Based on the results that OP posted it sounds like he lost at least a major chunk of his stack....

Had this exact thing happen a week or so ago at Seneca, guy shows up to the table, bets All-in ($200) his first hand. Everyone laughs and the dealer asks if he was serious. He was.

So we knew from then on, when he shoved, it was not a joke, he was serious. (I ended up about $170 from him when he shoved and I had QQ's) Yet every time he shoved pre-flop or on a later street, the dealer clarified and no angle could have been shot.

If he hadn't been serious, I'm positive we would have let him take the bet back and moved on from there. He was a fun regular who was killing some time waiting for 2/5....

The effective stack was about 400. Everytime he bet 500 it was his unique way of going all in. We all thought it was funny as it was a lively table.

No alcohol involved. I really think it was an honest mistakes and even though I took down the pot I think floor should have been called and given him a warning. I just don't understand why he didn't ask for floor when you could tell the dealer felt bad as he knew it was a mistake.

Guys this makes me realization something else. At this point I am pretty positive villain did not have 500 behind. He did earlier in the Night but now that I think of it he must only have had 380 or so. He definitely didn't have 220 left after the hand. What is the rule for verbal if It's over the amount that you have in front?

Wait, what's this, you stopped action and requested clarification in the middle of a hand, when a technical reading of the rules would support forcing a bet to stand? And fire didn't fall from the sky?

Thanks for the example.

Sometimes, game integrity is enhanced by pausing and clarifying, regardless of what the rules say.

Your dealer passed the all-in card based on one players "ruling" at the table?

The dealer should have prompted the floor or at least given the offending player an option to. That's only fair if he/she is so easily influenced by one person at the table who they obviously consider an authority?

Maybe I'm totally misreading this

Rules exist for a reason and should almost always always be followed. I'm a stickler for poker rules, even in home games. But just like I feel "zero tolerance" in schools is wrong for expelling a student who mistakenly brought a butter knife in her lunch box, there are reasons to call the floor for a judgement ruling even in cases where the letter of the law is clear.

If the table history and dynamics were such that there was a very high probability that this guy had no idea action was to him, does anyone think it would have been appropriate for the dealer to say something like, "I'm sorry, you mumbled and I did not clearly hear what you said. Action is to you and anything you say is binding. Now what did you mean to say?" Is that within a dealer's discretion?

That's a pretty smart way for the dealer to handle it. No one could prove if the dealer really misheard or not. Dealer really shouldn't be playing this card too often though.

Im just curious was the player that wanted the verbal bet to be binding be the same guy that asked hey you havent bet 500?

As a dealer I do not allow joke bets at my table. If you make a joke bet when I am dealing I will give you a very pleasant but serious explanation as to why you can not joke about being all in or making large verbal bets out of turn.
By the way any bet out of turn is binding if the action has not changed to that player so why wasnt this an issue earlier in the night.


So shame on all the previous dealers for allowing this to go on repeatedly, shame on the current dealer for not calling floor instantly as soon as there was a dispute, and shame on all the players for allowing it all night until finally the GUY that will call him on it picks upo a hand.

The rule says he had to bet all his chips up to the 500.

The floor could fall back on the in the best interest of the game rule and let him take it back, THE DEALER CAN NOT MAKE THAT CALL!!

Please remember the rules of poker are designed to protect the integrity of the game not to nit people out of their money or pots!

If I was the floor I would allow him to take it back, give him a warning and explanation as to why he shouldnt do it again and if he does it will be binding even if out of turn and no change in action to him, and lastly have a talk with all my dealers asking why this was allowed and how it ever got this far.

Oh and if the guy that used the verbal is binding rule against him was the same guy that said to him hey you havent bet 500 lately, out for the night!!! Rack em up dude your gone, come and see us tomorrow and if you ever try to intentionally do that to someone again you will be banned permanetly.

just my opinion

I agree with this..give him a warning and let it slide this time.

Yes, and this kind of thing, without even that much of a "wink wink" show, happens every day.

The game as played is often quite different from how one would think based on some of the nittery around here. I'm like you, I'm a strong believer in rules and order, but part of having a clean and consistent ruleset is knowing when and how to deviate from it. The rules are a guide of clean play. They're an anthropology report, not an instruction manual. Even within the rules is the caveat that any ruling may go against the rules in the interest of fair play. It's right there at the top.

FWIW, I've seen a few of your posts lately. I like your attitude.

Yeah, poker rooms are a strange dynamic. Threads like this one are super interesting to me because it lands squarely between some of the conflicting motivations people have for being in the room and also creates a rare instance where it's perhaps reasonable to bend a clear rule. That's a great topic for nitty discussion. (Heck, last week I saw the floor ask a player in a hand to make a cell phone call, and give permission for the hand to continue while he was on the phone, talk about breaking the rules.)

Thanks! I'll try to stay out of trouble.

Grunch
One more reason to get rid of the stupid button straddle. It doesn't make sense and totally screws up the order of the game.

I'm pissing in the wind here, I know.

If he had done it 8 times previously and counted as action and this was a verbal in turn for time #9, action should be binding here also.