Although it does look like an angle, I don't get the impression that he's intentionally angling. If you look at the way he described the situation, there's a good possibility that he's fairly new to live poker, and doesn't realize that it's the wrong time to ask.

It for sure wasn't an intentional angle I promise that. I am relatively new to live poker. When I raised and he called and the flop came the action was indeed on him when I asked how much he had but that was a mistake on my part. I realize I should have waited until the action was on me. However, when I asked him how much he had it was instantly after he called my Preflop raise. hope this makes sense

You said the whole table thought you got screwed and you didn't know what to do after the ruling. How did you get screwed? What was there to do aside from clarifying what the correct behavior is for the future?

OK, if action was on him, then I back off my assessment that you were angling. You did learn some good lessons

1. Always clarify villains actions
2. Always understand house rules (do they have a hard betting line)
3. Do not ask villain questions when action is on him (it is poor etiquette, but can also invite the kind of ambiguity that bit you here-I know a lot of players nowadays consider the 'talk game' as a key tool, but it is usually ineffective unless done very well, and is just annoying)
4. Always clarify villains actions

the floor ruling may have been horrible for you, OP, but it's the correct ruling. Basically you tried to call someone out on a technicality which you thought existed.

Even then, you shouldn't have asked, unless his stack was not in plain view.
Learn to estimate a player's stack. Especially if it is just one stack, which it seems it was in this case.

IDK what OP motives or plans were , or if he had any. Maybe inexperienced , maybe actually a ploy? I was just posting that I don't see why the Vs push of his chips was not considered an AI shove by the floor since the action was on him and they seem to have a betting line rule or a forward motion rule in effect. Do you think the Vs action was a legitimate AI regardless of what OP said , or is there something else about this exchange that lets Vs action be reversed? Serious question since OP says the floor did just that.

I think it is clear in context that the opponent (I refuse to call him a villian) wasn't betting. he was responding to the question posed by the OP. If I thought for one moment that the opponent was trying to bet or trying to make it look like a bet then I would hold him to the bet.

I see this happen periodically and it pretty much always involves a complete newbie to live poker or a drunk who can't simply count their chips and do not know that they don't have to answer the question so they shove them out where they think they can be seen better.

OK, Thanks, That makes some sense to me in this particular case.. So I guess it means just making a judgement call by a dealer/floor on Vs intent? That is likely to vary a lot from room to room also I guess. Again thanks for the point of view.

Doesn't appear like OP is angling here. What he did is basically when going out for dinner look at your friends plate and ask "you gonna finish that" when he hasn't even touched his fork. It's rude but also a massive tell since it makes it obvious you literally can't wait to put the money in. That's also obvious given the fact you snapped him off and couldn't take 2 seconds to confirm the bet.

Looks like cards gave some swift justice. Massive respect for the guy calling off the money when he doesn't have to knowing he is way behind and doesn't want any problems knowing his action may have been dubious.

The tone of the posts in this thread is so baffling to me. The guy is clearly newish to live poker and made a mistake in the heat of the moment when the adrenaline was flowing. Lighten up, everyone lol.

Ya jeez sorry guys! Dang haha. I made a mistake and I learned from it! Thank you!

Fair enough - but someone who is "newish to live poker" shouldn't have such a strong opinion and even tell the floor that he made an "awful ruling".

OP didn't describe things well and made some errors but I am baffled at some people who don't think V made a bet as described.

If I posted a thread and said "Action was on me, I was thinking, V asked me how much I had left, so I shoved all my chips in the middle, and they ruled it an all-in, can you believe it???" I doubt ANYONE would respond "Wow, bad ruling".

When it is on you, and you stick your chips in the pot, that's a bet. Now, given the hazy description, it is possible that villain slid the chips forward a bit so OP could see. OP, what seats were you all in? Makes more sense that V wasn't betting if you were in the 1 and 9 or something like that.

Otherwise, action is on you, you stick all of your chips into the middle and release them and your opponent calls, 99.999999% of the time you are all in and called.

I was in seat 9 he was in seat 1. But the whole thing was I was just so excited the action was on him and he put the whole stack in the middle and it totally seemed like a bet to me and he didn't say anything at all until AFTER I showed him I had a set of kings

.....

In other words the dealer was blocking and it makes sense to put chips forward to show them.

The seats make it much more likely that he wasn't betting. I would need to have been at the table to observe exactly where the chips went, etc., but the seating is disconcerting.

Kinda what I was thinking after the original clarification that the V was first to act. The first reaction is excitement that he put it all in and I've got top set - Yippee!!

2 very questionable acts here which have been talked about enough here already. 1 that you asked him what his stack was when it was his action. 2 that he showed you his stack specifically by putting it over the line. It all makes a little more sense now that you've said it was seats 1 and 9, but it doesn't change the fact that those 2 acts are both incorrect.

As for the ruling, I tend to consider it incorrect depending on how strict the betting line is in that room. If the line is very loosely interpreted (i.e. just for the sake of the dealer's reach) I would expect the dealer to clarify and the OP to clarify before making any action of his own.

it really has nothing to do with him putting his money across the betting line. He was answering his opponent's question as he was asking to see his chips.

I still think it was an awful ruling. But then the other guy went ahead and left his money in anyway, so OP didn't really get screwed by anything, effectively he got what he hoped for.

Well, it has a little to do with putting his money across the line. When someone asks you how much you have left, your first instinct should not be to push all your chips over the line.

Having said that, as others have noted, this appears to be a case of two people (OP and V) both doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. No ruling is going to be perfect in this case, since both parties may have had opposite intentions. Depending on the context and the details of how the issue was described, I can see either ruling being fine.

That's true, but only because you left out an extremely important aspect of what transpired: what the villain said as he pushed his chips forward.

"Action was on me, I was thinking, V asked me how much I had left, so I loudly exclaimed that I have exactly this amount left and shoved all my chips (forward where he could see them), and they ruled it an all-in, can you believe it???"

With this additional bit of info, I believe quite a few people would respond "Wow, bad ruling".

Ehhh, I guess I can definitely picture a lot of villains "loudly exclaiming" this much left when their opponent asks them how much they have when not their turn and they are going all in. I mean, if I "loudly exclaim" $200 or whatever, why do I need to move the chips?

If I saw A ask B how much do you have when it is B's turn, and B shoved his stack in the middle and said "$200", I would never think that B wasn't going all in.

I've been asked how many chips I had literally hundreds of times (though none that I recall while it was my turn) and have never slid them forward in response (even though it is exponentially less likely to be ruled a bet when it is not my turn).

Didn't he say "I have this much left"?
How did this totally seem like a bet instead of him responding to your question?

He said "I have this much left" meaning he doesn't know the count himself and and because OP asked it in his turn he was probably a little annoyed and just showed it to let OP count it himself.

If he just said "$200" while putting his chips forward that's different. I can't see how you would interpret this as a bet given the question, seating arrangement and what the opponent said. The issue isn't whether this is meant as a bet (it wasn't), the question is should normal rules apply and enforced or should the floor look at intent.