At least when the pot is heads up, "I put you all in" is a much less ambiguous statement of intent than "I min raise". And "I put you all-in" is absolutely a binding action, because it would open up the potential for an enormous and unfair angle-shoot if it is not.

Also, I have heard "I put you all in" hundreds of times at the poker table, and no one has ever questioned whether it was binding or what its intent was. I can't recall ever hearing anyone say "I min raise" as a declaration of action in the middle of a middle of a hand (if I have heard it, I'm sure it was preflop, and obviously I have heard it countless times as people are recounting hands that they played earlier).

Dealers worth their salt know that this action is impossible, (you can't make me do anything so therefore putting me all in is meaningless) and will ask the player to clarify the bet.

And how do you answer the question by the 'caller' of "how much is it for me to call"?? Since the bet is ambiguous, the answer would be as well "All of your chips."??

Unlike the term "min-raise" which has a very specific meaning in the same vein of another popular poker term. 'Min-bet'.

It's very obvious the word that has been shortened to 'MIN' is Minimum. And the meaning of that word is incredibly clear.

Have you ever seen this at the poker table?:

Player A: "I put you all in"
Player B: "OK, I call"
Player A: "Haha, that's not a binding action....actually I check"

First, I have never seen it. Second, if this actually happened, I am 99% sure that this would be rules a binding all-in bet and call.

I have not payed in every room nor even most rooms but I have played in a lot of rooms and I have never played anywhere that considered "I put you all in" as a binding verbal declaration. In fact I have never even seen a floor called for this situation as it has always been handled by the dealer informing the player that "I put you all in" is not a legitimate bet.

As for "min raise" it is no more a binding bet than "same bet" is from one street to the next. While you may see "same bet" ruled binding for a bettor from one street to the next in some rooms it is in fact NOT a legitimate bet in NL and therefore not binding, just as "bet pot" and "bet half pot" are not legitimate bets in NL and therefore not binding.

AW

In my opinion, this is the absolute best long-term view to take, both in poker and in life.

The rules aren't a guidebook, they're an anthropology report. Plenty of things happen every day at every poker table that, if you wanted to be an ultra-nit and find a weak undereducated floor, would be ruled entirely differently.

Heck, most hands would just get checked down to the river, with how much people tap the table while thinking. Yet somehow we all have enough contextual awareness about us to understand it's not a deliberate action.

this. guy #3 is just bad at math

In some casinos, the min-raise IS $120. This isn't a math problem, it's a terminology problem. The record of poker supports considering context when making a ruling.

I consider "I put you all in" to absolutely be a valid action, the player said all-in and I don't care what he said before that. I announce all-in every time, and throw him the all in button. If he said "wow the weathers nice, all-in." Same thing, he said those words and everyone in poker knows what they mean when said at the table.

Context is everything. The problem with the phrase "I put you all in" in a hand that is not heads up is that the bet is not clear. I have seen this happen where three players in the pot player 1 (shortest stack) acts, player 2 says "I put you all-in" player 3 instantly says call and puts out all his chips.... player 2 now claims he only bet as much as player 1's stack.


Heads up it is the same as saying "all-in". Multi-way its a recipe for disaster.

In any event its a stupid thing to say,.

So you would be okay with the player announcing "min raise" and moving $2,000 forward.

Interesting because that's not what it means. Click it back is a min raise in online poker. Stemming from the fact that if you're facing a 10 bet the raise button will show 20 which you could of course adjust up but a single click gets you a min raise.

Not a bet, the same as saying "same bet" is not a binding bet, even though everyone knows that it implies the bettor wants to bet the same as he did the previous street.

From the pokertda website:

3: Official Terminology of Tournament Poker
Official terms are simple, unmistakable, time-honored declarations like: bet, raise, call, fold, check, all-in, pot (in pot-limit only), and complete. Regional terms may also meet this standard. The use of non-standard language is at player’s risk because it may result in a ruling other than what the player intended. It is the responsibility of players to make their intentions clear. See Rules 36 & 44.

It's really quite simple. The floor should rule on this depending on the experience of the player and may let it slide once, but let the player know the correct way of doing it then.

But you see those words are not unambigious like min raise. Those of us who don't play online poker would have no way of inherently knowing what it means as we would by min raise.

Interesting. I didn't realize verbal was binding in online poker.

Not really. Click it back does have an unambiguous meaning. People who know the term would all agree on it's meaning. I'm pretty sure I've even heard it on shows like Live at the Bike. By your own admission you didn't know the term and were just guessing at it's meaning. In fairness in the context where it would be used (someone facing a bet) I'm sure you wouldn't take it to mean "check".

It becomes then a matter of is the term well known enough to enforce it's usage as a binding verbal action. In a home game we used the term "italian flag" to mean 1 green, 1 red, 1 white but I'd never even think of enforcing that in a casino context. In this case however I think the term "min raise" is well known enough to enforce even though the player who said it apparently misunderstood what a minimum raise amount would be.

Most amusing is that tommy quotes the tda rule to say this isn't a valid bet while I'd quote the same rule to show that it is a valid enforceable bet amount.