Cash Game “Whatever you bet, I’m gonna call” Conditional Statement? (9 Viewers)

[Taghkanic]

As long as the rules are clear neither of these are angles. As others said above, house rules are house rules etc. There's no place in poker for an assumption people should be honest about their game plan, the goal is to misrepresent it.

I'd just approach it from a policy POV for home games. I want clarity and I want banter; this type of between-action-chat is what the game should be all about.

Here's my ruling:
- out of turn action is binding if the action ($ bet size to play) doesn't change
- the conditional part of the statement is not a poker action, it's just hot air

Now we have a clear corollary that conditional statements can only be binding on checks, and we never run into a tricky ruling situation as far as I can see.

IP: "(If you check) I bet $n" - binding after a check, not after a bet
IP or OOP: "(If you bet) I call" - villain bets changing the action, out of turn statement not binding, if villain checks, call is not valid, so not binding.

I was talking about games with standard rules, not ones where childish behavior is encouraged.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I was talking about games with standard rules, not ones where childish behavior is encouraged.

 

[softchewy]

IP or OOP: "(If you bet) I call" - villain bets changing the action, out of turn statement not binding, if villain checks, call is not valid, so not binding.

Then per this view, it isn’t an out of turn statement.. it is just table talk correct? Your statement appears to contradict itself.

 

[jpietrella]

Then per this view, it isn’t an out of turn statement.. it is just table talk correct? Your statement appears to contradict itself.

 

[KHarp1]

I was talking about games with standard rules, not ones where childish behavior is encouraged.

Childish behavior? You mean like crying about bringing back the old classified section on a nearly daily basis?

 

[Taghkanic]

Childish behavior? You mean like crying about bringing back the old classified section on a nearly daily basis?

You must have confused me with someone else. I’ve never posted anything like the above re. classifieds.

I mean childish stuff like declaring out of turn that you will call any bet and then deciding whether to actually call after yo see the opponent’s bet size.

Whether the rules allow it or not, it’s juvenile.

 

[BamaT8ter]

Childish behavior? You mean like crying about bringing back the old classified section on a nearly daily basis?

That's not childish. That's just wisdom in action.

 

[springbox]

From TDA rules, 59A being the relevant one here. Seems most rule sets leave it to the floor or tournament director's discretion.

At a home game I would probably tell a player not to do it, and if they continued to I would start making it binding. It would probably depend on how they went about it.

Situation 1: Heads up and player A is counting chips and considering a river bet while it's their action. Player B (unprompted) says "whatever you bet I'm going to call". I'd tell them they've committed to calling any bet if they're a repeat offender.

Situation 2: Same as above, but after declaring a bet without specifying size player A says "how much would you call for?" and player B says "whatever you bet." Not binding, player B can call/fold/raise when player A decides their bet size.

 

[Poker Zombie]

All I'm saying is, if this is a thing, then 'Half-Pot' should be binding as well!

Unless Pot-limit, "pot" is not a valid call. It is up to the player to calculate the pot, not the dealer. Therefore, 1/2 pot is not a valid action (unless you are online, where the value of the pot is always known).

If you want to punish angle shooters, post a rule that says any conditional statements (in or out of turn) will automatically kill the hand of the person making the statement. I'm guessing that they will only do it once...

I do not like this. Player A (newbie with 3BB left, and an inability to make more than a min raise at any point) tanks while pondering if he should check or bet. Player B with 350BB says "Whatever you do, I'm raising to X (3BB)" to get A to speed up. You're going to kill B's hand for trying to keep the game moving.

I'll admit, I'm a conditional player. I've been in hands heads-up where I whiffed all my outs. My opponent is clearly about to bet and is counting chips. I tell him "say bet and I'll fold". Now, I'm never going back on that statement, and I'm just speeding the game along. Conditional bets may actually be good for the game - but yes, they should always be binding. I can't imagine How ugly it could get if "If you bet I'll fold" is followed with a bet and a raise, and the raise is allowed to stand.

It is up to the player to make their intentions clear (TDA rules #2 and #3). "If you... I will..." is pretty f*cking clear.

 

[upNdown]

Now, I'm never going back on that statement, and I'm just speeding the game along. Conditional bets may actually be good for the game - but yes, they should always be binding.

I love this. But there are plenty of people who WILL go back on those statements. And even though I think that makes them cunts, I understand that they don’t see that as any different than bluffing or false tells or whatever.
It’s just like the famous Tony G hand with Hellmuth, where he said he never looked - some of us think Tony crossed a line and some of us don’t, and who’s to say who’s right?

As we try to relate this to our home games, the problem is that we don’t always have an impartial floor who can make the discretionary call whether or not to hold somebody to a conditional statement. So while I agree that the “kill the hand” rule would be far from ideal, at least it’s clean.

 

[KHarp1]

You must have confused me with someone else. I’ve never posted anything like the above re. classifieds.

I mean childish stuff like declaring out of turn that you will call any bet and then deciding whether to actually call after yo see the opponent’s bet size.

Whether the rules allow it or not, it’s juvenile.

You are correct, I misspoke about the classifieds, and I was wrong. Please accept my sincere apologies. Sorry.

 

[KHarp1]

As far as the talk, that is getting closer to childish, or, angling, though I hear it often in home games. Familiarity breeds contempt, they say, and I think home game players (the kind of home game where the same 10-12 players have played together for a while) forget the etiquette of trying to remain respectful at the table, and, fall into frat house behavior quicker then they would out in public at a casino or card room. I just try to take it all in and read between the lines. Don't think anyone is really gaining an edge, and, there are potential problems that could come about because of comments like these. And, when money and egos are involved, it usually doesn't turn out well.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I love this. But there are plenty of people who WILL go back on those statements. And even though I think that makes them cunts, I understand that they don’t see that as any different than bluffing or false tells or whatever.
It’s just like the famous Tony G hand with Hellmuth, where he said he never looked - some of us think Tony crossed a line and some of us don’t, and who’s to say who’s right?

As we try to relate this to our home games, the problem is that we don’t always have an impartial floor who can make the discretionary call whether or not to hold somebody to a conditional statement. So while I agree that the “kill the hand” rule would be far from ideal, at least it’s clean.

As a host, if I hear a conditional statement, I will remind them that conditional statements are binding. If they immediately try to roll it back before their opponent takes any action, I'll let the rollback stand. I also have other players that will ask when they hear a conditional statement.

It's not unlike teaching (new) players about string bets. We all accept the rule, but many don't know it until they run afoul. It's up to the host to make the decision in the best interest of the game.

 

[Dbxela]

While most conditional statements should not be binding, I would allow someone to "call the floor" to agree that one could be considered binding, if they were really determined.

ITT we need to really focus on what problem we are solving by adding elaborate rules. The main goal should be customer satisfaction and reducing rule-adherence overhead. I wonder if some people enjoy pedantic rule creation and adherence as part of the fun of the game.

 

[ekricket]

While most conditional statements should not be binding, I would allow someone to "call the floor" to agree that one could be considered binding, if they were really determined.

ITT we need to really focus on what problem we are solving by adding elaborate rules. The main goal should be customer satisfaction and reducing rule-adherence overhead. I wonder if some people enjoy pedantic rule creation and adherence as part of the fun of the game.

Some people just want to enjoy a drama feee card session, and not get put into contentious situations that can fracture friendships. Rules help keep drama and arguments down, unless you are a person who doesn’t respect others. Then you argue about the need for rules, because they “just bother you” and get in the way of YOUR good time.

 

[Poker Zombie]

While most conditional statements should not be binding, I would allow someone to "call the floor" to agree that one could be considered binding, if they were really determined.

ITT we need to really focus on what problem we are solving by adding elaborate rules. The main goal should be customer satisfaction and reducing rule-adherence overhead. I wonder if some people enjoy pedantic rule creation and adherence as part of the fun of the game.

It only gets elaborate if the conditional statement is elaborate.

"If you X, I will Y" is as straight forward as any action.

"If Bob checks and you call, then I'll call" is elaborate, but also open collusion. There are necessary rules against collusion.

 

[Taghkanic]

While most conditional statements should not be binding, I would allow someone to "call the floor" to agree that one could be considered binding, if they were really determined.

ITT we need to really focus on what problem we are solving by adding elaborate rules. The main goal should be customer satisfaction and reducing rule-adherence overhead. I wonder if some people enjoy pedantic rule creation and adherence as part of the fun of the game.

It’s more complicated to sort out these situations one by one than to let players know that there is a clear rule which will be enforced. The problem is not a simple rule. It’s people trying to weasel some advantage out of an unclear one or weak floor/host.

 

[Dbxela]

I'm advocating the standard and simplest approach in common with popular official rule sets - an out of turn action is only valid after a check or a fold. That's it. Everything flows easily from there.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I'm advocating the standard and simplest approach in common with popular official rule sets - an out of turn action is only valid after a check or a fold. That's it. Everything flows easily from there.

So in the OP's video, you think the drunk guy made the smart move, allowing the angle-shoot?

 

[aggie]

I'm advocating the standard and simplest approach in common with popular official rule sets - an out of turn action is only valid after a check or a fold. That's it. Everything flows easily from there.

Seems the most standard and simple approach in common with the most popular official rule set also includes: Participants may not intentionally act out of turn to influence play before them and may incur a penalty in accordance with Rules 40, 113, and 114.

No?

 

[Poker Zombie]

Participants may not intentionally act out of turn

This only raises the question "Does a conditional statement count as an action?"

 

[upNdown]

This only raises the question "Does a conditional statement count as an action?"

If the rules say it can be enforced at the discretion of the floor, then I say it’s an action.
And if the rules don’t say that, then it can’t be enforced, so I don’t think it can be an action.

 

[softchewy]

As long as the rules are clear neither of these are angles.

You can’t change the definition of angle shooting by creating a rule.
Rules only define consequences (or lack there of) for certain situation/actions. They don’t preclude them from happening.

 

[Taghkanic]

You can’t change the definition of angle shooting by creating a rule.
Rules only define consequences (or lack there of) for certain situation/actions. They don’t preclude them from happening.

All decent rules include a general provision that the floor can make decisions for the overall good of the game. I would count situations like this as a time where that power ought to be invoked.

Again: My concern is that the person making the statement is essentially freerolling if not held to the promise to call.

 

[Dbxela]

So in the OP's video, you think the drunk guy made the smart move, allowing the angle-shoot?

I'm not sure it's a smart move, but it doesn't matter. No rules were broken, its not a sneaky angle, it's just "of course I lied, its poker Phil". This statement does no more than stacking chips while nit is thinking and putting your hand in a ready to push position - which is obviously fine. Even nits often try reverse tells. Speaking is a tell when its not a binding action.

You have a fun player and a nit, above all else benefit of the doubt is towards fun players and against nits, that's for the good of the game.

In the video you can see Bart is shocked by the idea the nit thought it's a call, he thought the nit was angle shooting, that's the experienced pro take IMO.