Ok, $2-$5 nl, at a little casino in Oklahoma. I don't remember the cards that were delt. Player in seat 2 starts thinking after river card. The only other player in the hand, seat 8, says "if you shove, Ill call".

Now heres the question. Since the action was not on him, is he required to call? I know verbal is binding, if the action is on you, but since it was not on him, should he have to call?

Player in seat 2 had the nuts and shoved. Player in 8 did not want to call. Floor said he had to call. Was that right?

No

Sorry, but this is gonna vary a lot by room. Some rooms conditional statements (if you... then I...) are not binding and some they are.

I myself would advise players not the make these comments. Any time you do something that puts you at the mercy of a floor ruling, there's a decent chance you end up unhappy.

Ok, I understand that. One of the players that was not in the hand asked to see the rule book and to see where it said that at. The floor said he would not show the rule book!!!! Hows that for service!

1. Varies by room

2. My opinion, table talk is table talk. If you assume that nothing a player says out of turn is binding and might be disinformation, then you take that "information" into account on how you act on your own hand.

Fairly standard reply by Floor/Management.

Shouldn't they be required to show you the rule book when you ask? I think they should. If not, there could be collusion between the floor, the dealer, and a player. Is that not right?

Hint: They can't show you what does not exist.

And even places with an actual rule book that has a rule that is relevant to a given circumstance, all contain a rule that says "the Floor can rule anyway he wants in the best interest of the game and fairness and decisions of the Management are final".

What keeps most "collusion" to a rare minimum is the fact that players remember rulings and get rather ticked off if there are inconsistencies that cost them money.

The TDA and WSOP rules added a rule a couple of years ago with words to the effect of "conditional statements are discouraged, and may be considered binding by the floor". Where I play, they have extended that rule to the cash games. Other rooms don't use it at all and just consider it table talk. But I agree with those who say that it's always best not to put yourself in an ambiguous position where you put your fate into the hands of the floor. Because like life and boxes of chocolates, you never now what you're going to get.

But what do you suggest to the Bettor?

Ignore the comment (or try to figure out if it is "strong means weak" or "strong means strong") or assume that the comment is binding?

Have the dealer or Floor clarify?

If he has the nuts, knows the comment is binding, and that the Opponent is a happy go lucky contributor, does the Bettor shove an unreasonable amount to get max value this one hand?

This. Rule 1.

I would ask. If told it's not binding, I would pretend I never heard it. If I'm told it is binding, I would act accordingly.

You guys understand the irony of a conditional floor ruling on a conditional action?

Why would that be a conditional floor ruling? After the fact that villain announced a call to a potential all-in, I'd like to get a simple yes/no answer from the floor.

The more unreasonable the amount, the higher the chance for me to shove. Maybe it's not worth to make the other player unhappy and not come back over 50BB. But if we are talking something like 500BB here, I'd shove for sure.

how can it be an unreasonable amount if his opponent thinks that going all in is something that has a good chance of happening?

As others stated, a number of rooms have not codified their rules. It is done by customary practice with some memos written in the past on how things should be done. Other rooms fear that once players see the rules, they will start angle shooting.

There may not even be memos. The rules state that verbal action is binding. Then an issue comes u[p when some idiot has to start making statements like this and a floor gets called to the table.

The floor knows the rule is verbal action is binding so know he has to decide whether this consitututes verbal action. He decides it does constitute verbal action. He doesn;t need a special rule written to him its obvious that its covered by the existing rule. The other floors and the manager eventually have a discussion where they agree this is verbal action. They don;t change the rulebook because its not a new rule. To them its just a common sense application of the existing rule.

Then some smart ass pulls this stupid move again and they rule the same way they always do, The smartass wants to see the rulebook and if he doesn't see a rule that says conditional out of turn statements are binding he thinks that the he is being screwed over because its not in the rulebook. But it is in the rulebook its plain as day it says Verbal action is binding. The fact that that rule may be interpretted differently in a another poker room doesn't matter to the people in this poker room the interpretation is that verbal conditional out of turn action is verbal action.

Is the staff wrong about this being the rule .... no. Is it subject to other interpretations? yes? Do I think that out of turn verbal conditional statements are verbal action? No. Does not carry any weight in a poker room where I am not the manager? No.

There was recently an interesting thread about this topic regarding the Mandalay Bay poker room and it's policy of making contingents binding.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27...y-bay-1481178/