4/8 limit game. Seat 10 bets turn. Seat 6 calls. River dealt. Seat 10 checks. Seat 6 starts cutting out chips. Seat 10 asks "are you betting? Seriously?"

Seat 6 "of course I am" who then picks up 8 chips and starts to move them across betting line (The betting line isn't really in effect in this room but it is printed on the felt). Before seat 6 has let go of chips seat 10 calls. Seat 6 immediately pulls hand back with chips in hand still and checks.

The traditional rule in limit is that if you make forward motion and that causes action after you .... you are bound to bet but YMMV

"Of course I am [betting]" is a bet. It's not a conditional or a hypothetical. It's not even close.

Yup, forward motion. The pump-fake is acceptable in basketball, but in poker, it's a bet all day.

Definitely a bet. Forward motion along with the statement. No doubt he is held to a bet.

Most rooms would hold this player to a call.

However stuff like this comes up often enough that there has to be rooms out there where nonsense like this is considered OK. So of course, it depends on the room. However in any room that both plays by standard rules and enforces them reasonably will considered this binding action.

this forward motion should be ruled a bet however I hope it wasn't since seat 10 couldn't wait for the action to be complete, and for his dumb reverse tell angle (oh please don't bet/snap call)

Player says he is going to bet and moves chips forward. I would appreciate seat 10 to act immediately and not waste anyones time.

This is only ever an issue if we allow Seat 6 to check, which we are never doing, and so it is never an issue.

The action is on Seat 10.

the guy could have waited until the bet was complete, it wasn't a verbalized bet.

I saw a guy shoot himself in the foot for a similar situation. the line played, he crossed the line with a stack of green chips, the opponent announced "all in" and the guy slowly retracted his stack without them touching the felt. the action was ruled a 5 dollar bet, and the guy who said all in lost out on an additional $495 with the nuts for not waiting until the bet was complete.

The key is that in the OP we are talking about a limit game. Because the bet amount is determined by the structure of the game this scenario plays out differently then in a NL game where it is crucial you wait until the betting action is complete

This is where you're wrong.

We don't need any verbalizations, forward motion = a bet. If it doesn't, then your room has implemented a really poor rule.

Where was the bet verbalized? Anything other than the words "Bet" or "$8" doesn't sound like a bet to me.

haha okay. You are free to attempt the angle yourself and see how it works out. Report back.

So you think if he didn't make the forward motion he should still be held to a bet??

What kind of games are you playing? Yes, of course he would be held to a bet. It's not about what I think.

Are you seriously preparing to argue that "Of course I am" in response to "Are you betting?" means anything other than "Of course I am betting"?

Are you preparing to argue that saying "I am betting" when the action is on you is not a bet?

This is ridiculous.

It's ridiculous to ask an opponent if he's betting...absent the forward motion I'd rule it a check.

Lemme ask you this, you bet the river, your opponent shrugs and says "I have to pay you off" but doesn't put chips in the pot. Is this a call?

I love love love that you avoided the use of "I am calling" in your analogy, even though it's the most obvious and accessible choice.

Where are you a dealer?

I fixed your analogy for you:

I bet the river in a $4/8 limit game.
My opponent picks up $8 in chips.
I ask, "Are you seriously calling?"
My opponent says, "Of course I am."

You think that absent any forward motion or the word "Call", my opponent has not called. Further, you think that anything other than the word "Call" is not a call. That is absurd.

There's no reason not to keep this civil. Appreciate the input everyone.

I'm not gonna say the room I deal in, obviously its in Florida...the reason I phrased it that way is because I had that exact situation once where the river bettor tabled his hand after his opponent said "I have to pay you off" but didn't touch his chips. The floor ruled that he hadn't called and told the bettor that absent a specific declaration of "call" or chips being moved forward then the action wasn't complete.

What's so absurd about my reasoning? There's a few basic terms in poker that can be used to signify verbal action, Bet, Call, Raise, All-in or fold. Everything that doesn't include those can be ambiguous and absent chips going forward I don't see how you can rule that as a bet. I've been dealing almost 3 years by the way and can't recall someone asking an opponent if they were going to bet or if they were going to call once a bet was made.

This is not ambiguous. You can brute test this yourself by searching for a verb that can follow the auxiliary verb "am" in the OP that is not the word "betting".

"Are you betting? Seriously?"
"Of course I am _____."

It will be ruled as a bet in any properly managed room, and will only be ruled otherwise to abet an angleshooter or as a result of incompetence.

I get what you're saying I just have a big problem with a player asking his opponent what they're going to do. With no forward motion I'd rule it a check and warn both players about shooting angles.

And this would be a horrible ruling.
Asking your opponent what he's doing, or going to do, is a normal part of poker table talk as it's been played forever, and is in no way an angle.
If you're asked if you're betting, and you say "Yes", you're committed to a bet. "Of course I am" here is clearly a "Yes". Allowing it not to be makes it an angle.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using 2+2 Forums