Seriously, why are people even arguing this.

He didn't fold, saying fold when first to act is not a fold, UNLESS THE CARDS ARE TAKEN.

The reason is simple, folding out of turn is against the rules in many places, and is frowned upon in almost all others.

Now, if a player forces his cards into the muck, not much but a warning and KITN can be administered, but here that didn't happen.

If cards are in front of a player, then those cards are in play, unless money is owed to the pot. That didn't happen here.

There was no bet, player tried to fold, dealer didn't collect cards which weren't pushed forward or tossed, so cards are live, because the check was free.

Perhaps dealer should have clarified, but those betting afterward SEEING cards on the table have to understand it counted as a check.

You should take his hand and muck it, but if he then protects it it is live. In this case I am going to speculate that the player protected it. This protection might have only been relaying by facial expression to the dealer not to take his cards. The fact that the dealer didn't take his cards tells me the dealer did not take it as a fold and it would be completely unreasonable for a player to assume that this player that still has cards is out of the pot.

What angleshoot?!? If the people at the table don't know the rules of the game, then they are the ones at fault.

There's no angle shoot here.. Either the cards hit the muck and they are dead or they didn't!! If they didn't, (and they remain in players possesion) the hand is alive!

What's so hard to understand about this?

Of course it is an angle. Why do you think the guy said "Fold" when he had no intention of folding?

By definition, an angle is a legal move.

I don't mind the speculation, but just wanted to say that I do not think this is what happened here. This dealer seemed to be unattentive to any action of the table. Not meaning this as an insult to all dealers by any means, there are many good ones around. This one was not.

Intrigued my all the different responses my post is getting. Trying to decide when to interject with what happened next, although afraid it will be a letdown as there was no clear ruling made at the table.

If anyone cares to speculate on anything else, further information may help some of you; the incident posted occurred at the main 10/20 game at the fabulous Taj Mahal in Atlantic City.

My $0.02:

I immediately thought "Dead hand".

But when Ray Zee disagreed, I immediately thought, "I may need to give this some more thought."

When RR stood beside Ray, I thought, "I guess I must be wrong."

This thread looks like a Supreme Court decision, where the Majority opinion speaks the loudest, but the co-authors of the Dissent (Ray and RR) are speaking from an area where THEY are the foremost experts--even a 7-2 ruling isn't a landslide, when the Dissent is coming from such revered Justices.

This thread is another example of the rules evolving, and the old school guys citing esoteric rules and examples that the more simplistic New Breed have never heard of.

I don't know a single floorman who wouldn't cling to the "Verbal is binding" lifeline here--but then again, I don't know a single floorman who played or worked in poker in the 1990's, let alone before then.

Verbal is binding when it can influence action.

If the BB says call in a limped pot, does he have to put more money in somehow? No, obviously not.

If seat 8 says call and puts out 1BB and the dealer says, "Sir, there was a raise to 15BB" does Seat 8 have to call that 15bb. No, because the action was grossly misunderstood.

It's the same thing here. Someone thought there was a bet when there wasn't, said fold when checking was free, cards were NOT collected, so cards are live.

It's pretty obvious he didn't say "fold" because he thought there was a bet, since when he heard there was a bet and raise he tried to reraise.

I believe the fold should be binding. Yesterday when I was in AC I was in a pot and I stated "fold" on the river but did not push my cards in because I wanted to show one. As soon as I said "fold" the dealer started pushing the pot to the other player.

RZ and TT have excellent points, but it bugs me that someone can say fold, folks can act behind based on that, and then get told he didn't fold. I don't mind that guy getting to keep his cards if he or the dealer or somebody makes clear that his statement of "fold" was an oops; everybody gets tongue-tied and says "raise" when they mean "bet", and particularly non-native speakers should perhaps get some leeway. But if nobody corrects it, and action progresses... I just don't much like the notion of letting him keep those cards.

If the guy had said "twenty" but not moved chips, and the person behind raised, would we let the first guy off? Hope not.

I can see it going either way, but I'm in the "I think he folded" camp. I think it sorta falls out of the forward motion rule mindset. Doing something which provokes action behind becomes binding if you don't correct it prior to that action.

Even if he can't fold, shouldn't the action after him make his hand dead? There was a bet and a raise and now he wants to 3 bet, that shouldn't be allowed. His first action shouldn't be a default check. It should either be backed up to let him act as if nothing happened, since folding is not one he must now decide if he wants to check or bet, or his hand is dead because he let the action pass before making a valid action himself.

He acted first, he said fold was then. When action came back around, he raised.

In a low-stakes game when the BB wants to fold to an unraised bet, I usually don't let him. Putting on my flame-******ant suit now.

There's obviously no consensus regarding the status of the hand here, so I encourage everybody, when faced with this situation, to achieve clarity of action before reacting. What could it hurt?

That's a legal action. If you say twenty, it's the same as putting in 20. But here, it's like saying call when you've misunderstood the action.

To me, once the dealer doesn't muck the cards, that means it's not a fold. Perhaps dealer looked at player and player understood the check was free, or player caught dealer's eye and both knew there was no bet so no fold and let play continue.

How many situations are there when cards in front of a player aren't live?

As a dealer I would call it dead bu I would have garbed it as soon as he said fold. I think in this hand is dealer error and because he didn't A. pull in the cards or B. Clarified an opps I meant to check for the rest of the table to hear.

I think in every situation you have 3 options Call/Check, Fold or Raise/Bet. Even in the BB you can call/check, raise or even fold (not the best play but I have seen it).

While there is situations where there inst a legal re raise or a player is all in and all you can do is call or fold but most of the time you have all 3 options.

Again if the House rule is you cant open fold (check out) then that is fine and the players at the table will learn the rule. If that isn't the rule as soon as he says Fold then muck his cards every time he will learn.

as a dealer i hope you learn not to muck any cards unless they are pushed your way. you are a dealer and you job does not include leeway on making decisions on peoples hands. at least at any places i care to play.

I don't want to sound disrespectful -- but you need to make sure you understand the rules then.

Live poker != online poker

Canterbury also does not allow the open fold. I have no idea why -- but that's the rule.

I was never complaining, simply voicing my opinion. I've always been familiar with the "verbal declarations are binding" rule. I think its fair to say several people in this thread are suprised there is not concensus on this issue.

I think the value of a thread such as this is to raise awareness. I am a VERY infrequent B&M player and would also have expected the "verbal declarations are binding" rule to kick in here. Lurking, for the most part, in this forum has prepared me better for future situations. My new checklist:

1. Protect my hand at all times.

2. Make sure I'm clear on the action (or in this case inaction?) before me.

3. Make sure my action is clear and non-ambiguous.

4. Table my cards in a calm, non-ambiguous manner.

5. Avoid getting a KITN.

If folding is not an action available, then should not the dealer stopped the action when the next player bet, indicating that the first player had not yet acted, and ask for clarification?

What concerns me otherwise is a new player at the table who hears "fold" will think, not unreasonably, that it means what it usually means; and will then be quite surprised when it really meant "check."

It's important that players, especially new players, be given the information necessary to understand the action they are facing prior to making their own decisions. The core philosophy behind rulings I've heard time and again from very experienced folks here and elsewhere is to protect fairness in the game above all else.

Long-winded way of saying, "pfapfap is right."

The dealer did this by the act of not mucking the cards. While the dealer could have been more explicit in pointing out it's not a fold, if you see cards in front of a player, assume they play.

And when those same new players try to open fold when checking is free, the dealers often just ask "are you sure, checking is free" or something to that affect.

I see this at least 50% of the time I play 1/2 live.

Really, do new players think "He said fold, he said call" and memorize what each person did, or do they look at the board and see who has cards?

Honestly, I'm not sure I'd even bother to verify if he folded or not when action came to me, I'd play as if he were live, because he has cards.

Given that this caused significant confusion at the table, it's pretty obvious that the action was unclear when the other players acted. Unclear action is bad for the game.

Did the dealer screw up here? I don't think so. The dealer did, however, miss an opportunity to do better than "not screw up." That is, there's a difference between not making errors and really providing excellent service.

To be clear, I'm in no way intending to slam the dealer here.

I do want to point out that there are opportunities during the course of play for a dealer to pro-actively prevent confusion and head off problems before they happen. This is a good example of such a case.

As a player, dealers who do that sort of thing get more tips from me.

Yep. That's exactly what I would like to see in this situation. Ask the player who said fold, "are you sure? checking is free," "if you're checking out, push me your cards, please," or something along those lines, depending on the game, stakes, player, etc.. If the player says he's sure, then that's confirmation of action and the cards should be mucked. I agree with Ray that taking the cards without confirmation would be seriously bad mojo.

I just mean a player new to live play. That may be someone with no experience at poker at all, or it may be someone who has played quite a lot.

O.K... what about if a player makes a bet and the other guy is thinking about calling. the bettor then says 'FOLD" as in telling the other guy to fold. Is the bettors hand dead.. no.

As they are more versed in the rules than I am, I will allow RZ & TT are right concerning that a "fold" is not a "legal" option in this case.

That said, when player said "fold", I feel strongly that the dealer should have spoken up and said, "sir, folding is not an option, Check or bet?"...I don't care if there was "eye-contact" or "facial gestures" from the player to the dealer that indicated he was not folding, accepting such inconspicuous actions from the player by the dealer I would believe is highly inappropriate.

While not necessarily slamming the dealer, I think they made a pretty large error (in terms of controlling the game and the table), by not clarifying the players action in such a way that the entire table (if they were paying attention) would know what was going on.

If the dealer did not know what action the initial player was making, they should not have allowed the next player to act until everything was clear.

However the dealer is not the only one with responsibility here, with hearing a player say "fold" and then seeing that his cards were not mucked, both the player who bet and the one who raised, should both have sought clarification...a simple "is that a check or fold?" from either of these people would have made this entire situation easier to deal with.

that is why verbal action other than checking and stating an exact amount of a bet or raise should not be binding without some physical action as well. i know many are going to not like this but this is how i feel.

if you act on a verbal action you should take your own responsibility if the other player claims that is not what he said or meant.

against players i do not know i always wait until the pot is correct before i act. i have seen way too many times verbal bets not going in after being called.

remember the dealers just deliver the cards and the floor makes the ruling that gives him the least headaches most times. most times you get better from each but dont bet your money on it.

ReptileHouse,

I agree with everything you said. Dealer could have made it clearer and taken the proactive stance of ensuring there is no confusion.

I was just trying to point out that when this doesn't happen, that cards in front of a player generally mean they play. So players would be less confused if they remember this.

It's too easy to expect the dealer to always be both perfect and proactive, and players would do well to remeber they have a responsiblity at the table as well.