blonde poker forum

OK...here's the deal.  Blinds, antes and all that rubbish don't really matter.  SB, BB are in.  Before the next to act even had a chance to act, the BB declared he was all in regardless, with maybe 5 times the blind behind him.  He didn't push in the chips, just made the statement.  Fold around to one lad in mid position who re-raised to 10 times the blind.  Folds back around to BB who now wants to fold.  Is his verbal announcement of 'All in' binding or is he allowed to now fold to the re-raise? 

Answers on a postcard while I find the nearest bridge.  Cheers.

verbal declaration stands.

Unless the action before him changes.....

If the MP guy limps he has to shove, if someone raises before him he can pass.

yep what flushy said.

Yep...although in some places verbal declarations don't mean a thing.

But the action hasn't changed i.e. nothing has happened that will change the size his bet out of turn.

Action has changed. The bet amount has changed, therefore verbal declaration does not count any more. He can pass.

It hasn't changed - he went allin out of turn, a specific amount and this amount hasnt changed.

This is the line I take he has announced all in, no other action before him can change that.  He has openly declared that he is going AI.  Had he bet out of turn ie say 3 x BB and it was raised prior to him putting that bet in then fine he can pass but not once he has announced that he is AI.

Why does it matter how much he's bet? He has declared a bet of x chips out of turn by declaring all in. Somebody else has bet another amount higher than his bet before the action has reached him. He can pass.

Based on what you say, his action must stand because he has used the words "all in", rather than saying "I bet x".

I happen to agree with you that a verbal declaration SHOULD stand. However, if action has changed then it doesn't. If I was TD the offending player would get a warning, and if he did it again, 20 mins away from the table.

When you act out of turn it is only binding if the action does not change infront of you, so if someone bets £100 and someone in the middle is thinking and you say raise out of turn you only have to raise if the middle man flats or folds, if he himself raises you can now fold. The same obviously applies if you call out of turn and the bet size changes before it gets to you.

I understand what you and sharplea are saying and it all depends on the interpretation of "changed action".  I would consider the action as not changing, mainly because of the obvious angle-shooting advantage that any other ruling gives the angle-shooter in this case.

Err but the action has changed. Before the amount to go was 1BB, now there has been a raise, by definition the action has changed.

Its hard to get an advantage from it as deliberately acting out of turn usually comes with a time penalty.

No one has acted at all, so even a call from the sb is a change in action if you want to interpret the term strictly.  I would rather consider the rule as being a relevant change in action with respect to the out of turn action.  i.e. out of turn call facing a raise or out of turn raise facing a bigger raise.  Although I do see the merits of giving the bb 3 circuits away from the table as well.

Playing in aspers in newcastle a few weeks ago i raised it utg 4xbb this lad wasn't paying attention all the way through the tournament and was clearly quite new but at the same time knew what he was doing he said call but he thought that he was just calling the blind and didn't realise that i had raised it the td was called over and said he didnt have to call as he hadn't realised it had been raised wtf???  is that just ludicrous or what.I only had aj and was happy to take his calll as it was about a 1/4 of his stack and to take the blinds as i only had aj but if i had've had aa think i would've persued it with td surely he's incorrect to say he doesn't have to call?

I think it sounds like common sense, give a new player a bit of leeway the first time he plays

Like i said i dont think he was that new a player and it was just he was too busy talking i am fairly new with live play myself so would be happy to be leniant about it like i say though it wasn't due to it being his 1st time.I didn't actually call over the td i believe it was the dealer and as i say i was happy to take the pot.Just saying that i feel the td's ruling to be wrong and i don't think i would've been harsh to persue it if i was a lot stronger seen as he should've been paying attention and it wasn't due to the fact that he's a new player.

I am of the belief that if players genuinely make a mistake they shouldn't be punished for it, as such i like the TD giving the guy a slide with a warning.

A good TD doesn't just stick to the rules regardless they interpret situations. I am guessing this is a lowish buyin comp player for fun rather than serious money.

Agreed

Pretty much agree with you like a said a didn't really persue ii i was just suprised the td would make that ruling.I am not the type who would want to be unfair in order to increase my chances of winning but do feel players should be concentrating on whats going on at the table.

There was a guy at the table who seem to be a seasoned pro and he was saying he wouldn't have let the play carry on which i felt would've been going to far as it was only a £20 game so u expect these type of players, i forgot to mention that after he said he called once he then reealised i had raised he mucked his and said he folded without waiting for the td to come over a didn't really like that he did that and thought he should've waited to see what the outcome was.Overall i am happy to be leniant with new players mistakes such as saying they raise and so on ... ... but don't think there's any reason to just not be interested in whats going on.