This happened a few days ago while playing at a well known poker room around where I live. Playing with 6 guys and they all seem to know the dealer and each other. We are having normal poker banter. Asking if so and so would've gone all in in a certain spot and what not. I am in a hand going back and forth with a player when on the turn I say "If you go all in on the river I'll call". The river completes the flush draw on the board and the opponent goes all in. Before I fold or call the player looks at the dealer and asks "Is he binded to call?" The floor manager comes over and then proceeds to say "You are verbally binded to call". I was always under the impression that unless it is your turn to act it doesn't matter what was done before that because the action is not on you. Am I in the wrong here or have you guys ever heard of being "verbally binded" to make a call even when the action was not on you.

Its kinda the same as when someone accidentally goes all in out of position. The bet will not count because the action was not on him...

Thanks for your time any input is appreciated

Every room I've played in would not enforce this as "conditional action" cannot be enforced. However this is a house rule normally. And house rules rule.

Please share wear so we can all know the rule


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I would never play there again.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Room dependent. Most rooms do not rule conditional statements binding, but some do. It is a pretty common angle for players who know the declaration isn't binding to say 'I'm calling and bet', or 'If you call, I'm all-in', knowing that it isn't binding, but knowing that their opponents might think it is binding.

In my opinion, I have no issue with you being held to your declaration, but opinions vary

Also, you are incorrect in assuming that an out of turn all-in would not be binding. in most rooms, if action to the Out of turn actor does not change (in other words, if no one raises), his action would stand.

There is a funny story in the live poker forum where a guy kept saying this then folding, so the floor warned him that the next time he said it it was binding. Sure enough he does it again and folds, but the floor forces him to honor his call even though his cards are gone.

While I think the ruling was wrong, you are just asking for trouble saying crap like this at the table.

+1

certainly not binding as he said it on a previous street.

but in poker your mouth can get you in trouble as that is how bets can be made. so it pays to shut up. it seems op talks about hands and explains how to play them. that is another recipe for disaster. states its normal poker banter. not at all if you are playing to win and dont want to make the weaker players as good as you. also teaches them how to play against you.

Usually not binding in most places.

You're still a douchebag in all places, and I hope you lost the hand and learned your lesson.

Not binding, not close

Out of turn action is binding, table talk about hypothetical action is not binding and is not practical for floor to try and enforce.. carried too far this type of discussion can be problematic (but is easily managed by competent personell)

If op instead said
If villain bets x # of chips on river I will fold (river still has not been dealt) it is laughable to imagine anyone trying to enforce this - would floor try to make him fold an unbeatable hand like quads?

So while this ruling remains awful (on a bad ruling scale its at least 8 or 9 out of 10), op should be aware that poor rulings are an expected feature of the poker world - educating yourself on best accepted behaviors and ways to protect yourself really does have an effect on long-term win rates

A room full of regs and the newbie was on the bad side of a ruling!? In all my years of playing poker ....

1) Very rarely will you find these statements enforced when stated on prior streets.
2) Rarely will you find "IF .. then .. " (conditional) statements enforced, even during an open street of betting.

3) Only valid poker actions are held to the OOT action rules. Thus the 'all-in' as described probably would be held to the player unless action changes somehow.
4) Never rely on the Dealer or Floor to 'save' you.

From a 'recent' thread ...

1) Player 1 checks on the River.
2) As Player 2 thinks, Player 1 says, "All In"

A) If Player 2 bets, he has changed action and Player 1 is off the hook with all options.
B) If Player 2 checks, they are at showdown.

What angle is Player 1 taking? If he gets Player 2 to check he may get a free showdown, unless he wants Player 2 to bet thinking he will then enforce the 'all-in' and Player 1 can now fold .. or actually go all-in.

As others have inferred here, although these statements are almost impossible to enforce I wouldn't mind seeing a few Floors jump to the task ... even when crossing into a new street (as long as action hasn't changed.) GL

The TDA has clarified the conditional statement rule for tourneys, where they can, in fact, be considered binding. Some rooms use TDA rules for their cash games as well, so you should never assume that it will automatically be considered "just table talk" and non binding.

The rules are what the dealer/floor say they are. While normally your statement would not be binding in most circumstances , the situation you describe is ripe for a ruling going against you, like it did. Just don't do that any more.

It’s a pretty decent lesson to not engage in any shenanigans in a poker room (and lots of other settings/situations in life) where everybody else knows each other.

Don’t put dealers/floors in situations where they have to decide if they really want to do ‘the right thing’ if that means their wife is going to take flack from the other players wife at church on Sunday.

Your demeanor at a new card room or home game should be the same as at a local bar you visit for the first time. Otherwise, in one instance you might pay with a front tooth in the other one with your pay check.

I've never heard of this to be binding.

But:

I always thought so, too, but as you said, "house rules rule." I encountered a similar situation, albeit not said on a previous street, at Gulfstream Park in Hallandale Beach, FL not long ago. After the river was dealt, Player #1 told Player #2 that he would call if Player #2 went all in. Player #2 then asked the dealer if that would be binding. Dealer said yes and then I confidently spoke up and said that absent a specific house rule, conditional statements were not binding. The floor was called, listened to what had been said, and then immediately stated that the statement was binding. (Serves me right for speaking up about an issue when I wasn't involved in the hand.) Ironically, Player #2 ended up folding anyway.

I later asked the floor if there was a specific house rule about conditional statements being binding and he looked at me like I was an idiot and said no, conditional statements are always binding. I didn't feel like arguing the point any further or telling him that I had never seen conditional statements
enforced at any other poker room.

So the thing about house rules is ALL RULES ARE HOUSE RULES. If you ask a floor what a rule is and he tells you the rule.... He is telling you the rule for that poker room. We do not distinguish between rules and declare some rules to be "Poker Rules" and some rules to be "House Rules" unless we are referencing an outside set of rules as a a general rule set and then we have exceptions (So if a room says we use The WSOP rules subject to house rules then we make that ddistinction. But when we have our own rulebook and don;t reference someone elses rules there is no distinction)

So aking "is there a house rule after getting the ruling is just a passive aggressive way of saying "You rules aren't what I think they should be so you should acknowledge to me that you have an inferior rule set."

Can some wise floor or dealer explain to me the logic of why, in most rooms, conditional statements AREN'T binding? It seems fairer and less apt to provide opportunities for angles if a clear conditional statement 'I'm calling any bet' 'If you bet, I am going All-in' were considered binding. What is the rationale behind not holding players to these statements?

In general conditional statements of future action are non-binding. I know of no rooms in which they are considered binding in cash games.

However.

There is also a rule in every poker room that allows the Floor to make his decision in the best interest of the game. It is here that you can get held accountable for your words.

Personally I don't ever engage in lies about what I will do and then not do it. Even when a player asks me if I will show if he folds. I just won't answer.

Aside from the obvious risks, it leads to an environment in which people won't trust me. There may come a time when there is a ruling question where it is important to me that my fellow players stand up for me. This has happened before and I expect it will happen again.

I am not a Floor (or a dealer for that matter).

To enforce conditional statements as binding would be to open a Pandora's box.

Every conditional statement would have to be evaluated as to whether or not it is enforceable. That would be a subjective opinion that would differ from Floor to Floor within a room. It would also add eons to the game and result in fewer hands played, less rake, etc. Also, it would come down to who heard it, what were the exact words, etc.

For example: I will call if you are wearing a red bra. Who is going to enforce that? How would it be enforced? What if when the Floor came over the woman in question wanted a call? And argued for it to be accepted.

What if the condition required research into a past event? What platform would be accepted as information reliable? What if people could alter the web pages (as in Wikipedia)?

Etc.

And your pedantic reply completely misses the point. They have no written rule which states that conditional statements are binding; the floor just believes that such statements being binding is a basic rule of poker and is no more unusual than him stating that a flush beats a straight.

unfortunately most house rules include that the foorman is the final say or things are ruled at his discretion.
so the easy thing is to shut up and play and dont say things that can get you broke.

since tv poker more rules have changed for the benefit of viewers and that has created a ton of new angles and disputes that never before were part of the game, as most rooms use those rules.

But we already allow the dealers to parse statements made by players when action is on them. Trying to decide if a binding statement is enforceable is no more difficult than trying to decide if 'Checked?' was made with a rising inflection or not.

While enforcing conditional statements may be difficult, I personally think it is less difficult than allowing ambiguous action which can confuse other players. And I think that if it were cinsistently enforced, the old 'I am going all in if you are wearinga red bra' jokes would go away very quickly. Just like the joking player who says 'all in' while folding has pretty much gone away.

I think you missed Psandman's point. You think there is a universal rule that conditional statements are not binding, and assume an air of patronizing superiority that the rules applied in that casino differ from your expectation. There are no universal sets of rules, so asking if there is a special house rule is inherently condescending.