For those who aren’t familiar, in Minnesota we don’t have “no-limit,” we have “$2-$100 spread-limit,” where the maximum raise is $100 over the previous bet. So if I bet $40 on the flop, the most you can raise is to $140, then the most I can reraise is to $240, etc.

Ok, so with that in mind, I’m wondering if you think this is fine or scummy or flat-out cheating. (I should point out that it is very common, but I’m not aware of anyone doing it strictly as an angle-shot.):

Heads-up. Player A checks, Player B bets $100. Player A then counts out his chips and says to Player B “okay, I only have $215 left, do you wanna just get it all-in?”

Depends on the intent. If he or she is asking it knowing that it’s not a binding statement so they can gauge info from their opponent, then it might be considered a very light speech play angle. Also if the betting rules are set by state law then the casino may not want to honor it and might force them to put the money in as dictated by regulation to avoid a violation.

I would put it in the minor angle/scummy category because it could be used as an angle - trying to get the other guy to shove and turn over their cards, then claiming they never acted and folding when they're beat. Most are probably using it (relatively) innocently, trying to talk the other guy into putting the final $15 raise in without intending to ever fold.

I'm definitely not a fan of statements like that but sometimes players pick those things up and repeat them without really thinking. If I were in a hand and someone said that I would be careful to wait until their action is complete before doing anything.

Player B should either not respond or tell A to act first. It doesn’t seem like an angle unless it’s specifically used to gather information with the possibility of intending to back out.

It is table talk at worst. It is like saying, "I'll go all in if you bet."

Many poker rules developed from skirting existing rules for convenience. The turn "showdown" comes from the initial rule that at the end of play, everyone still in the hand had to show their cards no matter what prior to WWII. Players started just letting people muck their cards instead and eventually the rule caught up with the practice.

I used to play a fair bit of limit HE. In limit the three raise cap is not in effect when a betting round starts heads up. The players may make an unlimited number of raises, but each raise must be in the increment of the bet size for the round, ie at a 3/6 limit game, raises must be 12, then 18, 24, 30, etc. Saying something like “Do you want to get it in?” would certainly be frowned upon and not binding in any event.

Since this is basically a limit game, I would think the same would apply. This type of talk would be frowned upon, and player B should most certainly wait until A has bet his 200 before re-raising, and if B were to just call, there is nothing A could do about it. I am pretty sure that the dealer would not allow A to just put out his 215 and go all in since that is not a legal action in this game. If B puts out 215 prior to A raising, then yes it could be an angle, but B had acted out of turn and A is not obligated to call his original 100 bet. The bet is still 100 and action is on player A until A either calls the 100 or raises to 200.

I've never played much limit, but I thought heads up this kind of thing was okay - action offered/action accepted.

See above .. not even an angle Reg v Reg IMO.

If there's no RIT available then it's really no issue IMO as well. GL

What everyone is saying depends on state rules/regulations op. I wouldn’t assume that the standard practice everywhere is the same as a state where it sounds like there is a maximum bet allowed.

This is just table talk. If the guy snap folded, it was his mistake. Do people really think that by saying that, the average player would just muck his hand? Even if he did, that might not have even been his intent, he was probably just looking for a read.

I generally rule it table talk, particularly if no harm has yet been caused (like a player folding to the "all in" with more still to act). No different than "do you want action?" or "do you want me to call?"

It's maybe slightly different in a spread limit game, where logistics and convenience and board texture might make it reasonable (if not legal) for two heads up players to speed up the "raise raise raise" game with an action offered and accepted situation. It's not clear that this isn't a case where the player is trying to use table talk to get a read though.

But either way, generally warn the player not to use poker terms like "bet, raise, call, fold, or all in" unless you intend to assert them as your action, as the floor can hold you to them.

And, if I were king, all this dumb hollywooding table talk would be outlawed anyway as a waste of everyone's time.

Where I played, you would have to do it one raise at a time. That was required by the gaming regulations. For a limit game, bet amounts could only be increased in the increment of the betting limit. Even if both agreed to go all in, the chips still has to be put in one raise at a time, and the agreement was non binding - either player could change their mind at any point and just call. It may be different in different jurisdictions. An all in was not considered binding because an all in bet is not a legal bet at a limit table. Only raise amounts equal to one additional bet over the previous raise are legal and binding.

Seems like more of a 'legal' issue. If you aren't allowed to raise more than $100, then you can't allow the 'all-in' if it's a raise of more than $100.

Absent legal issues, I believe in "Action offered and accepted". I'm not necessarily ruling a player all-in for asking an IF question, but it's possible.