Poker etiquette (1 Viewer)

[Gear]

"I’ll put you all in"

"I’ll bet whatever he has left"

These are not the same. I agree with the general consensus that while the former is vaguely nonsensical, it can be interpreted as the latter ... but the latter needs no interpretation, just a count.

 

[Trihonda]

"I’ll put you all in"

"I’ll bet whatever he has left"


I’ve seen both, never been offended by either, but agree it's poor form.

I've never seen it done in an arrogant manner - always inexperienced players just trying to make a bet.

I’m sorta in this camp as well. I see this all the time. I don’t get offended, nor does it chap me. There are better ways to do this, but the premise that betting just enough to target someone is poor form, or seen as attacking them, well... this is funny to me.

The felt is a war zone in some of the games I’ve played on, including some chip meet ups. Ribbing, razzing, needling, all seem legit. (So long as it’s not completely douchey). To bet an amount just over someone’s stack is pretty tame imho.. but I could be wrong

 

[Poker Zombie]

Perhaps the phrase is just an ellipsis.

"I'll put you all-in..." means "I'll put you all-in if you want to call". In this case it is one-hundred percent correct. Player B has the option. Player A does not need to finish the phrase, or get a total count. Player B does not need to see if he will still be hanging on. It is quick, concise and to the point. The numbers don't matter anymore. Player B can call to double up or bust out.

The English language uses ellipses all the time. We even have a word for it. Perhaps people around the card table need - nay, require - the Queen's English to be spoken or they will get upset. Like Trihonda, I personally don't have a problem with it. But you know, great minds... :

 

[Gear]

Perhaps the phrase is just an ellipsis.

"I'll put you all-in..." means "I'll put you all-in if you want to call". In this case it is one-hundred percent correct. Player B has the option. Player A does not need to finish the phrase, or get a total count. Player B does not need to see if he will still be hanging on. It is quick, concise and to the point. The numbers don't matter anymore. Player B can call to double up or bust out.

The English language uses ellipses all the time. We even have a word for it. Perhaps people around the card table need - nay, require - the Queen's English to be spoken or they will get upset. Like Trihonda, I personally don't have a problem with it. But you know, great minds... :

Next time I'm going to say, verbatim: "I will put you all-in dot dot dot."

 

[TheBigTater]

It is a phrase that I have used unfortunately. It isn't said/meant in a mean spirited way as if I'm picking on someone, just when it's obvious that you have someone covered heads up and your bet will put them all-in if they call. I wouldn't ever use it in a pot where there is multi-way action.

I never realized and/or wasn't aware how much it made people upset before reading some of these responses.

I guess I have years of bad poker habits that I need to try and work on.

 

[MatB]

I wouldn't get offended if someone said it.

But I would just sit there twiddling my thumbs until the player had made a bet

Action is still on them after all.

That's what I'd do at a poker room. Home game is a little different. That's when I start giving you shit. In a nice way.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Next time I'm going to say, verbatim: "I will put you all-in dot dot dot."

English only at the table please. No need to resort to Morse code.

 

[krafticus]

I wouldn't get offended if someone said it.

But I would just sit there twiddling my thumbs until the player had made a bet

Action is still on them after all.

That's what I'd do at a poker room. Home game is a little different. That's when I start giving you shit. In a nice way.

I agree with this statement 100%

 

[BGinGA]

according to the TDA...

It is the responsibility of players to make their intentions clear: using non-standard terms or gestures is at player’s risk and may result in a ruling other than what the player intended

If I hear a player say "I'll put you all in" I will take that to mean "I'll bet whatever you have", and it is binding.

I view this in a similar fashion, but just a little differently. When I hear a player say it, this is what i hear (and how I rule): I'll put you all-in. Didn't mean it? Shouldn't have said it.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I view this in a similar fashion, but just a little differently. When I hear a player say it, this is what i hear (and how I rule): I'll put you all-in. Didn't mean it? Shouldn't have said it.

"using non-standard terms or gestures is at player’s risk and may result in a ruling other than what the player intended"

I support your decision 100% (y) :thumbsup:

 

[Lemonzest]

Usually when I hear someone say "I'll put you all in" I just assume they are not very experienced. It can create confusion.

Much better to simply say "all in" as a declaration of your action.

 

[Blaster]

I keep a printed set of the rules I have made handy, & although never been needed so far, I did address this topic in a specific rule, just in case one day a new player arrives & creates a "misunderstanding" ....:

** " Statements of I'll put you all-in" should be avoided, (you can’t play someone else’s cards), but if used in the game, in turn, it will be considered a valid bet, equal to the amount of the total chip stack(s) of the player it was directed at. If that player has more chips than the bettor, then it will be considered a valid All-In bet. "

From
https://justpaste.it/167q3
anyone feel free to use / print modify to your game...

 

[CHP TD]

I can assure you that if you ever hear me saying that at a home game, it is personal and intentional.

There it is

case closed.

 

[DRacula]

Saw this happen at my local casino

Player 1 bets (stack ~$100)
Player 2 (stack ~$300) says "I put you all in"
player 3 (Has both covered) who has look disinterested the entire hand with cards ready to muck stands up and says "I Call"

Player 1 mucks
Player 2 starts counting how many chips Player 1 had in his stack to put the bet in
Player 3 says "Player 1 put all your chips in you said all in"

Floor was called for a ruling


Moral of the story: Either use chips or use numbers for bets

 

[Gear]

Saw this happen at my local casino

Player 1 bets (stack ~$100)
Player 2 (stack ~$300) says "I put you all in"
player 3 (Has both covered) who has look disinterested the entire hand with cards ready to muck stands up and says "I Call"

Player 1 mucks
Player 2 starts counting how many chips Player 1 had in his stack to put the bet in
Player 3 says "Player 1 put all your chips in you said all in"

Floor was called for a ruling


Moral of the story: Either use chips or use numbers for bets

Interesting. What was the ruling?

 

[upNdown]

Interesting. What was the ruling?

Hopefully that player 2 made a raise equivalent to whatever player 1 had behind. It seems a much better ruling than ruling player 2’s action as a call or an all-in.

 

[Frogzilla]

Hopefully that player 2 made a raise equivalent to whatever player 1 had behind. It seems a much better ruling than ruling player 2’s action as a call or an all-in.

I disagree. Player 3 may not have wanted to raise there, and was deliberately showing weakness. Now he has given away a lot of info. To me, any confusion should go against the player who caused it.

 

[ekricket]

Saw this happen at my local casino

Player 1 bets (stack ~$100)
Player 2 (stack ~$300) says "I put you all in"
player 3 (Has both covered) who has look disinterested the entire hand with cards ready to muck stands up and says "I Call"

Player 1 mucks
Player 2 starts counting how many chips Player 1 had in his stack to put the bet in
Player 3 says "Player 1 put all your chips in you said all in"

Floor was called for a ruling


Moral of the story: Either use chips or use numbers for bets

What was the dealer doing? Why was the player counting chips and not the dealer? Usually I let the dealer make a preliminary ruling, and ignore whatever the other players are saying. If I disagree then I'll ask for the floor to come over.

The dealer should control what's happening at the table.

Also in the scenario above, player 1 never said all in. It was player 2.

Also if I was player 3 I would have asked how much the bet was before I said I call.

 

[Steve Birrer]

All player 3 had to do was to ask what the bet was or just say all in (since he clearly wants player 2 to be all in anyway and he had 1 and 2 covered). But I too would like to hear what the floor ruling was. I don't know how the floor could rule anything but the bet being how ever many chips player 1 had.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I could see the word "You" to mean the group - everyone still in the hand. English is funny that way. Still, a non-standard bet is automatically open to interpretation, and that interpretation may not be as the player intended. Player 2 has no gripe if he is all-in.

 

[upNdown]

All player 3 had to do was to ask what the bet was or just say all in (since he clearly wants player 2 to be all in anyway and he had 1 and 2 covered). But I too would like to hear what the floor ruling was. I don't know how the floor could rule anything but the bet being how ever many chips player 1 had.

Right? I think you have to rule he made a bet, otherwise that opens up easy angles. So how many chips did he bet? He told you - what the other guy had behind. Yeah it’s clumsy and sloppy and annoying, but I’d be real surprised if there’s another ruling that makes sense.

 

[upNdown]

I could see the word "You" to mean the group - everyone still in the hand. English is funny that way. Still, a non-standard bet is automatically open to interpretation, and that interpretation may not be as the player intended. Player 2 has no gripe if he is all-in.

I agree that he’s got no gripe, because he’s betting like a dumbass. And especially with Stacky McStacks yet to act.

 

[DRacula]

Interesting. What was the ruling?

The bet was ruled as Player 1's stack, with Player 3 given the option of call/raise/fold

There was a lot of disagreement about this decision at the table, I have played at casinos where any form of "all in" is binding. Probably to discourage angle shooting

 

[DRacula]

What was the dealer doing? Why was the player counting chips and not the dealer? Usually I let the dealer make a preliminary ruling, and ignore whatever the other players are saying. If I disagree then I'll ask for the floor to come over.

The dealer should control what's happening at the table.

Also in the scenario above, player 1 never said all in. It was player 2.

Also if I was player 3 I would have asked how much the bet was before I said I call.

Player 3 said "I call" almost immediately after Player 2 said "I put you all in" before the dealer had announced any action or bet size. Player 3 is a reg who is notorious for doing sh*t like this.

 

[BGinGA]

Player 2 is all-in. It's the only part of his verbal action that is -- and should be -- binding. Allowing anything else is allowing an angle-shoot. Player 3 acted properly, calling player 2's all-in.

 

[ekricket]

Player 2 is all-in. It's the only part of his verbal action that is -- and should be -- binding. Allowing anything else is allowing an angle-shoot. Player 3 acted properly, calling player 2's all-in.

Yeah, but player 3 was out of line for thinking player 1 had to put his chips in. Player 1 bet, and then when some kind of ambiguous raise was declared he folded. Perfectly proper.

Player 2 should have been all in. Player 3 should have been bound by his verbal call.

 

[Steve Birrer]

Yeah, but player 3 was out of line for thinking player 1 had to put his chips in. Player 1 bet, and then when some kind of ambiguous raise was declared he folded. Perfectly proper.

Player 2 should have been all in. Player 3 should have been bound by his verbal call.

The floor got it right. I disagree with your ruling vehemently. While player 2 used poor terminology his bet has to be equal to the total # chips player 1 had.

 

[Poker Zombie]

...ok, but how did the hand play out in the end?

 

[BGinGA]

The floor got it right. I disagree with your ruling vehemently. While player 2 used poor terminology his bet has to be equal to the total # chips player 1 had.

Totally disagree.

Point in case is where player 1 does not have enough chips for player 2 to make a valid wager using that criteria; as always, the actual number of player 1 chips is irrelevant to the size of player 2's bet amount.

Player 2 said the magical words, 'all-in'. Done deal. Verbal actions are binding, even when stupidly constructed.

 

[WedgeRock]

Verbal actions are binding, even when stupidly constructed.

I would like to see TDA and/or RROP updated to this exact quote.