Quote:
Originally Posted by dinesh
There is another ruling that sometimes comes into play, "action offered and accepted". Essentially, whale overbets pot, dealer doesn't stop him, and another player accepted the overbet and calls. Even though by the rules he shouldn't have been able to bet that much, you can't allow him to freeroll the overbet, so you rule that the overbet action was offered (by whale) and accepted (by OP). Essentially you allow the overbet / all-in when it's heads up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madlex
I don’t think I want to play in a room where “all-in” in a PL game doesn’t at least mean pot. [HU I am actually a fan of action offered and accepted if that’s what the players want]
Setting aside the fact that the OP said "pot" instead of "call," I totally agree with these two comments. Whether it is pot limit or even fixed limit, if it is a cash game and only two players in the pot, as long as it doesn't start happening frequently in such a way that it is disrupting the game, I say if one player says "all in" and the other player says "call" it should be binding.
There are situations where the casino cannot allow that, like in Minnesota where the maximum legal bet size is $100. They have a good reason to force people in a heads up pot to go through the motions of raising each other $100 over and over until they are both all in, so as not to run afoul of the law. But as long as it isn't illegal, and as long as it doesn't start coming up so much that it disrupts the game in some way, I say let the players do as they please.