Wrong. He can't call before op acts. Both scenarios are not binding. Also angling the angle will only lead to a rising war of angles. It is like wrestling with a pig. You both get filthy but h enjoys it. Plus your angle works against an angler one percent of the time.

B isn't applicable because neither bet nor raise was declared. Villain was calling crickets not an unspecified raise or bet.

But his statement can certainly be considered a conditional statement. You don't have to specifically say the "if. Then" construct for part A of the rule to come into effect. It's up to the TD. There is a grammatical implied clause in his statement of "whatever you bet" that is "If you bet, whatever you bet I will call", since obviously he doesn't know whether the guy is going to bet or not. So I was just saying that it is not nearly as black and white as some have suggested, and it would be wrong for someone to leave this thread thinking they could make that statement with no chance of being held to it. It is just another of the house rules situations.

What if hero snap tables his hand and says "Yes!" and does a little fist pump to himself and then says "I went all in and he called" when someone asks him what he's doing?

Then hero is going to feel very stupid.

I agree that the ruling is correct and the statement by the V should not be considered binding in this situation, but I also think that some dealers/floors would rule differently here and there so you can't always be sure what the outcome of actions like this will be. The rules are whatever the floor says they are for a particular hand like this, so a ruling of Vs "call" being binding is not out of the question from time to time.

If we know villain is literally never calling, it's the (angling douche award aside) most positive EV play because there is a non-zero chance it's held up as an all in and a call after the floor gets called to the table.

How can it be binding when there isn't a bet to call?

And furthermore, the rule you posted is for tournaments. OP was playing a 1/2 NL cash game.

I mentioned that in my post. Also, Bob Ciaffone, the author of Roberts Rules of Poker, stated on his website and the intro to his rules that it was his goal to have his rules and the TDA rules track as closely as possible, as he believed in the concept of a universal set of rules for poker. The thing is, Bob is old and his last update to RRop was somewhere around 2005, while the TDA has continued to update and refine their rules and procedures as the game has evolved.

But because they are a tournament organization, many have developed the idea that tourney rules and cash game rules are necessarily significantly different. But while there are a few things that make sense to differ on, most times the differences are just the result of one rule set evolving while the other one remaining static. As I mentioned in my post, I have played in rooms that have applied this same TDA conditional rule to cash games. There really isn't a good reason to have a different rule for that.

But ultimately, it's just house rules that govern. Again, my point was simply that it is not a 100% sure thing that all rooms treat conditional statements as nonbinding table talk, as many posters were stating. That may have been true at some point in the past, but the thinking on that has clearly evolved over time.

Tournament rules are fine but for the love of god ditch the ones that are in place to protect other players that aren't involved in the hand. Like heads up, I should be able to show cards or talk about my hand or even outright muck my hand against a check. I should be able to muck when I'm all in at showdown (or heads up at any given point) and when I'm not in the hand, please don't deal me a hand and kill it right away just because my stack was there.

Anyways besides the obvious differences poker is still poker and whether a premature call stands or does not stand could be pretty much universal.

Yeah ditch the rules designed to protect the other players .... Like rules againt soft play, and chip dumping. After all poker should be abouting winning other people's money using any means available include team play.....

What rules are in place for tournaments that counter soft playing that are 1) actually needed in cashgames and 2) work

And then how will people get an edge by chip dumping in cash game and if they do, what rules do tournaments have to prevent it that actually work? Meaning, I can't get around them, because I know what you might be getting at.

And good luck preventing collusion, what rules are there specifically for tournaments? By collusion I mean checkraising a victim or 3betting with junk so your partner can open the betting. Not soft playing which I don't care about if they do that to each other.

If people are in a hand I really don't care what the outcome of that hand is. In tournaments that is different because I like to see people bust, or specific people not to bust. If people in a cash game both agree to do something I don't care.

I am sorry I misunderstood. I thought you wanted to get rid of these rules in tournaments....

Ah, that explains. Those are obviously good because you can do some real damage with teamplay in tournaments.

"Whatever you bet, I call" is not binding.

I think it's been established that you are correct and it isn't binding, but I'd like to know if it's grounds for a warning from the floor? It's a pathetic angle shoot and it shouldn't be allowed. Could it get someone tossed?

Absolutely a warning from the floor. "Please refrain from making statements like that, sir." That would be if the dealer didn't warn the player first. The dealer should inform the player that they can't make statements like that. If the player did it again, then the dealer should call the floor.

If I'm flooring, I'm not tossing someone for that unless they continue to keep doing it when I've repeatedly told them not to do it.

If they did it a second time, I'd tell the player if I have to come back over here for this one more time, then you're going to be done for the night.

Why give a second warning on something like this. It's not like it could be accidental. Personally I don't mind heads up table talk in a cash game and don't think a warning is warranted but if you do give a warning a the player intentionally does it again then I think you have to act on it.

I like this too, as a way to punish the angler. When the floor is called, you could just say you had stated "all in"; how is villain going to claim that you never bet when he obviously said call? If I were the floor I would award the stack to the hero even if I suspected he was lying.

I wouldn't do that because then I'D be angle shooting. I do however believe that the floor should have at least issued a warning to this moron. Since returning to the room, I found out from the dealer involved in the original hand that the guy's known as an angle shooter.

What about "If you check, I check." Binding?

Let me ask a related question. Say you are at the table but out of the hand when this happens. Dealer does not say anything, but you know that the floor will rule this as a non bet. Is it out of line for you to ask "is that binding?" I know players in the hand sometimes do not want to ask for floor rulings, as it might give away their strength. Or they may be assuming it is binding.

Is it kosher for a person not in the hand to stop an angle?

Stay out of it. Ask after the hand if you want.

I'm asking if I know the guy is always doing **** like this and I think his opponent is a casual rec that doesn't have the wherewithal to understand the nuance of what's happening. (talking about the rec that maybe in a heads up situation, his opponent bets out of turn into the rec and the rec doesn't realize that checking and then raising with the nuts is the better plan here, but instead bets into the villain and the villain folds because action changed. We all know plenty of players like this)