I read this on a facebook group, and I thought it was an interesting twist to the normal OOT action. Preflop, action limps to player 1, who raises. Everone folds to player 2, who is the only other person left in the hand, and player 1 declares all-in while player 2 is thinking.

Now, the usual OOT action rules can't apply here, as Player 1 would not get to act if Player 2 just calls, and if player 2 raises, action would have changed to Player 1. How should this be handled? It seems that Player 1's action should be considered invalid, but that gives him a chance to influence player 2's action without any risk, which seems like rewarding an angle. It seems like fairness dictates he should be bound to the all-in, but I don't think the rules would support that.

The words "I am all-in" are meaningless in this scenario. Player 1 has already acted so it is not OOT action.
As it's heads up, treat it as speech play.

Meaningless, the only thing that should happen is the dealer should attempt to clarify what happened to the table. Floor should be notified of the attempted angle and if it's a pattern something might need to happen to get him to ease up.

I guess his goal is to either fool P2 into folding or stop him from re-raising but that's unclear.

How is it an angle to influence your sole opponents action in a cash game?

In a tournament you can give a penalty.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

if player 2 raises, player 1 has all options.

I don't think this is an angle, just a guy trying to make another guy fold by verbally scaring him.

I guess if the dealer is clear that this is non-binding, this wouldn't be an angle in cash game, at least not from the standpoint of trying to influence action.

The other angle\concern I would have is that anytime anyone makes what appears to be a bet, but is really not, it gives them the ability to try and get a fold without risk. In this case, if player 2 folds to player 1's non-raise, there are a decent number of dealers who would probably muck the cards and push the pot without questioning Player 1's actions. To me, this seems like a prime spot for an angle if Player 1 is not going to be held to his declared all-in.

He didn't declare all-in. He bet and the action is on P2. P1 can't act again whilst the action is on P2.
Therefore there is no all-in
action he can be held to.

It's meaningless and non-binding, player 1 can't act again while action is on player 2. It's just an angle and player 1 should be warned.

This is evident in the fact that if player 2 calls the raise that player 1 made, then the action is complete to the next betting round. If player 2 re-raises, then player 1 now has all options as the action has changed.

It is meaningless and non-binding in all cases, given the particular circumstances. The dealer or floor should make sure the other player knows that, then let them act.

Having said that, if I were dealing and felt like the player was attempting to angle (which is likely, but I can think of reasonable explanations which would be innocent), I would call the floor over for a ruling, but mainly to make sure he knows about it and puts a black mark next that that players name in case there are future incidents.

So, in the actual case described, the dealer acknowledged the improper allin and counted out the chips, the other player put out a stack (less than the all-in) and declared a call. The board ran out and the all-in lost, after which he declared that his bet was not binding as it was an improper bet.

Do you rule this action offered and accepted? Roll it back to preflop? Hold the angler to just the stack that was pushed out? Or hold the angler to all-in?

JFC. So many stupid things here.

1- "the dealer acknowledged the improper allin and counted out the chips"

So far so good, assuming you mean he counted out player 1's initial non-all-in bet to determine the size of the bet now facing player 2.

2- "the other player put out a stack (less than the all-in) and declared a call."

Unless "a stack" is what the original bet was, dealer should make this bet right (returning change if necessary to the non-all-in bet, or getting more if it's not enough).

3- "The board ran out"

What in the **** would possess the dealer to run out the board here after explaining the allin wasn't proper or binding and having the second player call?

Dealer should tap the table then deal the flop. Action on player 1.

How did neither player stop the dealer from proceeding to turn and river?

4- "and the all-in lost, after which he declared that his bet was not binding as it was an improper bet."

In general, this is an angle, and the floor should tell him he can't make that claim after seeing the board run out and losing, too bad, so sad.

But in this case, it sounds like the dealer explained to the table that the all-in wasn't proper, and player 2 did not do anything to make it seem like he was calling an all-in. In this case, player 1 has a valid claim that he is not all-in, action is on him at the flop, and the turn and river need to come back and be redealt. He will need to explain why he didn't try to stop the dealer from dealing turn and river though.

Basically, you haven't given quite enough info to determine what happened and why, to allow us to make a good ruling, but based on what you did say, I would agree that he isn't all-in and action rewinds to him on the flop.

Further clarification might change my ruling though.

Dealer gets multiple KITNs for making a bad situation worse.

Sorry, i think I may have created confusion. In the scerio I heard about, the dealer did not clarify that the bet was improper, but counted out the all-in chips as if it were a valid bet. The othe rplayer then called by shoving forward less chips than the all-in.

In that case:

1- stupid dealer for allowing the all-in

2- stupid dealer and player 2 for "putting in a stack" to signal a call of the alleged all-in. Making the calling player's call right would have nipped this angle in the bud right then and there. Even if you don't do this all the time (and you probably should), you should do it here in a case where the betting was all ****ed up, just to make sure everyone understands the bets involved, has plenty of time to object if they're going to, and therefore all action is offered and accepted.

3- player 1 is obviously angling. I would probably rule against him regardless, but if he was going to try to claim he wasn't all-in, he needed to do it before the flop came out, let alone the whole board. I tell him he's all in, he lost, and he's done for the night, if not longer.

Again, multiple KITNs to dealer for allowing a bad situation to get worse.

86 player 1. This isn't even an angle any more, he is just straight up trying to scam player 2.

If I were the floor and were called over to sort this out, my first reaction would be that the players and dealers are playing a practical joke on me. I'd say, "ha, ha, very funny" and walk off.

When told this was serious, I'd probably just bury my face in my hands and first remind myself to be professional as I flip the **** out.

Player 1 is gone. Without the pot. I'll figure out how long he's gone for later. Just get the **** out.

Dealer is gone. I'll figure out how long he's gone for later. Just get the **** out.

Player 2 I guess gets the pot but not before he gets a lecture.

I agree the right way for the floor to handle that situation is to immediately remove player 1 and dealer from the game and later decide what to do with them based on previous history.

I figured this was an angle even before the follow up post, which is why I don't mind giving the other player a free roll.

The declaration of all in should be counted as valid if it becomes a possibility; that is if the second player raises, the angler has now bet all in. If the second player just calls, it is of course invalid and we see a flop. I might even go out of my way to let the second player know what will happen if he raises or calls.

Typically if action is offered and accepted there are no backsies.

In this case the angler (Player #1) could have stopped everything when Player 2 put out the stack to call the all-in.

Not sure Player 2 is totally innocent though. Would like to see the alternative universe where Player 1 wins the hand...

I agree that Dealer gets a talking to. Wouldn't mind Player 1 getting a 24 hr trip to anywhere but here.

Action offered and accepted is not an option in this case because there were other players who folded based on the information initial raise. So P1 cannot try and change the action now

Also how can you possibly blame P2? What did he do wrong? Same for dealer. Just because P2 decides to blurt out some blarney don’t blame the players the others are unless you they subsequently to add to the blarney.

The other players folded to the initial raise. Once action was on the last player to act, Player 1 said "all in" which is clearly not a legal or binding bet. But once Player 2 put out calling chips for the all in and the Dealer counted it out, this is action offered and accepted. When Player 1 doesn't say "wait a minute my all-in bet can't stand", then I would rule that his offer was accepted heads up and he now can't see the results and pretend he didn't mean it.

I'm not blaming Player 2 in any way. But I would like to see his reaction if he lost the hand. If he didn't know that the all in "bet" was meaningless I would be surprised. I also don't think he would have "called" the all in without a very strong hand. So if he went on to lose the hand how would he react and what would he claim?

As for the Dealer, what he did was fairly incompetent. He has to know that the all in "bet" was meaningless and should instruct the players in the moment that it does not change the action in any way. If it was ambiguous as to whether player 2 was calling or raising then I would ask player 2 to confirm what he was doing.

I agree.

If any of the players who folded to the initial raise, speaks up and says he would have called the all-in, we might have to deal with that. But that's highly unlikely to happen.

To be clear, it is unclear whether the chips Player 2 put out were greater than the original bet.

That is, there's a potential counterangle where Player 2 puts out an amount equal to the original bet, then argues he called the all-in if he wins and argues he called the original bet if he loses.

I don't think that's the case here, but any line of argument that invokes "action offered and accepted" has to take into account the size of Player 2's call.

How much was Player 1's initial raise and how much did Player 2 put in to "call"? How much did player 2 have behind?

These numbers are 100% needed in order to make a ruling here.

As normal from me ... a small twist ...

Can Player 1's 'all-in' be considered a 'dark' bet and thus binding? It's definitely OOT, but how does Player 2 just calling the initial raise 'unbind' Player 1's OOT 'dark' action? So just because we put another card out on the Board the action just (poof) disappears? Why not hold a player to OOT action as long as action doesn't change before it gets back to them?

I still see some issues with how that actual hand was handled for sure. Player 2 should've been forced to say "I call" ... and "I call" or had the option to wait and see the next card hit the Board and then act 'in turn' to the now in-play shove.

There is no opportunity for an angle here other than what is already 'provided' by normal OOT action. However, the River is an 'out' for Player 1, since if Player 2 flats the 'bet' or raises, the all-in never becomes binding.

There is nothing here that indicates we 'reset' for each street ... Deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. A player who checks out of turn may not bet or raise on the next turn to act. A player who has called out of turn may not change his wager to a raise on the next turn to act. An action or verbal declaration out of turn is binding unless the action to that player is subsequently changed by a bet or raise. If there is an intervening call, an action may be ruled binding.


Initially I thought I was splitting hairs, but now I'm more inclined to think otherwise. GL

No.

There is no action on P1 to be OOT on.

Action MUST complete for one street before the next street action can open.

On the current street:
If P2 calls, action is closed.
If P2 folds, action is closed.

Action can only re-open if P2 raises. If P2 raises, then any OOT action by P1 is voided anyway.