I was OK with this call but I'm wondering if it would be called this way in other poker rooms. Also would it be the same for a tourney ?

Anyway..........

Playing 1/2 NL. The villain had bet the flop and turn and the board was QQA2.
I had A-Q and had called both bets. ( Villian had an Ace-rag)

The last Q appeared on the river giving me quads. The villain checked.
When I reached for my chips he said " I call". I said "How can you call when I haven't bet yet "
He said "Whatever you bet, I call "

I shoved and he folded. The dealer, to his credit, told the villain to hold onto his cards and called the floor. The 1st floor didn't know how to call it so he got the senior floor guy who ruled the fold was OK.

Agree with that call ?

I agree with the ruling. I hate that the guy did what he did because it's a silly attempt at an angleshot that's likely to work only on newbies who will feel cheated and leave the game (possibly forever). But the fact of the matter is it's just table talk because you hadn't acted.

Standard and correct ruling: Conditional statements are not binding. "Whatever you bet, I call" and "If you bet, I call" are basically the same.

It's not an action, it's not out of turn action (cause he has no action left unless you reopen it) it's just douchy table talk you should ignore.

It also is rather stupid in this context cause if he's folding to a bet, it hardly matters if you bet or check. OTOH he could be setting an image up so next time if you bet, and he's got a monster, he raises while misleading you by making you think his table talk is legit and binding when it isn't.

If you don't like the strength of your hand then there's no point when in position to opening yourself up to be bluffed off of it and now you know with this guy when he says that junk its either no value in betting cause he's folding or negative value cause he's bluffing you off it when you bet.

If he really has an ace, I am pretty sure he’s going to call the river unless hero shows absurd strength by shoving all-in while thinking the opponent is bound to a call.

That angle is designed to make sure another player only bets big if he really has it. Probably saved villain a decent amount of money here.

Ruling is standard. Next time if you are unsure, ask the dealer to call the floor for a ruling before you act.

Good point on that application - hadn't considered that.

this^^^^^^^^^^
he's pretty much telling you he has an ace
a small to mid bet would have got paid

Villan had an ace. He showed it. Said his other card was a rag. And you are correct on the all-in, too. There was about $ 120 in the pot. Had I bet $50 or so, I probably would have gotten paid off. My all in wasn't huge, but it was about $ 150 or so. Villian was then looking at calling for a split at best. Good fold on his part, but he's still a douche.

Similar thread popped up last month I think. V need to be pretty careful here when they make these statements. Since he's not facing any action a 'call' can't be enforced because the 'bet' changes the action.

'If, then' statements typically don't carry any weight although I did post that I would like to see some of these statements upheld. The issue is that you need more black/white in the rules than to put the pressure on a Dealer/Floor to pick and choose which ones stick.

I think I posted a similar spot where a V bet out HU on the River and then stated 'raise' while the Hero was tanking. Hero is screwed here since a call closes action and a raise changes action. But the V is clearly trying to angle his way into a showdown (or not) by make this type of unbound statement. GL

I'm surprised the first floor had to get help. The correct ruling is that conditional statements are not binding. But the Villain knew that. You fell into his trap.

Next time, you should bet whatever you were gonna bet and not try to be clever.

Not really if he's familiar with the poker room and knows that they usually don't make weird, non-standard rulings. He's angling here because he knows his statement is non-binding in that room.
I disagree. Villain making a statement like that is basically like him turning over his hand. If you know his exact holding, you bet the maximum you think he's going to call with that specific hand. If he doesn't make that statement, you try to find the betsize that maximizes your EV against his whole range.

Depends on the room. In my room he has called .... But I think it's a bad rule.

This is the verbal equivalent of villain reaching for chips while you are in the process of cutting out chips for a bet.

In these type of situations I typically view this as a tell that villain doesn't want to face a bet. If I am bluffing I pick a sizable enough bet to get the fold. If I am not bluffing I try to bet the amount I think will get called.

Here given you had the nuts obviously make a bet that a chop will call. You have learned that. But with an A here you get to shove and take it down in all likelihood.

When a villain shoots an angle like this they are counting on you to try to take advantage of their "mistake". But its like anything else in life: if it seems to good to be true it probably is...

He didn't brag, he asked a rules question. And at least he didn't check back quads, as you would do. That would get you a couple funny looks from the other players for sure.

This

I agree with calling the floor before you act. Get a ruling before you make your decision.

If he first simply said: "I call" it should be binding
If he first said: "whatever you bet I am going to call" that's unfortunately for you, not binding

What I tend to do in these situations is place a stack of chips out for a bet and say all-in as they are heading towards the felt. They almost always see the stack falling towards the felt and verbalize a call before they even full process what they hear. If they are going to try and angle me, I'll spit it back in their face

The vast majority of rooms would not rule that binding because the action changes if hero bets.

You're probably right, but I think the phrases: "call, I call, fold, I fold" should 100% always be binding if said in solitude and not in conjunction with any other statement.

His hand would have been dead if he simply stated: "fold" or "I fold', why should "call" or "I call" be any different

I'm curious why you think there is a difference.

Personally, I don't. I just know a lot of floors will side with the villain if the banter includes more than just simple "I call."

This veers into strategy but what exactly is his whole range if it's not exactly Ax? Villain hasn't narrowed his range at all.

Or maybe just slightly - I guess it's possible Villain had AA and was sandbagging to tarp or to hit the BBJ.

Most of the time when these things come up, angleshooters are right in the range you should be aiming for. They're not at the top of their range (in which case they're happy to let you bet) and they're not at the bottom of their range (in which case usually they just fold). They're almost always in the middle, where they're afraid you're going to put them in a tough spot.

In this specific case, V doesn't want to get bluffed off of a chop but doesn't want to pay to see quads. H should be pricing an amount that reflects that concern and puts V in a tough spot. And that's usually less than all-in, unless the pot is big, in which case Hero should have snap shoved no matter what the river was.

And if you're into Hollywooding, on QQA2-Q, Hero should have pretended to be frustrated as if he had AK and the river just cost him half the pot. Slam your fist on the table, push out an uncounted pile of chips, and say, "nice river" in your most sarcastic voice. If asked how much it is, act annoyed and ask, "does it matter?" If Villain tries to welch out of calling, argue you get the whole pot because he didn't call and then watch him vociferously argue he did call.

None of these are binding in any case. There is no bet, there is nothing to call.

This 'call' should never stand, no matter how it was worded.

The ruling is 100% correct.

If you had a monster and someone said that, why not just throw some money in the pot quickly and maybe you would have bought the call? The speech then the jam obv ruined any chances of you getting paid off.

I'm surprised how so many are just automatically saying that conditional statements are just table talk and never binding. The latest TDA rules state that they can, in fact, be binding, and give the example of someone saying call before an amount of the bet is declared. While this is for tournaments, I have played in rooms where they apply most TDA rules like this to their cash games as well. Here is the section from the TDA rules: