This is a hand that occurred at the Showboat in AC near the beginning of
September. It was 1-2 NL at a full table. The players involved in the hand were a young guy who had a fairly large stack and was aggresive and a guy who had mentioned that he used to play for a living in the 80s. When I got there he didn't have that large a stack but had built it up. I'm not sure about the exact stack sizes but I think the young guy had 4 or 5 hundred and the former pro more like 300. On this hand the young guy raised pre-flop, everyone folded except for former pro. The flop was ace-king-jack and former pro checked, young guy bet 10. He had been betting much larger amounts so that was suspiciously small. Former pro called. The turn card was another king. Former pro checked and young guy bet 20. Former pro took some time then called. The river card was an eight. The two of them looked at each other and made some comments back and forth like “I don’t think that 8 helped you” and then former pro bet 50. Young guy grabbed a stack of chips worth 100 and put them in the middle while quietly saying “call”. The dealer didn't hear him. The dealer, thinking it was a raise, turned to former pro and said “50 to you”. Former pro said “all-in”. Inexplicably, the young guy, instead of saying that he had just called the previous bet, said “I call”. Young guy turns over 10-queen for a straight and former pro turns over pocket kings for quad kings. Now someone mentions that young guy had said call after the $50 bet and things got animated. Former pro is yelling that he’s owed those chips and young guy is saying he called before and ignoring the fact that he called again. Three different floor supervisors came over to try and sort things out. I’m not sure what the correct decision in that case is but the ruling was that the young guy only owed the 50 and former pro was livid. He was asking the supervisors to review the tape which would show the young guy calling at the end. . He continued to stalk around cursing and eventually asked a couple people at the table for their names (not me) because he said he was going to contact the casino commission. Anyway, both he and the young guy left the game. The guy next to me said the floor ruled correctly. I wonder if people agree since the former pro was so adamant and had obviously played a lot.

First Problem: Young guy grabbed a stack of red chips worth $100 and put them in the middle while quietly saying “call” (calling only $50).

My personal opinion, I think the floor and young guy was wrong. First, young guy should have not put out a stack of reds worth $100 versus a half-stack of reds worth $50. If it was a single black chip, I think the young guy's claim has a little more weight. Second, young guy (or other players at table) should have spoken up after the all-in call by former pro, instead of waiting until after the hand.

I do not believe dealer is in the wrong. Young player could have easily put out only a half-stack of red for the call, instead of a full stack.

What exactly did the floor rule? Your post gets confusing at the end.

Floor ruled as if the young guy had called the 50 and the all-in bet had not been made.
That's what would have happened if the dealer had heard him say call and made him
take back half his stack of reds.

Young guy should be paying the all-in bet.

By remaining silent when the dealer told the other player there was a raise, he implicitly agreed that he had raised. But not only did he sit silent, but then he purported to call the reraise (I expected to hear that he claims he said "I called" instead of "I call" in which case now the timing of the whole thing becomes the most important thing)

If he had spoken up immediately and correcte dthe dealer we could let his action stand as a call. He can't sit silent and freeroll this.

Action has been offered and accepted. All in stands, young guy gets to double up the former pro, and dealer gets KITN for not controlling the game.

Keep in mind though, the young guy did say call, but not loud enough for dealer to hear. Young guy could have easily put half-stack of red chips in for the call, instead of a full stack.

True, dealer could have verified with young guy if it was a call or raise, but if you were the dealer, what would you have assumed if he pushes a full stack of red chips in the circle.

Showboat has a very nice poker room and friendly dealers but is badly in need of good supervisors and managers. Horrible ruling.

To me it would seem if he had put the $100 red chips out before he said call then it would have to still be a raise if he put all $100 out on the felt. His first action in this case is binding. But if he said call and then put the $100 red chips out there it would only be a call. It depends largely on which action he took first, but if they did it at the same time it may be difficult to determine. If he went out there with $100 in red chips to call a $50 bet then it looks like his intent is to raise. But the floor rarely looks at intent to make a decision. This sounds like to me that he intended to raise but had said call. It's hard to say what the correct ruling is because I was not there. Did the young guy say call before or after putting the chips out there?

It doesn't matter what the guy said when he put out the $100, or how loudly he said it. Once the dealer said that he had raised, and he let it stand, and then called an all in afterwards, he has agreed that he did, in fact, raise. Do you really think that if his straight had been good that he'd raise a big fuss about it and ask that he not get all the money but only $50? Letting him pay anything less than the all in opens the door to angleshooting, which is exactly what this appears to have been.

What would you have the dealer do differently? This forum exists for poker players, but that does not give the players the right to just blame everything on the dealer.

A verbal declaration is binding. I see your point about angleshooting. But in this case that would have capped the action and the angle-shooting would be null and void anyways if the young guy had said call initially before he put any chips in the pot at all. He would not be able to do anything more than just call even if he wanted too. In this case the action was played out anyways, and maybe for that reason it should have stood. But although it is rarely enforced in a lot of casinos, a verbal declaration is binding. If he had raised before he said that then his saying call wouldn't even matter. As the OP said, the dealer didn't hear him say call.

I agree that if the young call said call, it remains a call. He should have corrected the dealer when he proceeded on with the action incorrectly. To this guys defense he may have just been extremely nervous with what was going on the in hand. I think that it really sucks for the ex-pro guy but what can he do. If anyone else heard him say call, with whatever amount of chips he placed into the pot, then it has to be a call. Also I see it quite often where someone says call and places more chips into the pot than necessary. I usually chalk it up to the fact that they are lazy or just too nervous to cut out the chips. This just sucks for the guy with quads and I would feel bad.

Of course the young guy should have corrected the dealer immediately when he proceeded incorrectly. In that case, the verbal action would indeed have been binding. But the young guy allowed the other player to raise, and attempted to take advantage of the situation caused by him being too quiet. This is clearly an angleshoot, and he's stuck for the full amount (after all, after the old guy went all in he said "call" again).

Verbal declarations are binding if: a)dealer/opponent/multiple other players heard you and b)you protect your action by not allowing a misunderstanding to continue any longer than is absolutely necessary. Condition b does not mean that you get to pretend you raised while you think your straight is the winning hand and then decide that it should have been a binding verbal declaration after you see that you're actually losing. Tough luck, buddy.

There were enough "Former Pro" references in this post to use it as a drinking game.

"Former 80's Pro" in AC usually translates as "Losing Player".

The "Guy Who Isn't A Present Or Former Pro" should've learned an expensive lesson in the different variations of protecting your hand.

He was too caught up when faced with the AI to state the action was closed because he had announced call.

I wasnt there and I wasnt dealing, but its not binding if he provides forward motion with enough chips to raise before becoming verbal. If the stack was counted out and it was $95 at the SB that is just as call. There is no 1/2 rule. Its a raise as stated by the OP.

Also he should have spoke up, sorry.

I was there when this happened (not at the table, but in the poker room) and all I remember is the young kid looking like he wanted to cry. It was pretty funny

lol

The young guy had two clear chances to stop the action and clarify his first call. I would have been pissed off too with the ruling. Further, the young guy flipped over his straight after presumably hearing clearly that old pro said all-in. That's just nuts.

In situations like this involving big pots you should always slow down and not get too excited. If I was the old pro I would wait for the young guy to push his chips into the middle before showing the cards. It is important to let your opponent to action his intent, not only to let everyone at the table know what he is doing..but to let the eye-in-the-sky to capture the action.
If the young guy had pushed his remaining chips in the middle...it would be tough for him to say he only called the $50 bet.

My point was that if he said call before he came out with the chips then all he could do was call. That's why I bolded the word before. My point simply was that it depends which action he took first. As far as I know if someone declares call then they cannot raise even if they want to. I have seen some people come out with a stack of chips and then only bet like 5 or 10 dollars. Despite the fact that came over their cards with much more and touched the felt with them but didn't let go of them. Caesar's made a particularly bad ruling against me once in this regard. It wasn't clear to me from OP what had actually happened and that is why I said what I said.

IT DOESN'T MATTER, because he let the action continue as if he had raised. He could have stood on his chair screaming "I CALL" at the top of his lungs before moving any chips at all, if the dealer thought he raised and the player lets further action proceed that way, then the player is agreeing that he did, in fact, raise.

The thing is that whispering a word that isn't heard doesn't constitute binding action. Essentially his argument now is, I acted as though I raised, I lead you all to believe I raised, but once I saw I was beat I mentioned that I whispered the word call before and you guys should have heard it.

Could anyone else at the table ever verify that he said "call" or was this just his argument?

If I remember it correctly it's because someone else spoke up
and said they had heard him say call after the 50 dollar bet
that started the whole argument. I don't think he was trying
to raise. I think he had gotten confused and put the 100 stack
out thinking that was the right amount.