Yes, that is a call.

Off topic but have you guys ever played with someone whose name is Kolin?

verbal is fine in poker, but I alwasy wait to see the chips pushed

by the way, do you have this right?
if you say "push your chips in" and they refuse to do so, like "i already called"
should you keep waiting or you can turn your cards?

In my games, verbal is binding and takes precedence over physical action. This came up a couple times in last night's cash game (e.g. I said "four" and put $5 in, the bet was $4 even though my intent was to bet $5). Making a verbal bet and then refusing to honor it will get you cashed out and sent home.

Regarding OP's situation, I'd hold Player B to a call. "I'm gonna call" is pretty clear IMO.

Sorry I didn t mean it that way. In the games I play at, usually a player that states all in will start to count their chips or push them in. I usually wait untill they start to count or push them in just to make sure. Sometimes a player will state a second time that they are all in which is fine to me.

If I have made a bet and push chips into the pot, I would wait untill they push their stack in before tabling my hand. Its not got enought for them to say they called because they may be mixed up on the bet. I would need to hear them say, I call your all in before I atbled my hand

What if you say "this is such a terrible call"

Not a call.

Many people think aloud and say things like this.

Absolutely nothing is lost by asking clarification. Well, except a big argument and a negative vibe that is sure to happen if you flip your cards and insist he be held to a call.

Trust but verify. Get the player to agree to the action BEFORE you give him a reason to argue.

Is this in response to the OP? Or the previous comment?

Both.

The vast majority of the time, the player will confirm.

Even when someone says "I call" but doesn't move chips, I clarify.

It saves a lot of headache and prevents arguments and bad feelings. I'm willing to risk that 1/10000 times it's some sort of weird angle shot. And in that case, I've learned who's an angler and I can remove him from the game entirely.

Getting confirmation before proceeding is win-win, especially if you're the host. If you make an assumption and it leads to an argument, it doesn't matter how well you argue your interpretation of the rules. All people will remember is that it's an uncomfortable place to be.

...

Sort of related... at my last game, an occasional player put out an oversized chip. I knew she intended to raise, so I stopped action and asked. She said yes, she wanted to raise.

A player at the table was shocked. He was 100% sure she intended to call, and was flabbergasted that I realized her intent was different. He had been watching just as close as I had, and he's been a regular in my game for years.

My point is that anybody's "100% sure" can be wrong. Nothing is lost by asking clarification or confirmation, but a whole lot is gained.

This happens way too often at my games, in spite of my ongoing OCR education. So when a player puts a big chip in without saying anything, I always clarify.

Sure, getting clarification is a great idea, and much better than assuming. But the lack of doing so does not change whether or not it is a call. There is no rule that a verbal declaration must be confirmed before it is binding. It is binding.

As stated in the OP, it is a call in my book.

I like the idea of announcing bet/raise sizes... like phil laak does
but I guess some people are concerned with tells

Your book is not everybody's book. Even with "I'm callin'" and no chip movement, it's entirely possible he said "You're allin?"

In casinos, speculation on the future often isn't binding, and I see plenty of players say "this is a bad call" without yet intending to call.

I feel the game and the environment are better served by asking someone to clarify, and then cautioning after the hand to be careful with wording. I've had this kind of thing come up from time to time, and I've always jumped in to prevent someone from exposing a hand or reacting to a bet, regardless of what their "book" might say. This kind of thing is more common than you'd expect, and I've never had a problem when I've stopped and let people clarify, even if that clarification is "no, sorry, I was thinking aloud."

There are no recording devices in these games. Good luck arguing nuance of phrase after the fact. It's a pretty messy situation when you try to force someone to call, he successfully argues against it with information you didn't hear at the time but that others back up, and the whole mess causes him to fold a hand he would've called that would have lost. The OTHER player will be might upset.

That scenario isn't as far fetched as you'd think. I'm not interested in arguing nuance at the table. That's what 2+2 is 4. I run an incredibly clean and reliable and consistent game, yet somehow I'm the loosest with the rules.

But you are raising other scenarios. Consider the precise words:

Maybe it's the grizzled veteran in me, but I've seen that statement be nothing more than thinking aloud. And I've seen "but you called!" reactions not end well. Even if you "win", the game has lost.

It's talking of the future, not the present or the past.

What's gained by forcing the issue with the player? What's the goal? I think if we figure that out, then the solution becomes easier, without the potential to create a giant mess.

+1

Regardless of what the black and white ruling is, you've got to decide your end game. If this a guy you'd like to keep in the game forcing this issue could potentially cause him to not come back, and if he's a fish, you're costing yourself a indefinite amount of $$$$ in the future for a small pot now.

I agree that there's a difference between "I'm calling because" and "I think I'm calling because" but in a home game unless I know the guy is shooting an angle and maybe trying to get the other player to turn their cards over prematurely then I have no problem clarifying. But also letting that player know after the fact that in the future wording his thinking aloud a little better would be helpful in avoiding confusion.

Yes, exactly. Perhaps we need more context to really know what the situation is. I don't mean to play gotcha with this, and perhaps I wouldn't hold him to it, but he did call. That much is clear.

Now, how do we handle it? Do we force him to call, even if he claims he did not? That depends on what happened next. If his opponent showed a winning hand, and he says, "But I didn't call," I would err on the side of his opponent, who was justifiably induced to show his hand.

Well, it seemed like there was a good consensus ITT that it was a call. And I was content with that. But now pfap has raised the philosophical point about future and present. This was what troubled me at the time.

Call me a reality nit or something, but I treat predictions of the future as just predictions, actuality is yet to be determined.

And what about intentions? If we value a players intention, it is clear (without knowing later events) that Player B did not think he was calling. [because if he thought 'I'm gonna call' was a call, he would just say "I call"]


ps. I might extend this thread later with what went down, and how should I have handled it type questions. depending on interest

I would be very interested. I've never had this situation come up in a home game so I'd love to see the train wreck that ensues....

Just like the guy at my game was clear that the other player hadn't intended to raise. Except that she had.

That's my point. It's clear to YOU based on what YOU heard and how YOU interpret the rules. But until chips go into the pot, anything is possible. Protect your hand/game. What if you misheard? What if he's just mumbling to himself as he weighs his options?

I do agree that this most likely should be held to a call. But until both you and the other player agree, it's not. Maybe you need to make a ruling and determine that it's a call, but this is not a clear cut case, and I've seen plenty of these kinds of situations in home games and casinos where it was clear that the player was talking it through. The mere fact that there's disagreement ITT illustrates that it's potentially contentious.

Until the player himself accepts the action, this has great potential to ruin the night for everybody. It's one of those "rarely a problem until it is, at which point it's a huge problem" situations.

This is what i wish to avoid, which is why I asked your endgoal. What is gained by forcing a call, instead of stopping and clarifying. The overwhelming majority of the time, he'll say "yes, I call." The rare case he says "whoah! no! just thinking aloud!" you can let him continue to think.

Either way, the problem is averted. And if you think he's an angle-shooter, then you get to have a peek into his mindset at a time when you aren't arguing over a ruling.

I really don't see a downside here. But by forcing a ruling on something that's outside the scope of clear and accepted phrases or motions, there are numerous ways it can end poorly for everybody.

My goal is a clean happy game free of angle-shooters. This is how I achieve it.

I'm interested too. Hopefully I've illustrated how to avoid the train wreck, rather than handle the fallout.

The whole thing happened pretty quickly, but here's how I remember it.

Most of the group play every week at the pub, where I'm not the tourney director. This was at my house, so I'm TD by default.

Player B knows the group, but does not play at the pub game with us.


River has been dealt. 2 players.
Player A declares All-in.
Player B says "I'm gonna call because xyz.."
Players A (holding onto cards) says "Ive got 2 pair"
pause
Player B says something from which it became apparent he was still thinking whether to call.
Player A says something like "you've already called"
Player B says something to effect he doesn't thinks he has.
Others start to join in, all saying its a call.
Player A tables his 2 pair.
I'm in a minority of one when I say I'm not sure it was a call.
<lots of people talking>
X suggests a vote on it.
I reply to X, in a loud voice for everyone to hear, that if a decision is needed that I'll make it, it won't be a vote.
(note: player A and B are next to each other at one end of the table, X and I are at the other end)
Before I have a chance to take control, player B accepts the majority view and pushes his stack to Player A.


So, what should/shouldn't I have done?

As a player am I obliged to protect Player B?

As TD am I obliged to step in, or do I just wait until someone asks for a ruling?

Seems like it worked out. Well done. It's a lot easier to armchair quarterback it on here. Hopefully people learn from these threads. Thanks for the update! I'm glad you waited to post results.

It's rough playing and directing. As a player or a dealer, I've seen that scenario plenty of times, so I like to step in IMMEDIATELY.

This is what I mean about not making an assumption and then trying to force it after a point of no return. Had Player A protected his hand, then the conversation with Player B would have been easier, and the table wouldn't have broken down into argument.

The WSOP has a progressive penalty system, and I've adopted that philosophy to my game. Basically any mistake by a new or infrequent player gets a warning as the first penalty. I'd have stepped in before Player A said anything, and asked for clarification. I would have waited to have the conversation about his word choice after the hand.

An ounce of prevention.

Pfap what's your take on someone who calls but puts in the wrong amount like stated earlier. I'm new to another local pub game and wasn't aware of the chip denominations I said call but it turns out I used the wrong chip and raised, when I realized I said oh sorry, oh well but some guy let me off because he said verbal was binding. Would your ruling have been the same? Just curious

The rules protected you, as intended. You made a clear unambiguous statement before moving chips. In a game with a dealer, I often try to make eye contact with the dealer to ensure that my action is understood.

And that's really the lesson here. We have little control over what rulings will be, or what others will do. But if we learn how to protect ourselves, we're safe no matter what other people do.

As Player A in the OP, I protect myself by not exposing my cards until Player B accepts his action. Why let him know where he stands in the hand? Why let him try to weasel out of whatever it is he doesn't want to do? If his information on me is unchanged, then his preferences on action should be unchanged as well.

As the host or TD, I protect the game by stepping in and stopping this mess before it starts, giving Player B the benefit of the doubt (tho' I'm very good at discerning intent at the table, so there wouldn't be much doubt), and establishing that he should be careful with what he says in the future.

Thankfully the players in my game understood and respected by perspective, so I never had anybody complain about forcing someone to call the few times something like this came up.

I mean, c'mon, this is all in the interest of keeping the game loose and fun for the casual players. I feel the rules are important, but so is being flexible and recognizing context. If you want to play against robots, go online.