Quote:
Originally Posted by albedoa
Huh. What would your ruling be if he moved the chips with more than one motion? Not trying to pick a fight here, I'm just trying to reconcile this:
Edit: Now that the actually ruling has been revealed, I guess I should ask if you think it was the right one.
The reason I stated that you can go ahead and consider it an all-in is because he then proceeded to push all his chips in. So, at this point, the outlandish number can pretty much be ignored because there is really no alternative ruling you can give but to say he is all-in [I'll address the min-raise ruling in a second].
Obviously, more than one motion is when it goes back to my next point of it being problematic. It is a scenario I rarely ever come across and I can't think of any particular rule that would address this situation. A floor may just give a warning based on the fact it is a number significantly higher than what anyone's stack people is, including his own.
The floor may also just rule him all-in based on the number being more than his stack. Reasonably, this can be applicable in many situations. If I have a stack of 47,100 and I say "47,200" based on a minor miscount before pushing the stack out, it is still reasonable to assume my bet will stand as an all-in despite the stated number being higher than the final amount. I have seen people do this when they know what their stack is before a hand starts but forget to deduct the ante amount from the number.
So, based on this, I'd probably say the guy will have to put in an amount of chips up to 1 million [Obviously meaning he is all-in for significantly less than the initial statement]. I can't really see the rationale behind a min-raise. Perhaps the floor determined he has to put in some type of bet/raise because he stated a number but gave him a reprieve on being forced to go all-in due to an all-timed buffoonish statement that might have been made in humor. Hopefully with a warning that if he repeats such an action, he may receive a penalty or worse.