Cash Game Verbal announcement binding, out of turn? (2 Viewers)

[Theophoric]

So I was reading about people acting out of turn and the problems that it causes on this post:

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/trouble-with-out-of-turn-action.20267/page-4

Anyway, there was an instance at the casino I play out in which P1 had JJ, and P2 has KK.

I'm not sure of all of the details between the two of them, but P1 raises, and tells the guy with KK that no matter what he does, he's going to get called.

P1 does not know that P2 is holding kings, but P2 says okay, and then jams on P1. At this point P1 does not want to call that bet ('I'm going to call whatever you do').

Obviously P1 made a verbal announcement to 'call whatever you do', and it was out of action, and P2 had not done anything yet.

Long story short floor gets called, 20 mins later gets solved, what P1 said is apparently binding, and he loses his stack.

Is this really the correct line of action?

 

[Wils]

In my opinion (and I think I've seen this in RROP or the TDA rules), saying "whatever you do I'm going to call" or whatever is NOT binding.

If he'd actually said "I'm going all in" out of turn and there had been no bets or raises between the current action player and him before it became his turn to act, that would be binding.

IMHO

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

It likely depends on where you play, but WSOP rules say that contingent bets are discouraged and I usually see them ruled as binding.

The only time I have seen them ruled non binding is if there are, for example, 3 players, and the 3rd player does something to change the action. For example. P1 and P2 are bantering similar to your scenario, and say P2 has a smaller stack than P1 (i.e. could not put P1 all in). However, P3 is the chip leader. P2 goes all in, p3 goes all in. Now the action has changed to P1 because this will now put him all in. I have seen them rule both ways, sometimes let P1 fold, sometimes make him call. It's a slippery slope. Here's the WSOP rule.

" 61. Conditional statements regarding future action are non-standard and strongly discouraged; they may be binding and/or subject to penalty at Tournament Director’s discretion in accordance with Rules 40, 111, and 112. Example: “if – then” statements such as "If you
bet, then I will raise.”

 

[RainmanTrail]

So I was reading about people acting out of turn and the problems that it causes on this post:

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/trouble-with-out-of-turn-action.20267/page-4

Anyway, there was an instance at the casino I play out in which P1 had JJ, and P2 has KK.

I'm not sure of all of the details between the two of them, but P1 raises, and tells the guy with KK that no matter what he does, he's going to get called.

P1 does not know that P2 is holding kings, but P2 says okay, and then jams on P1. At this point P1 does not want to call that bet ('I'm going to call whatever you do').

Obviously P1 made a verbal announcement to 'call whatever you do', and it was out of action, and P2 had not done anything yet.

Long story short floor gets called, 20 mins later gets solved, what P1 said is apparently binding, and he loses his stack.

Is this really the correct line of action?

Absolutely not. This is a bullshit ruling. The gaming commission would have been called so fast if this ruling was called on me it'd make their heads spin.

 

[upNdown]

I guess I'd like to hear his exact words.
"Whatever you do, I call" sure sounds like he's acting out of turn.

"Whatever you do, I will call you" is different - it's a statement of future intent, and not acting out of turn. Rule 61 above attempts to address this, but what the hell does "may be binding" mean??? It's not really a rule, is it?

If the actual words fall under rule 61, I'm all for enforcing the call. Don't talk like Tony G, then back down. But I'd like to see a better rule.

 

[WedgeRock]

The action changed when P2 jams...not binding, IMO.

 

[MatB]

" 61. Conditional statements regarding future action are non-standard and strongly discouraged; they may be binding and/or subject to penalty at Tournament Director’s discretion in accordance with Rules 40, 111, and 112. Example: “if – then” statements such as "If you
bet, then I will raise.”


Seems pretty clear to me. (no sarcasm there either )

We've all seen WSOP footage where its up to the discretion of the floor and the ruling is not liked but they cite the "integrity of the game"

@RainmanTrail you don't like the ruling that it was binding?

I think the JJ player found themselves in the murky waters where the line between table talk and angle shooting become a little blurry.
JJ was obviously posturing and was hoping for a fold. Ruling may have been different if he'd said. "i might go all in if you raise" or "if you raise i might call" but he didn't. He stated he would call whatever KK did. Pretty easy ruling. Only thing that probably took 20 minutes was letting JJ argue his case.

 

[Quicksilver-75]

Again. I think the same rule applies. From the statement we can imply that this is a conversation made, with eye contact and directed at one particular player making it IMO a binding contract. More over saying Shit like this before someone acts on his turn is an angle shot. Clearly it was said with the intent of getting a read on the players hand strength.
Let the all-in circle the table and upon return force the offender to call. If offender throws his cards to the muck he is still obligated to pay the equivalent amount of the all-in.

 

[BGinGA]

I'd rule this differently, depending on specific circumstances.

Under most rules, JJ player's premature verbal call action cannot be enforced, since the action facing him has since changed. This is important to note, since he was actually facing NO action until the KK player raised (all-in). So in a cash game setting, it falls under the normal rules for premature actions, and is not binding. I'd still issue a warning to the player.

In a tournament setting -- if WSOP or similar rules are in effect -- I would issue JJ player a warning and a sit-out penalty, but the premature action would not be binding. As TD, I prefer this option over making the statement binding -- it serves as a visible deterrent and puts both the player and table on notice that similar actions are in violation of the rules. Subsequent violations would likely dictate a different TD response.


However, regardless if cash play or tournament, if the KK player had announced 'raise' without specifying an amount, followed by the JJ player making his comment, then his call is binding regardless of the amount raised -- provided he actually said the words, "I call" in his statement.

Examples:
"No matter what you do, I'm calling." - binding
"I call no matter what you do." - binding
"No matter what you do, you're getting called." - NOT binding.

 

[MatB]

I almost agree. But don't.

The action didn't change.

KK announced raise.


That being said if Floor says not binding and game continues I don't really care. Sooner JJ and Kk hand is over I get to see some cards.

 

[BGinGA]

The action didn't change.

KK announced raise

I don't think ^that^ is accurate:

Obviously P1 made a verbal announcement to 'call whatever you do', and it was out of action, and P2 had not done anything yet.

 

[MatB]

I don't think ^that^ is accurate:

Ok I re-read op. Hmmm

I see where it gets blurry. JJ out of turn "calling whatever " Was said before any action by KK. Therefore KK going all in was action changing.

So yes now I'm I'm back on the fence.

But I stick by my other comment. Whatever the decision is hurry up. I got hands to play

 

[WedgeRock]

1. JJ raises, and tells KK that no matter what he does, he's going to get called.

2. KK says okay, and then jams

No announcement of raise by KK before JJ's speech means action changed.

EDIT: Nevermind. Covered.

 

[ssanel54]

I couldn't really tell from the OP, but I assume the initial Raise amount from P1 was established? and the action was officially on P2 while all the talking was going on?

 

[AWenger]

The main takeaway I got from this is: if a player makes bets with non-standard language and/or with conditional statements, and/or out of turn, then that player is creating a situation that can potentially open the door to a ruling from the floor supervisor, which may be at the supervisor's discretion.

Player 1 opened the door by making non-standard conditional statements about his betting action out of turn.

Talking and banter is one thing, but if all players would just announce their own betting actions in a standard way, and in turn around the table, then we wouldn't have to spend our time reading and commenting on all these threads.

 

[BGinGA]

Talking and banter is one thing, but if all players would just announce their own betting actions in a standard way, and in turn around the table.....

Some players just gotta push the boundaries and look for an edge; it's in their nature.

I'm guessing most are losing players, who think they're smarter than everybody else, and are too lazy to put in the work needed to become better.

 

[SemiNumerical]

Is this the same as selecting "Call Any" Vs "Call" when playing online?

Thats what this looks like.

if conditional statements are non binding, just rail them for 30 mins.

 

[Jambine]

duplicate

 

[Jambine]

Some players just gotta push the boundaries and look for an edge; it's in their nature.

I'm guessing most are losing players, who think they're smarter than everybody else, and are too lazy to put in the work needed to become better.

If that's a Troll, its one of the greatest of all time.
.....now shut up and take my money!

 

[justsomedude]

I'd rule this differently, depending on specific circumstances.

Under most rules, JJ player's premature verbal call action cannot be enforced, since the action facing him has since changed.

This is how I understand the rules, and how I also would have interpreted it.

We had a similar situation in my home game last summer, and I ended up pulling out my hard copy printout of Robert's Rules of Poker.

According to RRoP, the "allin" action by P2 effectively "changes the action," and P1's previous "call" is void.

If this "non-standard" language was used in a game that I host, I'd probably rule per RRoP - cancel the "if/then allin call" due to the changed action - and then seriously chew out the as*hole who tried to d*ck around with some halfas*ed conditional verbal action.

 

[Mental Nomad]

According to RRoP, the "allin" action by P2 effectively "changes the action," and P1's previous "call" is void.

The complication, here, is that there's no intervening action to change the bet, because there's no intervening player at all.

The target of "call" statement is the person who makes the action.

For clarity's sake... if there were 8 players, P8 and P7 are blinds....

P6 calls.
P4 says (out of turn): "I call whatever P5 bets."
P5 raises all-in.

Is P4 off the hook because the action changed before it got to him? Or is he bound because the only action is the action which he specifically called?

versus:


P6 calls.
P4 says (out of turn): "I call."
P5 raises all-in.

Here, the out of turn action is still presumed to be calling the big blind bet, so the raise changes the action.

 

[justsomedude]

The complication, here, is that there's no intervening action to change the bet, because there's no intervening player at all.

The target of "call" statement is the person who makes the action.

For clarity's sake... if there were 8 players, P8 and P7 are blinds....

P6 calls.
P4 says (out of turn): "I call whatever P5 bets."
P5 raises all-in.

Is P4 off the hook because the action changed before it got to him? Or is he bound because the only action is the action which he specifically called?

versus:


P6 calls.
P4 says (out of turn): "I call."
P5 raises all-in.

Here, the out of turn action is still presumed to be calling the big blind bet, so the raise changes the action.

I understand the logic, but don't really want to get into the weeds on debating the intricacies of each side. I can see how both rulings can be defending (voiding the out of turn call, or enforcing it).

As this is a conditional call, which is non-standard on the surface, and is further complicated by its out of turn nature, with no third player involved, things get complicated, quickly.

There's really no "rule" for how this specific scenario is to be decided in heads up play. And, as I said, I can see arguing both outcomes.

My general rule in this scenario is thus... don't be a Jamie Gold if you don't need to be...

(skip to 8:10)

 

[WedgeRock]

Where is the dislike button?

That video was spot on and relevant, but I can't stand Jamie Gold. And you just brought that back into my consciousness.

 

[pltrgyst]

....View attachment 97751

According to RRoP, the "allin" action by P2 effectively "changes the action," and P1's previous "call" is void.

Like much of RRoP, that passage is horribly written. It would be much clearer if instead of referring to his "next turn to act" it said "when it does become his turn to act".

As written, it does not necessarily state what you have interpreted it to state.

Words matter, and in many places, RRoP's language is terrible.

 

[abby99]

Is this the same as selecting "Call Any" Vs "Call" when playing online?

Thats what this looks like.

Huge difference. Online, no other player at the table can see that Player X clicked "Call Any" before Player X actually makes the call.

 

[justsomedude]

Like much of RRoP, that passage is horribly written. It would be much clearer if instead of referring to his "next turn to act" it said "when it does become his turn to act".

As written, it does not necessarily state what you have interpreted it to state.

Words matter, and in many places, RRoP's language is terrible.

I completely agree.

It seems that, in general, this is a bit of a foggy scenario. I wish WSOP's rules were written better, as well... "Conditional statements regarding future action are non-standard and strongly discouraged; they may be binding and/or subject to penalty at Tournament Director’s discretion in..."

Strongly discouraged?
MAY be binding?
At TD's discretion?

That's the most convoluted wishy-washy jargon I've ever seen in a rule book.

It seems that any/all conditional action should just be against the rules. No need for interpretation, or TD discretion. It simply should not be allowed. One could argue that it's already illegal per the "influencing action" rule, but why bother making it so convoluted? Just make it clear with its own line item. "Conditional action is not binding and is not permitted. If you make a conditional act, you will receive a time penalty." It's as simple as that.

That's my $0.02. And you know what they say about opinions...

 

[Jambine]

..........."Conditional action is not binding and is not permitted. If you make a conditional act, you will receive a time penalty." It's as simple as that.

That's my $0.02. And you know what they say about opinions...

That's worth at least $0.04

 

[WedgeRock]

"Conditional action is not binding and is not permitted. If you make a conditional act, you will receive a time penalty." It's as simple as that.

"If you'll fold, I'm taking a smoke break."

Am I now obligated to smoke if the other player folds?

I used an absurd example to illustrate how difficult it is to write tight language.

 

[Shaggy]

"If you'll fold, I'm taking a smoke break."

Am I now obligated to smoke if the other player folds?

I used an absurd example to illustrate how difficult it is to write tight language.

Welcome to the forum

 

[Mental Nomad]

Seat 4: "If you raise, so help me, I'm going to push my stacks. I'm going way over the top."
Seat 3: "Raise."

How much is Seat 4 now obligated to raise because of their "conditional action?"

On the other hand, we can hardly block all the shit-talking at the tables.