Quote:
Originally Posted by SpewingIsMyMove
Scenario 2 is interesting in that do you a) hold to the letter of the rule and declare that since he declared no possible action, his declaration is not binding and he has not acted, or b) fit his declaration to the closest legal action that fits his apparent intent? Option a seems more technically correct, but is also the classic recipe for angling
Tda rules state that a raise must be equal to the amount bet previously (or the amount of the previous raise) . It also states that if a player states raise but doesn't have enough chips for a raise, it converts to an all in. So even in the 98 chip example, his verbal raise would be considered an all in. Actually that same rule applies to the 102 example. 102 isnt a raise, so it converts to an all in for less than a raise.
It also addresses verbalizing the wrong action, though only for when not facing a bet. Rather than saying that the action isnt possible, so it is not binding, it states that if you say call wo facing a bet,it is a check. If you say raise, you must make at least a min bet.