Not sure what I'd do. I let a lot of stuff slide because it's unlikely that they're actually pulling an angle. You'll probably win more bets long term by keeping everyone happy than by trying to enforce this call. If they do it frequently, then of course you have to stand up for yourself. Probably unlikely to happen frequently though, since the dealer will see it and say it's a call.

If it were me, my cards would probably already be face up the second he comes forward with chips. In that case, I'm definitely asking for the floor.

Also, forward motion rule is definitely the best for limit games. You go forward a reasonable amount, and it's a bet or call, and there's no question about how much the bet is. Action can continue to the next player, even if they have trouble counting to eight. Only issue is when facing a bet, some players will come forward with enough chips for two bets and then only leave one bet out. I think this is often an angle too, and I've seen it work plenty of times. This could probably be ruled as a raise, but I've never seen that.

I can't think of any reason to do this other than to angle someone or try to get a reaction. Totally unnecessary.

So guy moves his chips forward, doesn’t release them, then dealer turns around and asks what the action is? No reason to do anything except say “waiting on seat X” if it’s not binding yet.

If it’s binding, then flip your cards over and take the pot.

It honestly sounds like holmfries messed up somehow, these things are not open to interpretation. If the guy has not completed action, there is no reason to demonstrate anything to the dealer.

Yeah, that would be horrible. So you can't shuffle chips anymore if you are in a hand? That would be impossible to maintain and would slow the game down greatly.

As described, it is unquestionably a call. The question is if you ask to call the floor to enforce it because the dealer didn't see anything.

Depends on the cardroom.

This would not go well because too many players play with their chips and are touching them almost all the time.

The "cleanest" rule is probably releasing chips after forward motion, but is subject to players "making moves" (for example, moving the arm out quickly as if to call but not actually releasing). I think "forward motion with chips in hand" is the most sensible rule.

Well to answer an implied question it sucks that he didn't call your bet with a worse hand.

It sounds like his motion/action didn't cause you to react or give off a tell. It sounds like you acted rationally.

I agree with most of the posters that you'll probably win more money in the long run by letting him pull back the chips/not enforcing the rule this time. And I also agree that if/when you see this happen repeatedly in the future, you start calling the guy out on it.

My understanding is that the point of the rule isn't to punish people who make mistakes/are new/are drunk/temporarily lose their mind/etc. It's to punish people who stick chips out wanting to see you react, then pull back the chips and act like nothing happened.

Also, how many times have you seen "that one guy who is a dick" at the table who enforces the string raise rule on the new player/fish (when he didn't react to the string raise) and you've thought "that guy clearly wasn't trying to angle shoot, that guy just doesn't want to pay extra to see the next card"

Here, you didn't react it seems. A rule is a rule, but again, I agree with the other posters that you are probably better off letting this slide but calling him on any future shenanigans.

The way the story is told there doesn't seem to be any intent to angle. Therefore I think it's ludicrous to attempt to get his chips in the pot. You lost nothing and he gained nothing. He probably technically called, and then he decided to fold. What if you were bluffing?

Well you can make rule like if you pick chips to play with them fine of course .
I don’t know, some idea could be apply from it anyway.

In Atlantic City when I played there (and I assume still?) the rule was, if you move chips farther in front of you than your cards, they were bet. I thought this was a very good rule and it didn't cause any problems. It helped the game move faster as well. Now in Vegas I have to worry about acting out too quickly when I see the guy to my right moving forward with chips, because even if he has enough in his hand for a raise, he might only be calling. Or if there is no bet as of yet, he might be doing the even worse move of checking with chips in his hand.

You've never played live? Wow. Most of the table is playing with chips most of the time. Live poker is boring. You have these fun discs. Then shuffling happens. Based on your rule, you'd have 90% of the table in every pot.
You play in a room with one rule. You think that rule is the best. You could be 100% correct in both, like Captain R says.
In places where there isn't a strict forward motion rule, people just have calling or raising chips in hand, move their hands around, and then cut out bets/raises. Maybe it is worse, but it is pretty hard to say "100% X" without knowing the actual rules.

I'm with DeathDonkey and CaptainR here, pot won no extra bet. Could we have a universal rule of poker betting/calling that is even better? Maybe. Over the years, the angle shooters just figure out what the edge of any rule is and take advantage. That's why they're angle shooters. I still don't see how the guy in this example was doing anything but being clueless, but it could be that I'm missing the key part of the local rules and how he interacted with them. The only benefit I could see is if he's looking at HF for a tell with his fake call, and that didn't seem to be part of the story. Dude can do whatever he wants while staring at the boardcards, as far as I care.

While it is entirely possible that I messed up, forward motion is 100% open to interpretation. Our room defines it as "motioning towards the pot with chips" or similar. The most obvious example is that people grab a handful of chips, move them towards the pot and tap them on the table to check. Obviously this is different in that the old guy is facing action.

I was sort of torn on this one. I know how this guy plays and it seemed pretty obviuous to me what happened. He raised the turn with a flush and got flustered with the backraise on the river. So my interpretation that he went out with chips to "autocall" the river and then pulled chips back when he realized the Board double paired. I talked with him afterwards and he basically confirmed this. He said he didn't think that it was a call because he changed his mind before he let go of the chips. To me it is a gray area area, which is why I would have preferred then dealer to have made the call. Or at least stopped the action and clarify what happened (before he then folded, which made the situation worse imo).

I generally table my hand quickly in an effort to move the game along. In this case I didn't because it wasn't clear to me if he was going to raise or not.

I didn't think that there was really an intent to angle either, I genuinely think that he got confused and then decided to change his action and believed he was on the right to do so. And since the dealer didn't intervene quickly he thought it was fine to just muck.

In the end I let it go. Right or wrong I didn't want to call the floor and hold up the game just to debate his action and get another bet from him.

I legitimately thought that he had called so yes, I would have had the same reaction had I been bluffing. Agree with the other posters that when the dealer said "what is up" or "what happened" then as opposed to saying "i think he called" I should have just explained to her the action she missed without a elaboration.

lol I have a hard time believing if you were bluffing you would try to convince the dealer that he called. It probably doesn't matter since you are bluffing here literally never. But I feel like you are giving yourself some kudos for not taking advantage of the guy and not calling the floor to try to get his river bet in the pot but that really it's kinda scummy of you to even try to get the dealer to say he called.

It's really very simple and no rules need to be consulted. A guy may or may not have called. You aren't sure which and you haven't exposed your hand. You say "did you call?" He clarifies his action. You move on.

His bluff level...

I was at Canterbury last night waiting for that stupid Omaha game to open a seat, took literally two ****ing hours. I sat there waiting and eventually went and fired off 250 bucks in Mississippi stud because I'm a degenerate sometimes and was in a foul mood.

Finally a seat opened up and I think I got to play for an hour before the oldies dropped off. Couple poor players in the game but I didn't have any time to get anything going which was sad. Was too tired to considered firing in hold'em, would have been a bloodbath.

But I definitely missed Canterbury, Blackbear is a ****hole really.

No, it's not "really very simple."

Holmfries is not just unsure whether the guy called, he actually thinks the guy did call.

If it were the case where holmfries didn't see what happened or was genuinely unsure, it's great to give someone the benefit of the doubt. But if you think someone put out a call (however you personally or the house rules) define a call, and then take it back, even if you haven't shown your hand you should make a fuss about it.

I have to be 99% certain that I was getting angled before I'd make a fuss and that almost never happens.

Sklansky says its 45%

lol. If I were to call floor on .00001% of the things these ppl do at low limits I'd be taken aside and given a talking to.

Sorry, I re-read your original post and it's actually very clear on the action. Seems clear to me also that you're basically trying to get him to call on a technicality, since you knew he had accidentally called without properly reading the board and wanted to take his chips back before anything happened.

This is pretty much like calling string-raises on people or BB's who think they're UTG and fold first to act. I don't enforce these technicalities, since they're not angles and you know what the intent is of the player.

If the rule is forward action, I don't think it's a technicality. What if the rule is release over the line, and someone releases over the line, then realizes he misread the board and takes back the call. Do you think that should be allowed as well?

If I haven't exposed my hand in any way? Yes of course. Literally every argument you guys are making is just another way of saying "I want the guy to have to put in his money because I have him beat". I'd love to see how closely you want the rules enforced when you are bluffing this spot.

If I were bluffing in that spot I would throw away my cards immediately after his bet was made, before he could try to take it back. So if he isn't held to a call, I'm getting freerolled.

Of course I'm also turning my hand over pretty quickly after a called value bet as well, so it's unlikely I'd be in this spot.

But I don't think anyone is arguing he should have to call because we want his money. We are arguing that poker is played according to rules, and if someone does what the rule says is a call, he has called. If you let rules like this go, it allows too much opportunity for angles and general mayhem.

Like now you have to worry about how long he should have to take back a call, and whether that time limit has been met. And if there should be different rules if it's a multiway pot.