Player A raises preflop. Player B calls. Player C calls. After flop, player B says "check". Player C says "check". Player A sarcastically says "check THIS!" and moves his chips all in. It is obvious to everyone that he meant that he was going to bet when he said "check THIS!". His chips were still behind the line when he said "check THIS!"

Player B complains that player A said check when he said "check THIS!" and that a verbal check is binding. Player B wants a free card. The dealer calls the floor.

What would you do if you were the floorman?

That's an all-in

Tell Player A that he should be more careful about how he announces his bet, and then let him bet.

call the floor.

I would take that as an all in....but I guess Player B could have a nitty argument there though.

If A is pushing his chips forward at the same time he says CHECK THIS, I still see it as an all in. Sounds like B wanted a free card.

but best bet would be to call the floor if it really is an issue.

"Check This" <> "Check"

Bet

it's obviously a bet.

tell player B to stop complaining and follow the action next time.

whether it got ruled a bet or not is a totally different story.

I wonder if player B would also complain that it is a fold if another player who's in the hand is talking to his GF/Wife & says "FOLD my clothes" or "FOLD this & put it in your pocket"......


HE SAID FOLD!!! HE SAID FOLD!!!

gotta take things in context, people....

What I would do: A is allin. Warn A not to do this again.
What I'd like to do: Above, plus tell B we play Poker here, not Gotcha!, and to stop being a jerk.

These are not comparable. In the OPs case the player is facing action and his intentionally announcing his action

In your case the player is having a seperate conversation which is not intended to be action.

I do not like the "check this" statement.

The players very intent is to first announce an action and then say "hah hah just kidding."

Would we tolerate that with our action....

Suppose the player said "Raise ... Not!" would you let him off the hook from the raise there? isn't this really the same thing.

I agree context is important .... if context tell you the players statement wasn't intended to convey action then it shouldn;t be action.....

But contextually it was intended to convey action he just thinks its funny to try to confuse the action.


I might be inlcined to let a player get away with it once if he doesn't cause action behind him .... but I'm certainly going to say his behavior is appropriate and certainly a player who objects is not being out of line

Let the all-in stand, but warn player A to be careful using terms in any way when the action is on him for his own benefit.

I think this is a clear all-in, but it would not shock me to see a floor rule it another way.

I'd rule it a bet. I'd tell Player B, "lighten up, Francis" and warn player A that I'm a reasonable guy, but not every floor is and may rule what he said a check.

The problem is that for some reason poker doesn't tend to attract people who have much concept of nuance and context.

For examples, look to any time a "rule 1" decision is made, and wait for the people to make absurd statements about what they're going to do next time, if that kind of thing is allowed. Your best bet is at a low stakes FLHE or O8 table.

Even considering the fact that each casino poker room has its own rules, each floor man will likely make a different decision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK3xDwo3nfs

Remember this. Who knows what a floorman will do?

Player A is a douchebag, just trying to antagonize the other players with his talk. I'd be happy to see him punished and hopefully learn his lesson...he said check, it's a check.

I'd be more concerned how the action skipped player A in the first place.

With his silly "check this" nonsense combined with B and C acting out of turn, I wonder how it came about that player A got to see what everyone else did before he acted.

Not knowing anything about the guy, I'm going to let it slide with a warning to both A and B for their roles in my being involved.

If I know A is a weasel or someone with a habit of failing to protect his action, I'll probably hold him to a check and then ask him to walk over and read the rules poster with me after the hand is over.

Maybe B & C were the SB and BB ...

I don't see what the real issue can be here other than calling the "check this" guy annoying. It's not as though there is enough time between saying "check" and saying "this" that he could gauge reactions for info, or cause someone to make a bad move. Does anyone here think he was actually being deceptive? I don't think being annoying gets you held to an action you didn't make.

He also might have just genuinely been playing the tough guy, not realizing the word check was coming out first or that some nits might make a scene about it. Remind me never to order RAISins from the snack girl when the action is on me, with some of you guys at the table.

Would you guys feel any different if he said "raise this!", maybe even moving some chips forward as he said it, and then didn't want to raise?

Yeah, that wouldn't make any sense. It's a colloquialism to put the word "this" after something as a sign of defiance. "Check this" means **** your check. "Can I borrow $5?" "Yeah borrow THIS!" (grabs his sack)

If someone says "raise this" and mucks, it means **** your raise, I fold. This seems straightforward to me.

EDIT: Moving chips forward changes everything and isn't relevant here.

Well I meant saying "raise this" after someone else had already raised. And doing it while moving chips in your hand could be relevant because that's what you do when you raise. The db in OP said "check this" while not moving any chips forward, which is what one does while checking. I would consider it less bad if he made the statement in OP while moving chips forward, because then he more obviously is not checking.

Someone says "Check this!", and I do not assume that the player has checked.

And neither would someone who has played live poker for any length of time.

But then I have been playing poker longer than most here.

I've got a crazy idea.

Stop looking for a reason to force someone to go against intent. Stop searching for technicalities. Start being aware of context. Relax. Loosen up. This is supposed to be a game. The people off of whom you make money see it as a game. Cater to them.

Wait for someone's action to be complete before you react to it. This eliminates the vast majority of problems people have.

Crazy, I know. But I live in a fantasy world.

This is news?

a) Many of the rules nits come from the "Click" or "No Click" universe where everything is mechanically cut and dry.
b) Many come from the Gordon Gekko school of ethics.
c) Many secretly are a bit ashamed of what they do. So, if taking someone's money in a game of poker is a bit shady, why not go all the way and say everything goes, including using the letter of the rule to kill the golden egg laying goose.

But the game is already painfully slow for them. In fact some dealers in this forum have blasted the idea of me waiting for my opponent to actually put chips into the pot before I act.

Oz, Neverland, Westeros, or Los Angeles?