Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Incorrect verbal declaration Incorrect verbal declaration

06-12-2015 , 11:55 AM
Interesting situation last night near the end of a NLE tournament. Blinds are 2k/4k. Player has chips in hand and announces “2 Thousand”. He meant to say “20 Thousand” and he did not say “Raise”. Game adheres to RROP rules fairly strictly.

Open discussion happens trying to determine the correct RROP ruling on what action the player should be made to take. The discussed options include:
A. Verbal announcement of 2k would not have been a valid action, so it is null and void. Player can take whatever action they wish.
B. Players “intent” was to raise but since his announcement was less than min raise, he should be forced to just make a min raise to 8k
C. Since players’ announcement was half of a legal bet, he should be force to complete the action with a call of 4k.

How would you have ruled?
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-12-2015 , 12:01 PM
I would select A, two thousand is not a valid action. We assume Hero wanted to raise, but maybe he said two thousand? asking how much he needed to call. I hate playing 'gotcha'. Where possible I want players to be able to take the actions they prefer.

DrStrange
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-12-2015 , 02:22 PM
In our home game, we would tell him the minimum bet is 4k and let him bet what he wants.

In a strict game, he would be limited to betting the minimum, 4k.
Note: the fact he said 2k which is half the minimum is irrelevant. It's the fact he stated an amount below the minimum that would make his bet the minimum. (If he said 200, then he would be held to a minimum bet of 4k.)
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-12-2015 , 05:16 PM
Home game... we stop to ask what he means.


We allowed a new guy to string raise in our last home game, stopping the action after the string raise, pointing out what would happen in a casino and how to verbalize his intent before acting at all. I suspect he'll overcorrect and start incorrect verbal declarations
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-12-2015 , 05:49 PM
In my game, the player retains all his options, especially since it's so clear that his intention was to bet 20K, and he just made a verbal gaffe.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-12-2015 , 06:18 PM
Home game? Friendly regular crew of players? 2k is incorrect sizing so let him bet 4k or whatever amount he wants to or really meant to say! There is no value in being a total rules nit in this kind of atmosphere.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-12-2015 , 10:39 PM
I think we'd declare it a minimum bet. I know if someone were to put the 2K in chips out as a bet, it would have to be made the minimum. I don't know why verbal would be less binding.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-13-2015 , 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eneely
I think we'd declare it a minimum bet. I know if someone were to put the 2K in chips out as a bet, it would have to be made the minimum. I don't know why verbal would be less binding.
Good point. I'm not 100% swayed, but a little less 100% on all options available.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-13-2015 , 07:39 AM
Quote:
I think we'd declare it a minimum bet. I know if someone were to put the 2K in chips out as a bet, it would have to be made the minimum. I don't know why verbal would be less binding.
Consensus was to have the player complete a call of 4k. eneely brings up a very good point which I think makes this a valid decision.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-13-2015 , 09:48 AM
The best part is you getting a consensus on your ruling. There is a danger in a less rigid home game venue when the ruling is more autocratic (from the host or the crews rules expert). Some of us might have been more liberal , but if your whole crew is good with this ( verbal is binding) outcome then it certainly is valid enough!
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-13-2015 , 09:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlue56
We allowed a new guy to string raise in our last home game, stopping the action after the string raise, pointing out what would happen in a casino and how to verbalize his intent before acting at all. I suspect he'll overcorrect and start incorrect verbal declarations
For a new player, I'd be a lot more lenient, too. I don't want to rules-nit a new player. It's not friendly. We'd also tell him the rule and ask him what he wants to do.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-13-2015 , 10:33 AM
Player knew he screwed up but was fine with whatever ruling we came up with. We try to run a tight game with regards to RROP, but we do give warnings to new players first. Fortunately most players have been with us for awhile and know how we play and all appreciate it.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-16-2015 , 10:23 PM
If he didn't verbally announce an amount that was more than the amount of the big blind, then his verbal action has to be regarded as a call to 4k.

There's no way you can allow him to make it a min raise either(just like you can't allow him to make to 20k); his verbal action HAS to be more than 4k to constitute ANY type of raise, min or otherwise.

That said...

If someone acted after him, then you really shouldn't allow him to raise to what he wanted to raise it to. Although, if no one took any action yet and it's important to your game to be really lenient with your players, then go ahead and let him raise it to 20k. (But I don't understand why adhering to normal rules translates to "unfriendly").
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-17-2015 , 04:05 PM
You have a point about the bet sizing. It should be a call. I got my answer wrong, in that if he had put out 2K in chips, it would have been considered a call, not a min raise.

As to a ruling being unfriendly, I'd say being overly strict when a new player makes a mistake--the first time--is showing him that the game is friendly and we're not out to play gotcha poker. Especially if he is new to poker.

In this case, saying it is a call is not very punitive, so it's probably not a big deal. But it's also not a big deal to ask the player what he intended to do.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-19-2015 , 08:13 AM
I would not consider it being "unfriendly" or a "rules nit" to rule that it is a call (which it is). It is always in the best interest of the player, no matter how new he is, to show him what he did wrong and let him feel the consequences. That way it is burned into his mind what to do and he will not repeat the action again.

For example, I was at a casino that I've never been before. I put a bet out past the betting line with 12 $5 chips and then broke it down to three stacks of four chips so that the table would know what the bet was. I did not indicate verbally what the bet was. The dealer said that the house rules were that once you make the first cut on a stack, that is your bet (in this case $20). I ended up losing $150 or so because somebody stuck around with a draw that wouldn't have called the intended $60. Needless to say, I did not make that mistake that night or on any future visits to that casino.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-19-2015 , 08:54 AM
C>A>B

I prefer C because he said an amount. Saying an amount ~ pushing an amount. Pushing 2k = call of 4k.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-19-2015 , 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grima21
For example, I was at a casino that I've never been before. I put a bet out past the betting line with 12 $5 chips and then broke it down to three stacks of four chips so that the table would know what the bet was. I did not indicate verbally what the bet was. The dealer said that the house rules were that once you make the first cut on a stack, that is your bet (in this case $20).
UGH. Awful rule.

But one lesson was all it took.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-20-2015 , 08:01 AM
Yes what an odd use of the betting line. Usually all chips pushed across are considered committed . Really bad ruling.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-20-2015 , 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eneely

As to a ruling being unfriendly, I'd say being overly strict when a new player makes a mistake--the first time--is showing him that the game is friendly and we're not out to play gotcha poker. Especially if he is new to poker.
There's really no such thing as a rule being "unfriendly.' Its how you explain the rule that can make it unfriendly.

I play a poker game in a casino that has a very small player base(mix game) and occasionally a new player will sit down(even new to poker), and occasionally, he will be unfamiliar with a rule. But, he doesn't get any special treatment, because, that he would just be unfair to the entire game, and, that's not "gotcha" poker or anything of the sort.

As I said, as long as you present yourself in a friendly manner, and you do so without a snarky tone in your voice, and without being condescending, I'm sure he will completely understand. We're not babies, we know the game has rules, it's how you go about it that matters.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-20-2015 , 10:04 AM
I think with some variations on the rules, it can be unnecessarily punitive to a newbie, without harming the rest of the regs, or being unfair.

Ex. A newbie make an honest mistake, the regs know it's a mistake, and don't act immediately. The rule is explained. The action is corrected to what the newbie intended. The game moves on with no hard feelings.

If players would wait to clarify, there would be little room to angle or play gotcha.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-20-2015 , 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush17
There's really no such thing as a rule being "unfriendly.' Its how you explain the rule that can make it unfriendly.

I play a poker game in a casino that has a very small player base(mix game) and occasionally a new player will sit down(even new to poker), and occasionally, he will be unfamiliar with a rule. But, he doesn't get any special treatment, because, that he would just be unfair to the entire game, and, that's not "gotcha" poker or anything of the sort.

As I said, as long as you present yourself in a friendly manner, and you do so without a snarky tone in your voice, and without being condescending, I'm sure he will completely understand. We're not babies, we know the game has rules, it's how you go about it that matters.
Perception is everything.

Suppose someone drives through a small town, doesn't realize the speed limit has gone from 55 to 35, and gets pulled over by a town policeman. It's certainly within the rules for the cop to give him a very expensive speeding ticket instead of a warning, but even if he is polite about it, the driver might leave town feeling that it is a speed trap and not a very friendly place. He may be totally wrong, but that is how he leaves town, and vows to never come back.

Some town residents might say, "Who cares? We weren't unfriendly about it. Good riddance if you don't understand that the law is the law." Others might wonder if that is a good long-term strategy as a town.

Last edited by eneely; 06-20-2015 at 06:05 PM.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-20-2015 , 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eneely
Perception is everything.

Suppose someone drives through a small town, doesn't realize the speed limit has gone from 55 to 35, and gets pulled over by a town policeman. It's certainly within the rules for the cop to give him a very expensive speeding ticket instead of a warning, but even if he is polite about it, the driver might leave town feeling that it is a speed trap and not a very friendly place. He may be totally wrong, but that is how he leaves town, and vows to never come back.

Some town residents might say, "Who cares? We weren't unfriendly about it. Good riddance if you don't understand that the law is the law." Others might wonder if that is a good long-term strategy as a town.
Ehhhh, I honestly don't think that's a good comparison. And, even in that example above, I wouldn't feel that the town has "wronged" me. That's a very serious violation of the law especially if this was a residential area, so if anything, I think your analogy may have hurt your stance.


That said, I understand the point you're trying to make, but as an overall observation, poker is best played when we remove intent and just go by the rule. Not in the sense of "gotcha!", not at all; just a friendly heads up of: "Sorry, Bob, but in order to do X you have to either do X or say X." But hey, this is a home game that you're talking about and you can do whatever you want; if it were my game, though? I would try to emulate it as close to what a real poker room would do, rules and all. JMO

You say that perception is everything. I think, that delivery is everything. If you can deliver it with pretty paper and a bow, then they might not perceive you as being the big meany that you think they might. Give people some credit for having skin that's thicker than a piece of tissue paper.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-21-2015 , 09:21 AM
You're response is interesting, and consistent, as well. I tried to write a scenario which left the intent of the town open to speculation, and you chose a town with innocent intent, and in fact added a residential area which I did not describe, as a good reason to give the driver a ticket. And that has now made my position less tenable.

When, in fact, there are notorious speed trap towns. Some are no more than crossroads on US highways, with a few businesses and no residences at all. Lawtey, Florida is one which is so bad someone rented a billboard outside of town to warn drivers.

Here's an article about another town along the same highway: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-...-police-force/ The comments are also interesting.

At any rate, I do see your point, and we certainly don't let new players get away with just anything. What we do is give them a break when the violation is small and we know they are innocent of trying to angle the table.

For example, if a new player is facing a bet of $1 and throws out a $5 chip, one of our hosts might ask him if that is a call. If he says, no, it's a raise, we explain the rule and then we'll probably let the $5 raise stand. I assume you'd make it a call. We have a host who'd do the same thing.

I have no major problem going with either approach, but giving him one pass on that rule is certainly less of a hand slap than making him pull the chip back. I call it a more friendly approach to teaching minor rules, but I understand that is a debatable point.
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-21-2015 , 09:50 AM
Actually, and even though I have stated my views on it...I'm fine with your approach. And, I understand the reasoning behind it, as well. All good points. ^

The only part that kinda struck a nerve with me was when it was viewed as being "unfriendly" to not allow his bet to stand, because then, if/when I(or anyone else) actually prefer to play by whatever rules are set forth...we are looked upon as being "that guy." And that's not really fair either. So all in all, yeah, I can be swayed(believe it or not), just don't acuse me as being unfriendly!
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote
06-21-2015 , 12:38 PM
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply it was absolutely unfriendly. I should have written something along the lines of "some thin-skinned players may mistakenly view it as unfriendly, and we like to treat new players gently."
Incorrect verbal declaration Quote

      
m