held to bet the new pot.

The action is not binding in all circumstances (he could fold if someone raised before him). Only the next person to act is entitled to check in the dark or bet before the turn etc. This is a very esoteric rule though and people should call floor to see which way the local wind blows before making any decision on it.

DeV.

Flushdraw · 08-09-2007 4:55pm

DeVore wrote:

This is a very esoteric rule though and people should call floor to see which way the local wind blows before making any decision on it.

DeV.

MickL · 08-09-2007 4:58pm

The bet is binding he acted out of turn and must stand that action has already influenced players decisions in the hand so must stand people forget rules are to protect the innocent and in this case the Innocent (ie OP) has been takin advantage of by the action that was taking out of turn by the BB, ok he made a mistake but it is his duty to pay attention to the game and if not hard luck he shal learn from his mistakes!!
Mick

mormank · 08-09-2007 6:18pm

the problem with this ruling and most rulings brought into question on this site is that there is no definitive set of rules that the game of texas hold em is governed by on this emerald isle of ours!! Maybe something worth lookin into.

Most rules are specific to a certain area or even club. The game has spread so fast in this country and many places have people running their tournaments who dont even know what an alternate is let alone whether or not action like this is binding, or why it is binding if it is and vica versa.

Question on rules...

Comments