$1/2 cash game LV. Player A and Player C have been verbally sparring. Pre flop they both agree to call $50 blind. Player A is UTG bets $50. Player B raises to $175. Player C folds and doesn't pay $50 to the pot. Player B calls floor.

Ruling?

Player B is an idiot.

Players should not be permitted to make deals about how to play their hands in multi way pots. So if this deal was made multi way I am in favor of making the player pay and disinviting them from playing.

If heads up most rooms seem to enforce conditional action so if they do the blind call should be enforced .... if they don't then make the player pay.

Specifically why?

Player B is an idiot for calling the floor and expecting a ruling that C owes $50 to the pot. He's also a jerk for not speaking up beforehand and saying, "Hey, if you guys [A & C] want to make this kind of deal to play the hand blind, go ahead, but you ought to know that I'm not agreeing to just fold and get out of the way if I like my cards."

Specifically, B might have an argument that C acted out of turn with all of his blubber about calling $50, but that the action changed when B raised it to $175. Even more specifically, if all of the blubber happened before the cards were dealt, then the action changed as soon as A made it $50.

I missed that this was three different players. Player C can't call $50 because he is facing a larger bet so you can't enforce that call. But you should at the very least be warning a and C about deal making and I would consider throwing them out

Well this is all really kinda stupid, but C agreed to call $50 blind, not a raise to $175. Why B , who raised , then called the floor over the fold is a mystery to me. Lots of time wasted here mostly.

I've made deals with guys sitting next to me, but they were always conditional on action folding to us in the blinds.

the action changed, he can now fold. He can not call 50, the bet is 175. This is assuming he was going to be held to the verbal declaration of calling 50 pre.

As stated above, my ruling is that player B is an idiot.

And players A and C aren't too swift, either.
I see people make these sort of tentative deals fairly often. They are good for the game, but they are always dependent on others' folding or at least participating equally without changing the action. Once the action changes, the deal's off.
House should never enforce them (or be expected to).

I wouldn't call B an idiot. What he did was pretty scummy though. One of the situations where a player probably knows that he has zero case but still calls the floor for the off-chance of a horrible ruling in his favor.

I have no strong opinion on A or C because, as dumb as their idea was, neither one of them called the floor.

I would call B an idiot because there is no possible universe where C has to call 175, and even fewer where you let him (I mean make him) call 50 and fold. I will amend it to evil idiot if we include the possibility that he knows both of these things but calls the floor anyway hoping that he just sniffed some glue.

YMMV.

I know it's a stretch, but there might be a rare occasion where the floor knows/owes B something and could give B some kind of outrageous favorable ruling. It's still a major stretch to me. Bs calling the floor seems totally useless almost all the time, anywhere.

I'm surprised that rooms would enforce conditional 'agreements' between players. I've heard "I'm only going all-in with AA" and promptly been shoved on with ATC a few times. How 'bout "If a spade comes I'm all-in"? Granted my examples are not 'deals' as they are just talk. We have 'checking it down' threads on here all the time .. any different if a player all of a sudden decides to bet the River?

Player B certainly shouldn't expect any chips from Player C (action has changed) and might even be considered stupid for not getting the 'free' chips into the pot rather than raising, but he may have been protecting his hand (doesn't look like it). His only real 'angle' here is that he may have air and is trying to pick up Player A's chips. GL

You expecting him to have to call $175? Or call $50 and fold?

Even if C was gonna be held to a $50 call... the action changed when you raised.

Because he called the floor for this.
I agree with the obvious consensus. Sorry B. Not sure WTF you were thinking you might accomplish with this one.


Just because you wouldn't call him it doesn't change the obvious.

Player B got grimmed for $50

Hello Player B

My ruling is that Player B owes the table a round of drinks if he wins the hand.

I would like the clarify the ruling. All 3 players are idiots. Player B is also a douchebag.

Further clarification: because he expected the extra $50 and called the floor about it, not because he decided to play his hand (and raise), which is totally legit.

At worst, C's $50 raise (or call) is out of turn, and thus, is not binding when the action changes (in most rooms). I would even argue that C's statement should never be binding if the agreement was done before the cards were dealt.

B is kinda of douche.

Should also probably warn A and C for making any statements like this whether is between hands or during them. It's just a matter of time before some weird situation occurs because of it.

Why is everyone saying A and C are idiots or deserve punishment? These are exactly the types of players you want at the table! They liven up the game and are putting dead money in the pot.

Player B is a jackass for calling the floor. He should have seat changed to the left of player C if he wanted to get the extra $50.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I want players in the game who will put blind money in the pot ... yes. But that doesn't mean it becomes acceptable for them to be making agreements to bet and call.

Two players making a verbal agreement about future actions in a multiway pot is collusion. It shouldn't matter if this collusion is actually profitable for them or not.
Players A and C should be warned not to collude in multiway pots. If they keep doing it, they should be kicked out.