Opions on a Rulling

[GlasgowBandit]

Right here is the situation.  Table mug who was getting drunker and drunker by the minute states as the cards are dealt I'm all in.  at which point Boldie from on here says you realise your held to that - verbal declarations stand.  I agree with Boldie and say the same thing so one boy who was UTG + 2 makes it 150 to to which I say you realise he is all in mate the boy says aye, so theres another caller from MP and then its fold fold fold now the muppet who announced all in when he was blind then says to the boy who raised in one sentence "how much do you have I am all in" Boldie without hesitation scoops his chips and is about to push them all in at which point the mug is giving it "it was only a joke"  "a bit of craic" Again I say no mate the bet from the first time you say it stands.

So a bit of commotion at the table and the TD at the time comes over and ask what happens we all have our say just by this point 3 people at the table from various positions say he said ALL IN twice the mug is arguing away and nearly greeting at this point giving it "its just for the craic" He had been serial raising pots of 75 - 200 with massive overbets like 2k and it was a certainty that as soon as he done it again and anyone picked up a hand he was getting re-raised if not called.  He was starting to get on the wick of most players.
 
So the TD asks the dealer - not a house dealer - he says he said all in before the cards where dealt but I never heard him say it again - so effectivekly if he says it before the deal, once he is dealt his cards and then when someone has bet the bet surely stands?

Imagine our suprise when TD says don't do it again gives him his chips back and says his cards are mucked anyway because he mucked his cards himself.

Anyway Boldie has TT the guy who bets from EP has JJ and MP has AK Boldie makes a set on the flop but the guy hit his set on the river.

My gripe was Boldie would have won a side pot which would have given him more chips than what he started with - his reason for pushing was I think I may be behind to EP bettor but I know I am ahead of the ALL IN.

A terrible decision in my mind.  Boldie proceeded to take the guys chips off him slowly as he had osition on him but I reckon he should have been out long before this was allowed to happen.

Opinion???

[Ironside]

the verbal bet stood ONLY if there was no action before it gets to him

once there is action he is now allowed to change his mind


ie if everyone had passed to him then he is ALL IN

but as soon as a player makes a raise he can fold if he wants

[londonpokergirl]

Now this is where its a bit controversial

If he said he was all in, as the cards are being dealt out to players, then I would make him push all his chips in when its his turn, but as Ironside says if everybody had passed around to him then he is all in, however that didn't occur and so he is allowed to change his mind

In my opinion this rule should be changed

[GlasgowBandit]

Now this is where its a bit controversial

If he said he was all in, as the cards are being dealt out to players, then I would make him push all his chips in when its his turn, but as Ironside says if everybody had passed around to him then he is all in, however that didn't occur and so he is allowed to change his mind

In my opinion this rule should be changed

Yes but he announced a 2nd time after a player bet "how much do you have am all in" Does this not take precedence over the first one?

[londonpokergirl]

Now this is where its a bit controversial

If he said he was all in, as the cards are being dealt out to players, then I would make him push all his chips in when its his turn, but as Ironside says if everybody had passed around to him then he is all in, however that didn't occur and so he is allowed to change his mind

In my opinion this rule should be changed

Yes but he announced a 2nd time after a player bet "how much do you have am all in" Does this not take precedence over the first one?

only if the player bet and he was next to act, then this will take precedence

its seems like the man needed a 20 min penalty away from the table which is probably what I would have given him for acting out of turn twice

[GlasgowBandit]

Now this is where its a bit controversial

If he said he was all in, as the cards are being dealt out to players, then I would make him push all his chips in when its his turn, but as Ironside says if everybody had passed around to him then he is all in, however that didn't occur and so he is allowed to change his mind

In my opinion this rule should be changed

Yes but he announced a 2nd time after a player bet "how much do you have am all in" Does this not take precedence over the first one?

only if the player bet and he was next to act, then this will take precedence

its seems like the man needed a 20 min penalty away from the table which is probably what I would have given him for acting out of turn twice

Maybe I never explained it too well the 2nd time he announced it, it was his turn to act the oy who was UTG + 2 bet and got a call from a MP then it folded round to our table mug.  At which point he says "how much to youhave i am all in" It was said just stick it and pointed out that the MP still has chips and boldie was still to act.

[BrumBilly]

If I've read this correctly, there's been a raise with one caller then a couple of folds. Action now on 'drinker/joker' who announces all in then says it was a joke. If verbal declarations are binding then surely he has to be all in here. There are some players who think they can say what they like at the table and they're all too often proved right by weak staff who don't punish them correctly.

[Ironside]

problem is GB is that the dealer didnt hear the 2nd verbal all in

if the dealer had heard it then the verbal would of stood

but as all play has to be thru the dealer if the dealer didnt hear it then its not a verbal

also this wont affect future play and side pots as it happened after everyone had made there preflop plays

[Royal Flush]

I can't see how anyone can say any verbal PRE DEAL is binding, i mean what happens if you are telling a poker story between hands that involves the words "all in" you would be buggered!

Of coruse once it is his turn to act then it should be binding.

[BrumBilly]

As far as I can tell, nobody's arguing about 'pre-deal' scenarios. That would be insane.

[GlasgowBandit]

He said all in as he got his 2nd card granted he hadn't even looked but he still said it his action could have influenece the other players.  Personally I wasn't too bothered about this one and was noising it up by saying the first announcment would be held.  However once he says it a 2nd time IMO after action has taken place and its him to speak then that should definately stand IMO.
 
If the dealer doesn't hear I don't think that can be used as an excuse.  The old fella dealing is partially death and almost everything has to be repeated to him.

[Ironside]

He said all in as he got his 2nd card granted he hadn't even looked but he still said it his action could have influenece the other players.  Personally I wasn't too bothered about this one and was noising it up by saying the first announcment would be held.  However once he says it a 2nd time IMO after action has taken place and its him to speak then that should definately stand IMO.
 
If the dealer doesn't hear I don't think that can be used as an excuse.  The old fella dealing is partially death and almost everything has to be repeated to him.

the dealer is there as a person the TD gets the info from so needs to tell the TD what he heard

otherwise it would be a ding dong battle player A saying he heard player B saying such and player B saying he never said a thing

[GlasgowBandit]

He said all in as he got his 2nd card granted he hadn't even looked but he still said it his action could have influenece the other players.  Personally I wasn't too bothered about this one and was noising it up by saying the first announcment would be held.  However once he says it a 2nd time IMO after action has taken place and its him to speak then that should definately stand IMO.
 
If the dealer doesn't hear I don't think that can be used as an excuse.  The old fella dealing is partially death and almost everything has to be repeated to him.

the dealer is there as a person the TD gets the info from so needs to tell the TD what he heard

otherwise it would be a ding dong battle player A saying he heard player B saying such and player B saying he never said a thing

Thats exactly what it was like. 

Difficulty with high carding for the dealer.  This happened in ths Stanley BTW having seen this before in the CinCin if this happened there the verbal declaration would have stood IMO.