Pot Limit Omaha: Gutterball says "I bet half the pot", then puts out a bet slightly smaller than half the pot. What is his bet?

Whatever amount is equal to 1/2 or 50% or half of the pot. His choice.

.5 pot and pot/2 are also acceptable bets.

I suppose, however, there's a separate discussion if "26% pot" and other phrases that aren't "pot" are valid. I ain't here to do your math, buddy...

Lol. Nice.

The verbal declaration takes priority over the amount of chips put out; Gutter needs to put out a few more chips. I think that was the essence of your question, yes?

Not sure if leveling. But I was lead to believe that in PLO, only "I bet $x" and "I bet pot" are binding.

This.

It doesn't matter if it is PLO or NLHE... if someone verbally declares a bet, and it is their turn to act, the bet is binding. Someone can easily say "I bet half the pot" in NLHE, and they'll be expected to bet whatever half the pot is.

Side note: One amusing thing I've found is when we play "pot limit" night (PLH, PLO, PLO8), people do really odd things such as:

-- Complain that they don't like pot limit, but when they play NLHE, they never ever overbet the pot

-- Are prone to check or just bet POT... and rarely do anything else

It's kinda funny the way it works out.

wtf? I agree with Frank. This has GOT to be a level.

"i bet half the pot" is not a legal bet. His bet is what he puts out.

And no... just because online poker has a button for 1/2 pot doesn't mean you can bet that. No one is going to do the math for you. what if the pot is $43.75? What's half of that? Allowing anything except for "i bet $X" and "i bet pot" opens a huge can of angleshooting worms.

Vaguely related... this is like Phil Hellmuth saying "I bet the pot" in NLHE. NOT a legal action.

I disagree. Any declaration of a stated amount bet when it's your turn to ask is binding. While saying 'pot' (in a non-PL game) or 'half pot' is a lazy way to do it, it's still a binding amount.

WHAT???

So, if I say "bet pot" but put out one chip less.... that's different than declaring any other fraction of the pot and then shorting the bet?

Exactly why? What angle does this open up, exactly?
Now, if you wanted to argue it from an 'ease of game mgmt' stance, I might agree.... but verbal is only binding when it's a certain amount?

Smells like a fail here.... someone enlighten me.


... which is why, as a host, I'm rounding his bet up to 30% or some other simple amount that close, but higher, than whatever the bet should be.

... along with a KITN for trying to be fancy and not being able to do his own math

Or, disallow any verbal bets that aren't an amount, including "pot", "I'll put you all in" and other such non-values. I'll allow "all-in" for your own stack, since I don't have to count it in order to know what's going into the pot.
= it's everything in front of you

$25. You want a more precise amount in the future, bet an amount instead.

I saw a NLHE televised tournament where Ted Forrest tried to bet the pot, and the dealer told him he could not do that in a NL game. He had to bet a specific amount. Ted asked if he could change his bet amount, and was told he could.

Huh, interesting. I'd always seen 'Pot' as a valid bet amount, but I've not seen anyone do it in a casino during a NLHE game. Anyone know off-hand if Robert's says anything about it (since I'm too lazy to look it up myself this morning)?

pot-limit is the only place where you are allowed to say "i bet pot" because it is the only game where the dealer is suppose to give you the pot size when asked. Saying "i bet pot" is like saying "dealer, how much is the pot? oh ok. I bet $X." where $X is the amount the dealer said. in no-limit, the dealer will not tell you the pot size. In both games the dealer will NOT tell you how much half the pot is, or how much is 26% of the pot.

Pot limit novice here, so this is my take on the OP as well as an invitation for you guys to correct me if I'm wrong.

My understanding, like Zak's, is that in PL (and only in PL), "pot" or "I bet pot" is a binding verbal bet. I don't think that betting a fraction of the pot verbally is legally binding.

But in a home NL game, I'll often cut some slack for players who say, "I put you all in" when heads-up. Everybody understands their intent, and nobody in my game is doing this to shoot an angle, so I'll accept that statement as a binding verbal bet even though it really isn't. It seems like the same applies to "I bet half the pot" in PL. It's not technically binding, but intent is clear.

So if a player were to do this, I'd count the pot if necessary, divide in half (rounded up to the nearest small chip), and that would be the bet amount. Is that reasonable?

Do you plan to have this as a topic on your Top Pair Podcast?

I don't see any reason to recognize this bet as 50% of the pot ...... I also would ask him not to do it that way in the future to avoid the hassles that will come with people betting this way.

This is interesting- why is the dealer required to know and announce the pot in PL but banned in NL? This sounds like a B&M-sourced reason, I'm guessing... unless there was an old road-games rule to prevent some angle/argument?

Really, we should probably get rid of the verbal bets that are not amounts in ALL games, including NL... and including "all-ins".

Think how much easier life would be, if we required "$235 all-in" .

This is 100% false. If you go to a casino and are playing any NLHE table, pot is not a bet, nor will the dealer tell you exactly how much is in there, theyll spread it out for you and you can count it and bet any amount you want.

Its funny how people spew info about a situation but have never been in it.

Maybe in the cardrooms he's used to, they have a stricter verbal rule?


Here's some questions for the people on the "no verbal portion calls in NL" (actually, I guess everyone is saying that only "pot" is legal to use, here, but whatever):


If "half-pot" by player A is followed immediately by "pot" from Player B.... does anyone have to put chips into the pot? Is Player B committed to a raise at all, much less pot-sized?

Do PL games ever allow someone to reneg on a "pot" bet if they didn't know what size the pot actually was? Say, they missed the hidden black?

Have people experienced a lot of problems, similar to the OP, when non-standard verbal bets cause arguments?

"The Dealer" has a job to do, and in pot-limit, that includes enforcing the rule that players can only bet as much as is in the pot -- and needs to be able to calculate that for people.

...but yes, it creates a special rule where the size of the pot is a known, shared, repeatable, announce-able value in PL, and a deep dark secret in NL.

So, it gets back to the question of: "Do you allow 'half pot' as a valid declaration of a bet in your game."

As I questioned earlier, only "pot" seems to be a binding non-numerical bet declaration. [Minus some fancy linguistics, I guess...]

So either he said something binding, or he announced something just as useful as shouting I LIEK HAM!

PL contains the same "gross misunderstanding" rule that NL does -- but you'd be harder pressed to convince me, acting as the "floor" person that an bet of pot constituted a gross misunderstanding*


[*Unless of course you have new people: The concept of re-potting after someone has potted, they often think the bet is 2x the last guy, not 4x the last guy. I cut new people some slack.]

in NL no one can count the pot to tell u what pot is.

Yes, its this post all over again but verbally

Meaning, you'd say "oh, I thought the pot was X, so I get to fold?"

Example, please?

That is the default rule, yes. Keep track yourself.

A number of card rooms and private games offer a wide range of rules including:

• No spreading of the pot at all; keep track yourself,
• The pot can be spread so it can be counted,
• The pot can be spread, separated even, so a good count can be made,
• The count can be given, or players can freely count the pot.

This is one of those times where the formal rule is often ignored.