No you really don't. There isn't going to be chaos and mayhem because intelligent humans are quite good at understanding context and nuance. Like if the guy made the calling motion and you turned over your hand and now he says "oh wait I didn't see the board paired" and wants to fold, that is not fair to you, obviously the rule should be enforced. But if he makes the calling motion and then nothing happens and he changes his mind like in the example given here, you haven't been harmed whatsoever. Only he is being harmed - you can try to make him call when you have him beat and let him muck when bluffing.

Someone earlier made an excellent analogy to the string raise rule. The only people I see enforcing string raises are angle shooting nits who want to see a cheaper flop. 9 times out of 10 there has been no action behind and the guy wants to raise and it should stand. 1/10 two other guys limp behind but don't want to call a raise and the string raise rule serves its purpose. We can figure out the difference by using our brains and not throwing our hands in the air complaining that failure to enforce the rule will cause chaos.

Well, you clearly play in different games than I do, because it is very rare that I play with many people who are intelligent humans who understand nuance, or at least who act like they are.

I think if you let someone get away with something like that in can lead to nothing good but a lot of bad. Next time the guy would try the same thing even if I had already shown my hand, but claim he did it before I tabled. And the floor person isn't going to know who to believe, so he'll rule for the one who plays the most or tips the best.

In poker you aren't allowed to change your mind after acting. My opponents aren't allowed to, and I'm not allowed to either. I've made a mistake and misread the board before but I never would have even considered trying to take back a raise.

This is an erroneous assumption to make. This isn't a massively slippery slope. This is like saying that because somebody accidentally ran a stop sign and didn't run somebody over, that the next time they come to a stop sign they will try to run it because they know they won't run anybody over.

I think that if there's no history of angling (which appears to be what the situation is), that making a big deal out of it isn't worth it. Sometimes, people screw up. It doesn't have to lead to a lot of bad and there's no indication that it would. (Also, there's no indication that making a fuss out of this will prevent a lot of bad.)

But I would still make a (polite) comment to inform him that such a move might be considered a call and might be binding, so that he should be careful with how he moves his chips around.

Exactly.

Villain made the calling motion and nothing happened and he changed his mind and that is exactly what happened here. Holmfries has him beat and can try to make him call.

You can argue that it's better for holmfries not to try. I understand that argument and agree with it in a general sense even if I don't agree this is a good specific scenario to apply it.

But you definitely can't argue that there's ambiguity in what the guy did. He made a calling motion (and if he didn't actually call it's by the letter of the law and a technicality) and fortunately holmfries is experienced enough not to fall for it.

Well the argument on the other side is like saying the guy who ran the stop sign and didn't even slow down shouldn't be given a ticket if he didn't happen to hit anyone this time. That's not the way the police or judge will see it though, and I think they have it right. If they don't get a ticket this time, they will keep running stop signs, and eventually someone is going to get hurt.

Do you propose that cops should sit at every stop sign and watch for this behavior? Would you propose that citizens start chasing stop-sign runners?

In this case, the dealer wasn't paying attention, and so the event went unnoticed by any authority figures. (I think everyone so far has agreed that the dealer ought to have been paying attention to the action.) But since the dealer didn't pay attention, we have a cop-less stop sign. What do you propose is the solution for that situation?

This is also way too black and white, just on the other side.

It's not at all like someone running through a stop sign full speed. It's like someone slowing down but not coming to a complete stop.

And like many traffic incidents, this is one of those situations where if someone did that to you and caused you to slam on the brakes, you'd use your judgement. Did he see you? Was he apologetic? How bad was the potential downside? In mild cases, or there was some ambiguity about who got to the intersection first, you'd let it go. In moderate cases, you might honk or give him the finger. In severe cases, you'd probably follow him and call 911.

You're not going to go nuclear on everyone who makes small infractions. But you're also not going to sit idly by when people do stuff that's super dangerous.

Boy you guys are so jaded. The original story stated the guy is a bad regular player whom holmfries is friendly with. We have absolutely no reason to suspect he is angle shooting. If some details of that were different I would not be saying the same things fwiw. But I agree with Aaron this is not some sort of slippery slope situation. This guy isn't going to become an angle shooter because he "got away with it" and he is very likely to feel taken advantage of if made to call.

I don't love the stop sign analogy but having trouble articulating why. Something to do with the risk to people's safety vs making money in a game.

Interestingly, in a LOT of countries that aren't the US, running stop signs is totally standard. But the idea here is that as you're approaching the stop sign, you assess the driving conditions. If there's nobody around, you just go through. Stop signs are not there as rules to strictly follow, but suggestions to keep people safe.

I got exactly the opposite impression from the OP as you did (although it was confusing). He said as soon as the guy put his chips out but didn't release: "I know what is about to happen". To me, this implies he suspected the guy his going to try to renege on his bet, because this is the type of thing the guy is known to do.

Fair enough, that deserves some clarification for sure. I read it as "I know the guy doesn't realize the board double paired but he's gonna see it soon enough"

Gonna go fire off at Canterbury again tonight. If you see a kid with a gray hat and blue joggers running back and forth between the ATM you know who it is.

Holmfries is a pretty experienced player and plays all over the country. If this were a simple or standard case, I don't think he would have posed the question.

Firing in the 20/40 weeeeeee

We had fun threehanded for a while.

Yeah, but how much did you lose?

Geeze....the 20 didn't run last night, now shorthanded again tonight. What gives?

The guy *is* trying to reneg in a sense, because now that he realized the board double paired, he didn't want to call. Where's the real angle though?

bout tree fiddy

I don't know if you want to call it an angle or not, but I think after someone has called in poker, they should not be able to "un-call". Maybe it's just a personal preference, but I have played a lot of poker in a lot of different places, and I have never heard of anything like this being allowed.

Depending on the rule, the player's action may not necessarily indicate a call. And I think that's where you're feeling a bit hung up.

At some places, it's not a call until the player lets go of his chips. In such establishments, he never called, so he doesn't un-call in this situation.

That's certainly true, and I mentioned in a previous post that I thought this player should be held to a call _if the room uses the forward motion rule_. I got the impression that in the room of OP, forward motion was the rule, but it was vague and not sure if it was ever clarified.
But it's not relevant to my point.

Death Donkey and some others said he should be allowed to "un-call" even if all the procedures denoting a call in the room have been met. (forward motion has been made, or chips have crossed line, or chips have been released, whatever)

There are people who are rule-enforcers by nature, in that they believe that rules exist to be followed. There are others who view rules as guidelines for keeping things moving along.

You appear to be in the former camp. Others are more in the latter camp, including myself. Even if he "truly" called, the only one who is really able to make such a declaration didn't see it. And so the only one who is really able to enforce isn't able to make the proper determination.

I'd just let it go without more than a brief comment. Mistakes happen. Life goes on. We can pass on this without any significant harm to the game.

Anyone currently play at Commerce Casino a lot and have ideas to spend $1000 worth of points? Something that will retain it's value if possible?

Just wait until they become valuable again? (eg., can be spent on something other than theme park tickets?)

I've heard from a player that some time ago they allowed players to withdraw 90% of its value in zomg! cash.

Humblecash!