Don't know why this thread is 60 posts deep. Yes its a binding bet

Or to put in a bigger-than-minimum raise, claiming that he hadn't actually acted yet (as in OP)?
P1: I minraise. [Would be $90 total]
P2: Call.
P1: No, wait, I haven't acted yet. I raise to $200.

Likewise, how about this scenario for "Same bet":
On the flop:
P1: $100.
P2: Call.
Turn comes:
P1: Same bet.
P2: Call.
P1: No, wait, I haven't acted yet. I make it $500.

What do you do as the floor? The rules do demand interpretation, but I think that in both of these scenarios ("Min-raise" and "Same bet") the statements are clear and definitive enough to be binding.
Pfapfap, as a player you (or I) might not care about the extra $30 in OP. But some players obviously do (and the amounts might be different in different situations).

In fact, if I am P2 in MJ88's examples, the reason I am acting before P1 moves any chips is because I am certain of the meaning of each phrase. I know what the bet is and how much I'm calling. I am not blindly calling a bet. Both phrases are defined, and I would go so far as to say that they are well-defined.

I don't agree with anyone who says that "min raise" is undefined. That P1 does not realize how much he bet should not affect the floor's decision.

By following this pattern, you are inevitably going to end up in a difficult situation, where you need to bring the game to a halt and call over the floor and force the other player to make a bet he didn't think he was making.

How much fun is that table going to be afterwards?

It's not good enough that you know what the other player's action "technically" means. The smoothest games are when the person who is acting understands what his action means before anybody reacts to it.

This is why, as a dealer, I don't just go with "I cover him," when someone loses an all-in. I count out each bet. Partially because players are wrong about stack sizes more than you'd think. But mostly so the losing player fully understands what has happened, can physically see that the bet is covered, and has no lingering doubt during the walk of shame.

Make sure the person acting understands what he has done before you react to it. Every time. It's the easiest and less butthurting way to solve any of this. It's great that you know it for 100% certaintly. Let's get the other guy to know it, too. After all, we're going to hold up the game either way as we explain it to him. Let's keep the action where it is until it's accepted by the bettor.

No. But I wouldn't allow a player to call after saying "raise" either. We know he's raising. We might even know what the house rules say his raise should be. What we don't know is that he understands what his raise should be.

Most of the time the person actually does min-raise after saying "min-raise." If this ever happens while I'm dealing, I'll clarify the minimum raise to the player. I imagine it will be accepted. Then, and ONLY THEN, do I move action to the next player.

I tell P2 to slow down and wait for chips to go into the pot before reacting to it. Don't give away information while there's still ambiguity in the air. Maybe we get the floor over to make a ruling. Almost all of these potential problems are completely avoided if we wait for P1 to release chips into the pot. That way, if he tries to change his action, he doesn't have additional information, nor any incentive to try to weasel out of what he said he was going to do.

This is logical and sane and good for a happy table, is it not? Is there something wrong with what I'm suggesting?

Sure. I'm just saying that I support the notion that this is not something worth stressing over at the table. Maybe someone reading this now has something new to consider. Or maybe not.

Wait for players to understand what they've done before you react. This is really really easy to do, I promise.

Big bet poker is a very slow game. If you need a fast game, Fixed Limit is a heck of a lot of fun, and lightning-quick.

The "rules" you quote in fact make reference to "the rules". Therefore, to understand the 2 quotes you posted, you must first be aware of what the rules actually are, before you can decide how best to bend them, and when.

Also, you have no guarantee the house will ever bend the rules, regardless of your personal opinion of "fairness". So obviously what I said still stands - you should be very aware of the rules (including, obviously, the 2 you mentioned.)

Tough. His problem. He erred. He's held to $90.

BTW Guy 2 might as well hold up a sign that says I HAVE A GOOD BUT NOT GREAT HAND BUT WANT TO GET TO THE NEXT STREET AS CHEAPLY AS POSSIBLE

We have a rule that governs when the verbal action conflicts with simultaneous physical action.

RROP
While I am all for rules that honor a players obvious intentions ..... his intnetions in this case are not clear.

Did he intend to bet $120 and thought that happened to be the minimum bet?

Or did he intend to bet the minimum amount and miscalculated that amount (either math error or rule error)?

We really have no basis to know unless we ask him for more information. At that point we are no longer talking about his OBVIOUS intent.

This sort of reminds me of a situation that happened at Parx a few weeks ago...it was a very unimportant matter as the bet would only be changed by $3 one way or the other but the dealer called the floor over just to see what he should do for next time. A player from EP raised to $12 pre, leaving him with all red $5 chips in his stack, and got a call from the button. Flop comes down and he announces "same bet" and throws 3 reds out there. Button asks "so is that $12 or $15?" and a debate ensues at our table about whether or not "same bet" is binding. Some guys says it is clearly $12 and others say "well, what if he meant same bet as what he bet last hand, or last hour, and really is trying to bind this to a $60 bet?"

The floor came over, dealer explained, and floor said it was not binding because of the confusion it could cause and made it so that the bet was $15. I liked that ruling because a guy could announce same bet, throw 1 red chip out there, and really be meaning he was betting $80 or something and then try to angle shoot based on all of that.

This case is different because he was trying to specify an amount that is more defined than "same bet." "Min raise" means the minimum raise among folks who understand that terminology. The problem is that not everyone understands the terminology and it is really up to whether or not the casino recognizes that terminology. For that reasoning I think that whatever the floor decides is fine and shouldn't be questioned.

All that being said, don't ever announce "min raise" unless the min raise is actually double the previous bet so that no confusion occurs afterwards. In fact why would you ever announce min raise when it can get confusing like that. If you really want to raise the minimum just ask the dealer what the minimum is and then bet that; there's no confusion then.

+1
if you dont play online then dont use online terminology

Real simple to answer this once and for all. Just tweet @WSOPTD (Jack Effel) or @SavagePoker (Matt Savage). They will give you their interpretation.

Except that OP was about cash games.

Can you give us an address of someone whose opinion I might respect.

Really? You don't respect Matt Savage's opinions? Probably the best TD out there. And cash would play the same as a tourney for this question.

In most card rooms you can say silly stuff like "press it up" or "raisy daisy" (Sam Farha reference ITT) ...or anything that implies a raise and you would be verbally on the hook for at least a minimum raise....so to me min raise is plenty articulate. The bet should be $90...next action.