I was playing in a $1,100 multi day tournament at the Wynn. There was an older Asian woman to my right in the 4 seat who was basically quiet. She had roughly a starting stack of 30,000 chips.

She is in a hand in the BB multi-way when on the river a guy bets 4,800. The next guy folds and she wants to fold. She moves her cards slightly (it would not be remotely considered a fold) and puts up 300 chips past her cards as her SB for the next hand. She doesn't realize that a guy to our left in the 6th seat still has cards as they are hidden. The guy who made the bet says that its a call and she has to put up the 4,800 chips. The Dealer says he agrees. The Floor gets called over.

Because the Asian woman doesn't speak English particularly well I make it clear that the last hand was hidden and that she had no intent to call. She was putting out the exact SB amount.

Personally I thought she might be forced to give the 300 chips to the guy just like they make you do it when the SB calls the BB not realizing there was a raise (pre-flop).

But the Floor ruled that it was a call and she had to pony up 4,800.

I was stunned that the guy had actually tried to get the money knowing full well the woman was not calling his bet. I have never seen anything like it.

It's hard to answer this confidently without seeing exactly how the chips went in. If I were the dealer I would have probably asked her for clarification on what she was doing, but if it gets to the point of needing a ruling the correct one was made. Her actions were ambiguous and you can't really go by intention. It's all about how the chips and cards are put in. She was facing a bet, had a live hand, and pushed chips forward.

Leaving the 300 in and folding isn't an option. That is only for some cases where there is a bet and a raise, they can leave in the amount of the first bet.

An angle shooter could easily use the same move. Wait to see how the next person acts then either say you folded or you called but haven't put the rest of the chips in yet. She was probably not angling here, but neither are the vast majority of people who string bet.

She should be folding properly and shouldn't be putting out her blind until the hand is over. If you don't want to be misinterpreted you should be more careful.

That might very well have been her intention but what we see is a player with a live hand facing action who puts chips forward. With action behind her waiting to act.

I agree with Reducto. If the dealer asked to confirm action the situation could have been resolved. Once we need a floor ruling I don't see how that can be anything other than making her complete the call.

But we only "need" a floor ruling because the guy who benefits most from the mistake is demanding that the floor be called to force it. Boo! Procedures around angleshots are in place to protect us against the scumbags, not to enable the scumbags. The floor has the ability to measure the intent and the authority to tell the guy to stfu.

I don't see how the first part agrees with the second part. This isn't $60 daily tournament. I'm all for giving new players a break, but if you're paying this much to play personal responsibility comes into play.

But we have no idea who angleshoots here.

If I was the guy who bet the river I would let it slide in a heads-up pot. In a multi-way pot like here I would call for the floor, too.

Why would it matter to you that there is another person left to act? It hasn't spoiled anything for him. The lady could be allowed to fold and then he still has all his options.

Because I have no idea how a third player is going to react to an ambiguous action. We actually don't even know what that third player did but that frankly doesn't matter to me because I'll never find out if that action was to my advantage or disadvantage. Since there's the possibility it was to my disadvantage, I'd let the floor apply the rules which are pretty straightforward in that case.

I don't see how it would be to either your advantage or disadvantage.

Disadvantage:
Player A bets. Player B puts chips in the pot. Player C with a bluff catcher would have called the bet by A if B didn't call. Now he folds before the situation is resolved. Not good for A if he has the nuts and B can get off the hook.

Advantage:
Player A bets. Player B puts chips in the pot. Player C with a missed draw would have raised the bet by A if B didn't call to bluff him off the pot. Now he folds before the situation is resolved. Pretty good for A with a hand that wouldn't have called C's raise.

I think we can agree that the correct ruling is for the floor to force player B to complete the call. So if you're player A the only question is if you want to do that or if you want to let player B off the hook. In a "no harm no foul" situation I'm inclined to do the latter if I'm player A. But not in a situation where it *could* have been to my disadvantage.

None of these things could have happened here; the action was stopped for clarification before C had a chance to act. No one would have been hurt by allowing B to fold.

At least that was my interpretation as the OP says nothing about C except that he still has cards.

If that's the case then player A kinda tipped the strength of his hand (or faked it) which also could be an advantage or disadvantage.

Player A bets. Player B puts chips in the pot. Floor is called. Player C would have called player A's bet no matter if player B had called or not. Now that the floor comes over he decides to fold instead. Disadvantage for player A if he has the nuts. Advantage for player A if he has a hand that beats the forced call from B but not what C would have called with.

At the end of the day it's the same situation: The presence of a third player turns it into a guessing game. We don't even know if C thinks B is angleshooting or made a mistake.

An angle is still an angle even if nobody fell for it.

Every spot has Rule #1 possibilities and this one fills the bill. BUT it's much harder for a Floor to skirt the Rules in a MTT.

Once the Floor determines if this was a fold or not .. then Rule 42 for Undercalls In Turn kicks in and this is a clear completion of the bet required.

I would ask OP (and Dealer at the time) if this was a normal folding motion for this Player. OP suggested that the motion of the cards would NOT be considered a fold so I'm not sure the surprise of the Player being required to continue, following the Rules for this room.

Language barrier or not .. any experienced Player gets rid of their cards before moving on to the next hand. GL

It was hard to know if this was a normal folding motion for this player. Because she had entered so late in a $1100 tourney I at first thought she was going to be a pro. But it turned out she was not good and she may even not have played in tournaments much before.

Her motion on the "fold" was to push her cards forward maybe a half an inch. Then she took out her small blind of 300 chips and placed it in front of her cards to the right.

For me even though she hadn't folded it was clear that her intent was to fold.

The ultimate irony was that the guy who still had cards was thinking about calling and most likely would have called if he hadn't seen the desire of the bettor to get the woman to call. The bettor's hand had to be shown (because her hand was turned over) and the player who ultimately folded would have lost. So the original bettor did not make any more than he would have.

If I had been the Floor I would have ruled it was not a call and that she had to put the 300 in the pot. But I can see here that I would be in the smallest minority ever. I asked a Floor at the Venetian what he would have done and he said he would have made her cough up 4800 chips.

I am proudly in your camp. There is exactly one player here who is trying to use the letter of the law to force an easily fixable error that benefits them, and it ain't the woman in the BB. I am way more interested in her continued enjoyment of this tournament and of poker in general than I am of some scumbag acting like he's the aggrieved one as he profits off of an obvious mistake.

Placing chips in front of your cards is how 99.9% of other players call a bet. Actually, if you don't do that the dealer is going to tell you to move your chips forward if you intent to call.
That's exactly the reason why as player A I would have called for the floor, too. The lady messing up directly impacted the 3rd player in the hand.
The error was easily fixable if the dealer had tried to clarify action. Once that didn't happen the only way to fix the situation is to apply the obvious correct ruling.

Would you feel the same way if the player had verbalized a call and later said she misspoke and meant to say fold?

As you probably know from my posts in other threads I'm all for giving new players the benefit of the doubt and the opposite of a rules nit. But we can't ask for the floor to make a ruling that's so obviously against what the rule book says in a black and white spot.

FWIW, among the 3 possible rulings, this one would be the worst to me. By far.

Of course it matters what the third player did. If they haven’t acted, then the dealer / floor has the opportunity to clarify the woman’s action as a call or fold since it was ambiguous. If the third guy folds (or calls or shoves or whatever) then it’s much harder for the floor guy to clarify her ambiguous action

The point where the dealer could have asked the lady to clarify her actions has passed a long time ago. That ship sailed once another player calls for the floor to get a ruling and everyone knows that said player wants for the floor to hold her to a call.

OP even states that he thinks the third player would have called without the knowledge that the first player wants for the floor to force the second player to complete the call. When he found out about that he decided to fold instead.

I don't care the least bit about disadvantaging the player who spoke up saying it should be a call before even finding out what the dealer or floor would say about it. He could have waited a few seconds longer and the dealer probably would have either made the correct decision or more likely called the floor to decide. The guy cost himself the action by making it clear he wanted it to be a call when it seemed pretty clear that it shouldn't have been.

You can also neutrally ask "What is that action?" or "Is that a call?" rather than showing your preference by saying "That's a call!"

I need to hear the followup on how she hit a miracle flop and crippled the riaser.

Considering action was on the river, seems unlikely

I think that the is a very important, but also very subtle point that needs to be highlighted.

The regular folding action of the player matters.

That is why I always think the best thing a player can do to be a good player (from a dealers perspective) is to be very clear and concise in your actions.

When you fold. Make it 100% clear to any drooling moron that you are folding. So that way if something strange happens and there is a question on your action, you can point to your history that you make it 100% clear when you fold.

When I fold, there is no mistaking that fact that it is a fold. I clearly throw my cards in the middle. No doubt. None. So if there is ever a question of if I folded (maybe my hand spasmed, maybe my opponent is angling for a forced fold, either way I can point to my long history of clearly folding by throwing my cards in the middle.

I don't disagree with you at all. In fact morally I am with you 100%.

The problem a floor has to deal with is that intent is really, really hard to definitely confirm after the fact. But the time a floor gets there, all of the participants have had enough time to think about their actions and reinforce what they WANT to happen given the after the fact details. I have seen players definitely intending to fold suddenly change their story when the realize they are good, or vice versa. By the time a floor gets there, 20/20 hindsight takes over.

Furthermore, a floors decision has to account for the fact that angles are designed to look like inadvertent mistakes.

So while I agree with you 100% morally and ethnically, it is easy to understand why the floor ruled the opposite way.