What do you do in this weird situation? (2 Viewers)

[JustinInMN]

I do appreciate a couple points that have been made here that the ruling isn't black and white despite my initial impression.

I actually had this happen in Vegas recently and the floor was called to resolve, the answer depends on the sequence of events.

If the BTN announced verbally and pushed in chips at the same time then the BTN is given the option to fold and lose the $300 or call the full $400 and proceed with the hand. The reason given for this ruling was, physical action supersedes verbal declarations so the $300 is in play and cannot be taken back but the verbal "call" action wasn't binding since it didn't line up with the physical call actions of either tossing in a single chip or putting in a higher chip total and getting change

If the BTN announced verbally then counted out chips to push in he would be in for the $400.

This being a home game with friends, players can work it out amongst themselves as long as it isn't some form of collusion.

Agreed. People do shortcut with the phrase "verbal is binding" but the truth is the saying should be "verbal before chips is binding." If the verbal and the chips happen at the same time and the actions contradict each other there should be opportunity for clarification as you are describing here.

There's an exception in Roberts rules that allows a call to be pulled back if it was an honest mistake in understanding of the action.

Example: someone bets 100, another announced all in for 600, then next player says call and puts in the 100. He clearly missed the all in action, and this would be a hefty change in the action.

Your example seems to fall short of this. I agree with the consensus here, in that is just 25 percent of the bet that's the discrepancy. It's the house ruling though.

Again, the point is well taken that the "gross misunderstanding" provision may be applied, there is some leeway here to even let him pull the action all the way back if no one has acted after.

I do see a little bit more from Button's perspective here how this could have happened, but at the same time, one inebriates at one's own risk. I think correcting the call is still probably the right ruling based on the available information, but there are paths to other conclusions.

 

[SendThatStack]

Did he actually verbalize “call”? That does make it more difficult to offer any alternative options.

In a casino his options are to call the additional $100 or leave his $300 in and fold. (Also unclear - did he put in an additional $300 on top of his $100 out there already?)

In a friendly home game I might be willing to let him leave his $100 raise in and fold his hand if he was indeed drunk enough to not notice the bet, but there is no middle ground between there and the full $400 call.

We need pics of said “invisible” green chips on your felt.

He 100% said call and then iirc he put out an additional 2 blacks for a total of $300 out there. I think its kind of bullshit too tbh. He may have quickly realized he was fucked once he realized the bet was $400 and he had already said call, and so being in a drunken state tried to weasel out. There is also a very real chance that in his drunken state he had thought utg moved in for the stack that was behind the line.

It frustrates me that the guy even tried to make it an issue. You screwed up, you put in your chips. That’s poker.

I agree man its tilted the heck out of my all day yesterday and slowly getting over it today. It was a dishonorable thing for him to want to "uncall"

Agreed. People do shortcut with the phrase "verbal is binding" but the truth is the saying should be "verbal before chips is binding." If the verbal and the chips happen at the same time and the actions contradict each other there should be opportunity for clarification as you are describing here.

Wait so which is it if verbal and physical happen at the same time and they are two different numbers?

 

[DuckFat]

Wait so which is it if verbal and physical happen at the same time and they are two different numbers?

It seems you missed my post on page 1
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/what-do-you-do-in-this-weird-situation.107482/post-2217647

If the BTN announced verbally and pushed in chips at the same time then the BTN is given the option to fold and lose the $300 or call the full $400 and proceed with the hand. The reason given for this ruling was, physical action supersedes verbal declarations so the $300 is in play and cannot be taken back but the verbal "call" action wasn't binding since it didn't line up with the physical call actions of either tossing in a single chip or putting in a higher chip total and getting change

 

[SendThatStack]

It seems you missed my post on page 1
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/what-do-you-do-in-this-weird-situation.107482/post-2217647

If the BTN announced verbally and pushed in chips at the same time then the BTN is given the option to fold and lose the $300 or call the full $400 and proceed with the hand. The reason given for this ruling was, physical action supersedes verbal declarations so the $300 is in play and cannot be taken back but the verbal "call" action wasn't binding since it didn't line up with the physical call actions of either tossing in a single chip or putting in a higher chip total and getting change

I did see that but forgot. Trying to forget about this whole ordeal but gotta make the announcement next game so still game planning that part.

As far as physical superseding verbal. What would happen if there was a bet for $20 and someone said "call" while also putting out $60 in chips?

 

[JustinInMN]

ait so which is it if verbal and physical happen at the same time and they are two different numbers?

This was @DuckFat 's point that it's open to interpretation if there's a contradiction.

I think these are the applicable sections in Robert's rules for home games.

Under section 3 "General Poker Rules" subsection on "Betting and Raising" points 7, 8, and 12 seem relevant.

7. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered needs some protection. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation.

8. A verbal statement denotes your action and is binding. If in turn you verbally declare a fold, check, bet, call, or raise, you are forced to take that action.

12. A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action. However, if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you.

I am still on the side that point 8 clearly applies. But it is possible to offer some protection in the event of a misunderstanding.

By the way, love the Monocos .

 

[SendThatStack]

Based on rule 7 and 12, btn could have taken his money back and folded or called the $400, right? Well geez now based on this info I dont know what to tell the guys at the next game. Do I allow for host to use his discretion if there is a gross misunderstanding of the amount?

 

[JustinInMN]

Based on rule 7 and 12, btn could have taken his money back and folded or called the $400, right? Well geez now based on this info I dont know what to tell the guys at the next game. Do I allow for host to use his discretion if there is a gross misunderstanding of the amount?

Points 7 and 12 do seem to only apply absent a verbal declaration.

But yes, not all rulings are cut and dry, some are judgement calls, and it is on the players to make their actions clear for their own protection.

 

[SendThatStack]

Yeah I think I will tell the guys verbal and physical actions are binding, with physical superseding, and in rare cases I will make a floor decision if something was gross misunderstanding.

 

[BGinGA]

An initial verbal action is binding; and any subsequent conflicting physical actions do not alter that. For example:

A. Player says 'call', then moves either fewer or more chips than necessary into/towards the pot. In both cases, the verbal action is binding and the player's bet amount is adjusted to the proper 'call' amount (more chips put in if needed, or any excess chips returned).

B. Player says 'all-in', then moves fewer chips into/towards ths pot. The verbal action is binding, and the player's bet amount is adjusted to include all his chips.

If a player first makes a verbal declaration, it stands unless physically impossible (insufficient chips to call, for example).

If a player simultaneously makes both a verbal action and physical action, the verbal action is binding. For example:

A. Player states 'raise' while physically placing a call amount (or less) into/towards the pot. Player is obligated to increase the bet amount to a legal raise amount.

B. Player announces 'call' while physically placing a larger amount of chips into/towards the pot. The verbal call is binding, and player's bet amount is corrected to the proper call amount.

Unless the physical chips are moved prior to the verbal action, the verbal action is binding. You can't shove your entire stack first and then state 'call'.

 

[CHP TD]

this is where rules fix this. just get some then the arguments stop. With this sort of cash in the game im surprised you haven't thought that rules are necessary? It just fixes so many arguments.

 

[Nine_high]

Based on rule 7 and 12, btn could have taken his money back and folded or called the $400, right? Well geez now based on this info I dont know what to tell the guys at the next game. Do I allow for host to use his discretion if there is a gross misunderstanding of the amount?

Generally speaking yes. Especially in a friendly home game environment. Maybe not this particular one...though I don't think I'd be opposed even in this case. I wasn't there.

Maybe I'm too loose, but when we're preflop and someone tries to limp after it's been raised we just let them pull back and fold, no matter if they said "call" exactly when their hand released the chips or before or whatever. Just take your 50c back and fold dude. It doesn't happen nearly as often at this point in a hand as people tend to be engaged in a pot that they have raised post flop.

RR section 14 gets a little more specific:

12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300 into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot. Example: On the end, a player puts a $500 chip into the pot and says softly, “Four hundred.” The opponent puts a $100 chip into the pot and says, “Call.” The bettor immediately shows the hand. The dealer says, “He bet four hundred.” The caller says, “Oh, I thought he bet a hundred.” In this case, the recommended ruling normally is that the bettor had an obligation to not show the hand when the amount put into the pot was obviously short, and the “call” can be retracted. Note that the character of each player can be a factor. (Unfortunately, situations can arise at big-bet poker that are not so clear-cut as this.)

 

[SendThatStack]

this is where rules fix this. just get some then the arguments stop. With this sort of cash in the game im surprised you haven't thought that rules are necessary? It just fixes so many arguments.

There are rules, always have been. A gross misunderstanding of the bet is what happened.

 

[DuckFat]

As far as physical superseding verbal. What would happen if there was a bet for $20 and someone said "call" while also putting out $60 in chips?

Then it would just be a call for $20. The forward motion of chips into play indicates a call or raise, verbally declaring "call" then clarifies the action being a call. Also, calling for more and getting change is an option so there's no conflict of actions here.

In a similar situation if the bet was $20 and someone said "raise" while putting out $20 they would be committed to at least a min raise.

 

[CHP TD]

There are rules, always have been. A gross misunderstanding of the bet is what happened.

I get the question. There is nothing weird here. lets simplify the issue. "What is the definition of call?"

If someone is not watching, that doesn't change the definition of call does it?

so with respect, i completely disagree with your comment. It's the LACK of rules allowed this to happen.

How can you run a game with this amount of money and not have rules.

Your asking for trouble without them.

 

[FS21]

These players are long time players and friends and wouldn't angle shoot or scam, but btn was pretty drunk and distracted throughout the hand.

As the host you are the pit boss, but if it's among close friends, I think you let them work it out. A drunk and distracted player can cause major problems in a game - you might also have a talk with him about that when he's sober.