It's the reason you said upfront: so that we don't have to wait while two players each get 150 bets in one bet at a time.

The modern application protects against angles, exactly so that one player can't freeroll the other with: those were not legal bets checkmate

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.

Pretty much when you feel the need to include a phrase like “as long as it doesn’t” you should realize you are introducing something arbitrary.

I realize many normal rules can be arbitrary but they have been agreed to and codified over time. Adding additional arbitrary things in on the fly may not be a good thing.

All I know is that at my casino two players in a 5/5 PLO game that agree to go all-in are all-in. It's non-standard but since there is no jackpot and it's technically within the rules, I don't see a problem with it.

Sometimes bad floors are just destined to make the bad ruling. Sometimes you can nudge them along with a smile and some patience. Idk, ymmv.

When whale says "all in" that is the time to clarify his bet size.

I have been in a similar situation though it was a NL tournament where a player said "all in" and the dealer heard it, brought out an all in button and I asked the dealer if player is all in. Dealer says yes, I say I call and player pretends he never said all in. Floor ruling was amazingly no bet at all because dealer had not placed the all in button on the table yet. Lol.

So from that point forward if a player says all in without moving all his chips forward, I now ask for a count. Even if I have the nuts. I don't care if anyone hates me because they think I am slow rolling. I don't care if it wastes everybody's time including my own. I don't care about anything except getting a count on the player's bet.

In this case, in PLO when a player says "all in" get a count from the dealer. The player may not realize that a pot size bet is less than his remaining chips. The player may not even understand what PLO means.

Once you get a count and the player's chips are pushed forward and it is your turn to bet then you can say "I raise pot" or "pot" or however it works in PLO.

Learn from this painful and ridiculous experience, like I did from mine, and it will never happen again.

You know, I watch these highstakes texas games.... and i wonder why any pro would go there to make money, but then i hear this hand and what checking would accomplish without him having the nuts. Like he wouldn't even be afraid of the **** straight if he had a set, or whatever. I'm guessing most live players if you know how to table select like a pro are pretty easy to slowroll. And most pros give you a pot bet at least, even if they're good. LOL. Your situation is hilarious. I'm getting off 2+2 before i write a novel in responses. LOL.

I feel like something is missing here.

Whale thinks he's good. The fact that he prematurely exposed his hand doesn't change the fact that he thinks he's good. Nor does it give the OP any more information, because the OP already made a raise that would put the whale all-in. There's no more decisions for the OP, therefore the extra information of his cards being exposed is irrelevant.

So the sequence events seems to be:

Whale says all-in. Overbet is reduced to size of pot. OP re-pots to put whale all-in.

Whale, thinking he's already all-in, exposes his hand. But unless the dealer/floor rule action offered and accepted, then the action is back on the whale to call/fold OP's re-pot.

But the whale still thinks he's good, so.... why doesn't he just call here? Even if the floor comes over because there's confusion, he should still say "I think I'm good, I call." The OP did not reveal that the whale was beaten by exposing his hand or declaring he was beaten, so the whale has no reason to try to get out of the call.

So are we saying that even though the whale would still want to call, the floor came over and just ruled that the OP called instead of re-potted, which was no one's intention?

The only thing I can see happening is that the whale is confused by the whole thing and by the time the floor comes over he gets cold feet and decides he doesn't want to be all in (or call a re-pot) anymore, but that's certainly no reason to rule that way.

Proper ruling is that OP re-potted, and now the action is back on the whale to call/fold, the fact that he prematurely exposed his hand is irrelevant (unless the house has some ridiculous rule about killing exposed hands heads up)

Senor Beef,

Your explanation of the situation above is one of the most rational ones I've seen. I can only hope that you are a floorman at a casino/poker room that I play at going forward.
Tuffbeat