ruling

[hayjamawas]

saw this happen this weekend in a home tourney i was in... play up to river was inconsequential so i'll skip to the action on the river... player A makes a bet, player B while pondering his action counts out his remaining stack and says it aloud what his count was aloud where pretty much everyone could hear...player A snaps calls and flips over his cards FTW.  player b then says i never annouced i bet nor pushed his chips toward the pot.  How would u handle this....this is a self dealt game with inexperienced dealers...FYI

[Martini]

Looks like Player A is out of luck. While Player B may or may not have been angle shooting he is right in that he did not do anything which binds him to a call. If Player B has a pattern of such behavior then he should receive a warning about how his actions could be construed as angle shooting. Player A should verify action when someone makes an ambiguous statement like that. The dealer should be controlling the action and helping to make sure that a situation like that doesn't come up in the first place. Yeah, I know it was self deal but the dealer is still the person responsible even if it never happens that way in that game.

[Dr. Neau]

Yeah. Sorry player A. I'll say the same thing I say in slow-roll threads...I ain't flippin until I'm sure it's time to flip.

[KingRichard]

That's a tough one.  I'd probably have to be there to really make the right call.  My first thought is that if it was his action and he stated an amount, that's a bet.   But.... If it was REALLY obvious that he was just counting his chips and not betting (and the dude's not a known angle shooter) then I might let him keep his chips.

[hayjamawas]

id have a hard time with this ruling too...my gut feeling is that player b was just thinking aloud and player a mistook the announced stack as an all in bet.  if thats the case then i rule player a acted out of turn and its still action on player b. 

however...if i felt player b did this to angle shoot and had a history of doing this then i would reprimand him after the hand but still would be compelled to rule that its still player b's action and player called out of turn.

[Cav57]

I don't know all the rules but I have to agree with Martini.

I do all the dealing in our tournaments at my house and I do try to watch that kind of stuff. But I also have a betting line on my table. It's not a bet until it cross's the line. If not all, at least the majority of them.

I (as the dealer) tell when to turn their cards up. No one else.

[Jaxen]

Who's to say Player A isn't the one angle shooting? After all, when he flips over, Player B will simply fold if he's beat (unless he thinks A will fold to a raise). By turning his hand up early, Player A will shut down most action.

[Nerre]

It's not a bet until it cross's the line.

But whether a verbal announcement is binding or not is not affected by a betting line.

What if he had said "I bet" before the amount? Would he still be able to say "I never made the bet because my chips didn't cross the betting line"?

What if ha says "4000" and then moves 1000 across the line?


I do agree that player A only has himself to blame, but what would have happened if player A had not flipped his cards over instantly?

[Martini]

Who's to say Player A isn't the one angle shooting? After all, when he flips over, Player B will simply fold if he's beat (unless he thinks A will fold to a raise). By turning his hand up early, Player A will shut down most action.

If Player A is trying to angle shoot then he's not doing it very well. He has nothing to gain by showing early because if Player B has a worse hand then he'll fold and if Player B had a better hand then he'd claim that his verbalization was his wager. Player A presumably thought that Player B was all in since he had vocalized his chip total so Player A is not getting raised out of the pot.

By turning his hand up early, yes, Player A will shut down a percentage of the action but only the percentage that he's beating. How is that to his advantage to do so?

[Martini]

OK, I read the OP again and I'd have to hear more about the context since this sounds more like an angle shoot now that I looked at it more carefully. Player A bet, then Player B counts up his chips and verbalizes his chip total which is presumably a raise? (I had read it as Player A was already all in.) In that case it would depend a lot on the tone of the verbalization. Was it "Hmmmm...10,900?" Or more like "10,900!" In either case it is unusual for a person to verbalize his total chip amount unless he wants to bet that amount. If he's not sure about his hand he is probably going to at most call in which case he should be asking Player A how much the bet is.

Bottom line: Upon further review, I would say that unless it could be easily construed that Player B was merely assessing his stack total I would say that Player B verbalized a legal bet amount and should be bound to it.

[Dr. Neau]

saw this happen this weekend in a home tourney i was in... play up to river was inconsequential so i'll skip to the action on the river... player A makes a bet, player B while pondering his action counts out his remaining stack and says it aloud what his count was aloud where pretty much everyone could hear...player A snaps calls and flips over his cards FTW.  player b then says i never annouced i bet nor pushed his chips toward the pot.  How would u handle this....this is a self dealt game with inexperienced dealers...FYI

Raise....Player B counted his chips, correct?  Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say, yes I agree, I know I didn't agree.  I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason....no, that's a different one.  I gotta go back to...Got all this stuff twirling around in my head. Specifically, what are you asking me, did I agree or not disagree with on what?  Here's what I would have...I would have done a better job of determining who Player B is and I'm sure that other players have some of that information. Based upon who counted those chips — based upon who counted those chips, might have caused me to make some different decisions about how we ruled. Secondly, no, I did not agree with the flip call. Absolutely not. So something would have had to be — I would have supported many of the things they did in order to help stop that. It’s not a simple yes-no, because there are different pieces and I would have gone about assessing the situation differently, which might have caused us to end up in the same place. But where I think more could have been done was, what’s the nature of Player B?

[hayjamawas]

Raise....Player B counted his chips, correct?  Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say, yes I agree, I know I didn't agree.  I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason....no, that's a different one.  I gotta go back to...Got all this stuff twirling around in my head. Specifically, what are you asking me, did I agree or not disagree with on what?  Here's what I would have...I would have done a better job of determining who Player B is and I'm sure that other players have some of that information. Based upon who counted those chips — based upon who counted those chips, might have caused me to make some different decisions about how we ruled. Secondly, no, I did not agree with the flip call. Absolutely not. So something would have had to be — I would have supported many of the things they did in order to help stop that. It’s not a simple yes-no, because there are different pieces and I would have gone about assessing the situation differently, which might have caused us to end up in the same place. But where I think more could have been done was, what’s the nature of Player B?

anyone else get a headache reading this?  lol