Reading another thread I recalled a really ridiculous incident that ended with a really unusual ruling.

At a Las Vegas poker room as the night was winding down at around 3 am, there was a single table running of $1/2 NLHE. We were playing 5-handed. Friendly game of late night poker.

One of the action players who i've never played with before but has been there for a while starts shooting angles. He wasnt drunk, but he was doing questionable moves to throw people off, as verbalizing actions as his opponents would act on the river, such as "if you raise, I call" . But he did it in such a way, that it would be before action completed, so it was not a binding declaration.

After the 5th time this happened in a short period of time, one of the other players get really annoyed and asks for the floor. The floor was called over, and the dealer informs the floor of the situation, and how he was warned numerous times already. The floor issues a warning as well. The floor then comes over again twice in the next hour to deal with the exact same behavior. The floor tells him "okay, here's your last warning. Next time you do it, its binding."

About a hour later, I'm sitting down heads up with the player in question, and we decide to change the game to PLO with a $5 dollar bring in while we wait for more people instead of breaking the game. Effective stacks are around $3000. Few things to note, the dealer who is in the box is the same dealer who was involved with the ruling from the floor earlier. And the previous floor person is already off shift, but a new one is on.

I straddle for $10 on the button and he opens for $35, and I elect to call.

Flop is a 889xxx board. The player leads for $70, and i call.

The turn is a off suit J and player continues to pot for $210, which I call again.

River is a non consequential 3. Player continues to bet $630. As I was pushing my chips in for the min raise, the player says "if you raise, I call". I slow my moving of the chips, and I look at the dealer while giving him a "omg did he really just say that?" and he looked at me with the "yes, yes he did" look. So I announce "umm......pot". and the player immediately tosses his hand in the muck.

Without me saying anything else, dealer says "sorry, the call stands. you were warned over and over. I'll call the floor over but I think that's a call". New floor is called over, and is informed about the situation, and floor enforces ruling after confirming with dealer and the two players. Player is visibly upset and is still arguing with the floor.

Player eventually wants to retrieve his hand from the muck if the call stands and he complains that if he cant, then he doesn't have a valid hand to call with. I still have not tabled my hand, because the on-going debate.

What would you guys do, and do you let the guy off of calling the river raise even though the dealer and floor say otherwise?

I don't think "if you raise I call" is actually binding in most interpretations.

**** no I wouldn't let him off.

Cliffs: take the money.

It's the early morning. You're playing heads up.

I'm a recreational player who doesn't take the game too seriously. But I have been in early morning games shorthanded. Almost always, the only reason I'm still there at that hour is there's a fish or two at the table who I know will donate all the money in front of them; it's only a matter of time.

So if you can get that done quickly by allowing the floor and the dealer to enforce a special rule they have made for a problem child, you get to sleep more.

Furthermore, I'm not sure you have the authority to "let the guy off." If you really wanted to enable the angleshooter by making sure he is not affected by the special rule made for him, I think your only course of action would be to cash out and give him the money back. And if you did that and I were the floor, I'd be tempted to give both of you a 24-hour ban for circumventing the rules of the room.

I'm not letting him off of the call .... but if his cards are identifiable he should be given his cards back. its not the players decision to make but you should certainly be advocating for that .... and certainly not advocating against it.

If the cards are not identifiable well then I don't see how there is anything that can be expected of you here.

Questions:

1. Verbal declarations without action pending aren't binding but, as I understand it, aren't specifically against the rules but are bad etiquette. Am I correct?

2. Is it appropriate for the floor to, essentially, create a rule that contradicts the actual rules?

3. Is it common for a floor to try and accommodate this kind of behavior rather than 86 the player after repeated warnings?

AP, I'm with psandman.

+1

I would never threaten to hold him to the call. I'd ask him to stop and if he didn't, I'd just ask him to leave.

But once you make that threat, I guess you need to carry it out.

It is if the floor tells you "if you do it again it will be binding." Which is what happened in this case.
No. The floor here should have done what calli says...

This. The floor in the OP told this guy that if he does it again it will be binding. He has essentially made this the new rule for this one guy for this one night. That was a mistake. The floor should have said if you do it again you will be asked to leave.

Before making my raise, I probably would have gotten verbal confirmation from the dealer (and the floor after V starts bitching) that his declaration was indeed binding. Maybe the new floor is more of a stickler than the original one. It also feels a bit angly to raise if you think there is a chance V might muck but still be required to put the $$ in the pot. Dealer could have said something before you took action, as well.

As played, I wouldn't be letting him off the hook. He was warned, he did the same thing again, he gets to deal with the consequences that were explicitly given to him beforehand.

I would stay out of the discussion, allow the dealer and floor to rule and then take my money. LOL @ letting an habitual angle shooter off the hook, let him suffer the consequences for once.

Also IMO it was a bad idea for the floor to make that decision in the first place, see how much trouble it caused? Would have been better to warn, warn and threaten removal, last warning, them remove. Again this is my opinion as a player, actual floors may have better insight.

Wait a minute!

They're playing HU.

How can his cards NOT be retrieveable??? They ARE the muck!

He called. Give him back his cards.

^^ Hilarious if true. I just assumed he meant they were HU in that particular pot. If they're the only 2 players at the table, um yeah he gets his cards back.

Good catch.

Another example of : the rules are what the floor says they are. Now this example is rather extreme for sure , but if you are going to make his call binding in this odd circumstance he should at least get his cards back I would think.

This.

What muck?

Give the man his hand back.

Good catch YTF.

if that isnt a binding call after what floor said, i would never play there again.

If the other way around, would he have let you off? (Doubtful.)

I believe the ruling in this case would be, because of the special rule, this player called the bet then immediately mucked his cards. You can't unmuck a hand, and his call stands. Why are you feeling bad for this angle shooter? Take his money and run

Most certainly can un muck a hand if still clearly indentifiable and should or you reward an angle. Both players are angling here. “But he started it” is no real defense. After hand V1 gets his rack and V2 gets his warning.

How are both players angling here?

his cards being identifiable from the muck are irrelevant, Hero obviously has the stone nuts so V can't beat him anyways

I certainly don't see how either player angled here, and hero did nothing wrong at all.

Sooooooooo

what was the end result?

How did this happen if you are heads up? Do you mean the floor confirmed with you and the player in question? If so, that's hilarious that he confirmed it, and then was visibly upset about it.

I would think he meant OP kind of angled here because he was initially going to min-raise, then when he heard the guy say he was calling if he raised, he then decided to pot it. I am not saying I agree with it, but I do see his point some, that he used the min raise to see (maybe induce?) if the guy would make that statement again, only to then pot it when he did.

The other guy was clearly angling until this point. How do you not see that though?