Playing 5/10.

Pre-flop MP (villain) 4 bets to 450, button and hero call.
Check around on flop.
Hero bets turn 770, button folds, villain calls.
River comes third spade, villain checks. Hero bet 1,700.

Then this happens.

Villain after thinking for a while, grabs a 1,700 stack and puts it past line. A second LATER, he says all-in.

Hero snap-shows a set of Jacks thinking it's a call.

Floor is called, has situation explained by dealer, and rules it a call. Then all locals start putting pressure on floor person arguing that it was not an angle play and that villain genuinely intended to raise.

Ruling is changed to an all-in, and hero is forced to fold - frustrated and angry, almost feeling cheated.

Thoughts?

Floor has to figure out whether he said all-in coincidental with the stack or after the stack. How he does that is up to him, but should usually be based on the dealer description primarily.

Floor making one ruling then changing his mind can sometimes be because he gets new useful info which changes things, but in this case it sounds like he just got run over by regs. This is a very bad and weak floor. I would call for a shift supervisor in this situation, but more likely than not hero is just going to get screwed.

The best solution is to protect yourself before this happens. Do not ever snap anything. Take your time and make sure the action is correct and complete. There are no points given for fastest acting player, and taking an extra second or two, particularly when something unusual happens, is not going to make you into a slow roller or anything.

Never "snap" do anything.

A second later? Like enough time to say"one thousand one"?

Did he release the chips and then a full second later say "all in"? It's a call.

Did he say "all in" a split second after the chips crossed the line while still sliding the chips forward? It's an all in.

What if he pushes the 1,700 stack past the line, cuts it down to 3 stacks of 5 and then says ALL-IN while dropping the 2 remaining 100s from the stack?

if you dont snap show your jacks you will have a second to figure out or ask the action from the dealer.

The way our room uses the forward motion rule, once you start your forward motion with X amount of chips in your hand, it is too late to make any bet, including an all in, that is greater than the amount in your hand. You can cut out chips to make a smaller bet, but you can’t increase the bet. You would have to declare the all in before starting forward with your stack.

In a room where we had a hard betting line, you were bound by the amount of chips in your hand as soon as it crossed the airspace above the line. It didnt matter if the chips touched the felt or not. Whatever crossed the line played. And any verbal declaration had to be made before any chips crossed the line.

In this OP, it seems like the usual call would be that the player just called. The only way I would think the floor changed his ruling properly would be if other players claimed he said the all in at the same time, and not a second later as the dealer claimed. But absent that, if he changed just based on player intent, that’s a poor call IMO.

If the chips were released (as in hand was returning to stack) ... even for a second ... it's only a call. If we go 'during' the cutting out route I might make it a call anyway since a read could be acquired during the cut.

Why was Hero 'forced' to fold? V is all-in and action is on Hero ... exposed hand rule?

Although I agree that 'all' the information is helpful, it's pretty unfortunate when a Floor changes their ruling with 'pressure' from the table.

Yes, don't snap do anything. Was it loud?

I know these are OP's words, but look at the description .. "villain genuinely intended to raise". Floor's aren't supposed to work off intentions, they are supposed to work off of actions. Dealer's 'may' consider intention, but once the Floor is called intention should go out the window.

I'm pretty sure this is a no brainer 'call' in a tournament setting. V must announce intention to raise before putting out 'exact' calling chips .. if I remember correctly. GL

I completely disagree that floors should ignore intentions as an absolute. Intention or perceived intention can be a significant part of the context of any ruling. Doing this reasonably and fairly is part of why you want to have competent floors.

Having said that, it should almost never be the primary reason for making a ruling, given that you can usually only infer an intention at best, and at worst a player can try to manipulate what you infer to his advantage. Which is to say, you should almost never give much weight to an intention which you can only infer by asking the player(s) to tell you.

In poker one second is too long to change action after putting calling chips in. The ruling that hero had to fold was terrible. Whether he intended to go all in or not, it wasn't done properly. You can't put in calling chips then one second later look up and say "all in". The bet was a call and it should have stayed that way.

By any chance, OP, was hero wearing headphones?

I think I was a little harsh .. and I actually contradict myself in my next post (a different thread) .. In this case here, with the additional unreverseable action that has occurred (exposed hand) I think we need to lean towards evaluating the actual events and rule this a call only. GL

PS ... I'm probably unintentionally swayed by the fact that this is a reg and that other regs at the table are challenging the Dealer and 'newbie' with the Floor. I don't really like it when Floors don't back their Dealers without some beef in the decision .. not just he said he said.

PSS ... As you've indicated, a Floor should ask and listen and that each case has it's own character. But when the story definitely has 2 sides, then the Floor needs to lean towards the actual events. (Better?)

Much. I still don't like the absolute on how you should lean, because each case is different and you need to make the ruling you think is most fair, however that ends up working. But it's a good guideline.

These sum it up.

If villain had released the chips first, it's a call. Snap showing your hand is a bad idea. It doesn't matter what you took villains action to be, it matter what the dealer, and in some cases the floor, thinks villain did.

LOL at the floor reversing his decision though. Can't imagine how little power the floor has if he can be talked into/out of a ruling.

We could call this a verbal string bet. And the string bet rule should generally be enforced strictly without considering intention. In this case, the ruling should probably be exactly the same as if the player put in calling chips then pushed the rest of his chips out after the same elapsed time.

I think this is unclear.

It may just that Hero felt he was forced to fold after Villain (possibly saw his hand and shoved) had the All-In declaration allowed.

I always take my time before any action it avoids timing tells or reaction tells. I highly agree snap-anything is just egotistical. It's a significant amount of money you are playing for.

If you pay very close attention and use a super strict interpretation of “string bet”, you’ll probably see one every couple hands in most games.

At first I took this to mean his hand was declared dead for early exposure since he "felt cheated", but there were 3 spades on the board and since he got check raised, he may have folded thinking he has a flush. I don't know how that would constitute him being cheated, unless he thought there was a chance he got bluffed.

The ruling should have been a call, and the floor should never take his intentions into consideration, not to mention peer pressure from players.

At my local room, the string bet rule is strictly enforced by dealers, whose job it is to call it when it happens. Regs get no leeway. An obvious newb may get a warning.

Any indication at all that the words 'raise' were ever uttered? If so, then it would seem that the original amount could be placed followed by the decision on HOW MUCH to raise...

I'm inclined to guess the magic word was never uttered given the exchange about 'intentions' and what not, but just tossing the thought out there...

This is just not true. There’s a minimum of 3 OMC/nits at every table at all times and their heads would explode if somebody got away with one.

Really? I am one of those rule nits mentioned, though I am in a group and trying to fight the disease. I do watch closely still and I do not routinely see what I consider a string. Please describe the specific actions happening that often that you call a string bet.

Some players do have a habit of putting out some chips and then blurting out raise or all-in. This is very dangerous since it can easily be misinterpreted or possible be used for attempted angles. I think floor is very likely to have ruled completely wrong here. Villain's action is not very consistent with a raise (or should be considered a string-raise) and floor should be heavily inclined to err on the side of op.

Edit: while regs often do know the rules better than the floor, pressuring floor to reverse his decision is really unfathomable, like I said before the other player cutting out the exact amount of chips to call but instead raising is just asking for mistakes and 5/10 is a big enough game that floor should not be protecting (enabling? Angleshoots?) that player

putting calling chips in the pot is a call. 100%

Even if you say all in after it is still a call.

100%?