I strongly disagree. The dealer is only a facilitator of the game and his/her actions/assumptions are not necessarily binding if he/she is in error. It's why the floor must be called over when there's a dispute and dealers can't just make their own rulings.

Players' actions must be verifiable. It's for protection and integrity of the game for all players.

Protect yourself at all times by forcing other players to act using chips so that cameras can verify all actions and so there's no grey area. Alternatively, speak with the villain directly or have the dealer do it, and make sure a verbal declaration is made in such a way where it's verifiable by multiple people at the table in case of an attempted angle shot.

Imagine if there's a crooked dealer colluding with a player. They can't just say another random player called or folded in certain spots when beneficial. There are protections in place for others at the table.

Hero didn't do all he could in this spot. Not even close.

After the dealer confirmed the action, and the player who's action is being questioned just sits there quietly as his action is confirmed by the dealer to be all in, that is when the hero tabled his hand.

What do you want him to do on top of that, demand that the player puts his chips in and slow down the game while they argue:

"I'm all in"

"Then put your chips in"

"No, I don't have to, I verbally said I'm all in and the dealer just confirming it"?

Obviously this situation ended different, but the procedure you are suggesting still applies. Verbal bets are part of the game. We can't start demanding chips enter the pot when someone calls at showdown.

If that was the case, then someone can announce "I'm all in" then when asked to put his chips in, he can say "Never mind, I fold"?

The dealer was confirming someone was all in and the player did not intervene, so the error was on the dealer, which in turn may have helped the big stack player get out of the hand. I can assure your, if it was a 4 way chop, he would have happily taken his 25% of the pot. He might have known he never called but wanted to see if the OP had JT.

Since the player was last to act, it is very possible that he did not want to call, but usually in that spot, just to be sure, the player would loudly announce "I fold" before showing their good laydown.

If you want to be sure that you get his money, yes, you ask him (or ask the dealer to ask him) to place his chips across the line if he is calling, and you don't show your hand until he has done so.

If you want to be slightly less sure, then you ask the player directly to confirm that he has called, and don't show your hand until he has done so in a way that you (and hopefully others at the table) can verify.

Less sure than that is relying on the dealer's confirmation that he called. In some contexts this is fine, and should be enough. But if you have any uncertainty about it, and particularly if you don't think he actually did call, then you should do more.

It is always a tradeoff between practicalities and formalities. You are free to not take all the steps you want, but if something goes wrong (as it did in this case), you run the risk of eating the consequences.

Your AI was for barely more than the first shove. I think the fact it got loud is very important here - just because villain is sitting next to the dealer doesn't mean he heard what you were asking.

From his actions it seems that villain honesty believes the action is over and is anxiously waiting to see if he lost, as if he's at showdown.

Unless villain has a history, this seems like an honest misunderstanding. Since he never called, you have to eat the 45.

I don't think OP should he expected to do more than he did to confirm that he was called. I don't want to harass fish about going through every motion in a live game unless they have earned that mistrust.

Player 2....does he have more than $155? If so, the action is not closed by our angleshooter in seat 9, correct?

Player 2 IS the angleshooter.

Player 2 is the angle shooter in seat 9, so yes he has more than $155.

Player 1: all-in (155)
Player 2: call
Player 3 (OP): all-in (200)
Player 4: all-in (120)
Player 2: ???? (this is what OP is asking us)

OK,,, reread and saw "laughs again".

Angleshooter folded faceup.

Our Hero could have asked "How much in the side pot, I'm a little confused."

Totally a dealer error though. If I ask twice and dealer confirms......twice....

Villain actually does have history. He is always pulling these stunts and he is actually the same villain (same room) from this post

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27...orced-1584570/

Fool me once..
When someone is a known cheater I am happy to put them through the motions every time

It doesn't matter if he called or not if nobody heard him do it. You didn't, the dealer didn't, 7 other players didn't. We also don't know if he said fold or if he ordered another beer.

FWIW, I don't agree with most posters who think that player 2 would never fold here for only $45 more. If hero is a known nit, he always has JT here and player 2 even acknowledged that verbally. Maybe a fold is not standard but definitely reasonable in my book.

Against that guy, I'm making him put the chips in before I turn my cards over every single time. Yes it turns your hand face-up but otherwise you're letting him freeroll you.

As for the ruling, there's no guarantee that player 2 had any idea that OP and the dealer were having a conversation about his action. No matter how obvious the situation is, if there is enough going on, there is a chance that someone will miss it.

But poker is a game of both verbal and physical cues. Player 2 was not paying attention that OP was in for $45 more. We tell players all the time that is their obligation to pay attention to the action. I don't know why it would be any different here.

V should pay the $45 IMO. I don't like the freeroll he can take advantage of here and it's his responsibility to follow the action.

But again... against a player like that, I'm always confirming the action with him or making him put chips in the pot. You must always protect your action. Here you did not, regardless of who is at fault, and it cost you.

Player 1: All In ($155)
Player 2: Calls ($155)
Player 3 (Hero): All In ($200)
Player 4: All in for less ($120)

Player 2: Flips his cards over
Hero to dealer: "He is all in?" while pointing to Player 2.
Dealer: "Yes"

Hero does everything correct. Dealer screws up. Player 2 never said call and appears to fold face up.

But where are you getting, "Nobody heard him call. You didn't, the dealer didn't." I asked the dealer, who is sitting right next to the guy, twice, whether or not I had been called, and was told yes. It seems like the consensus is to ensure chips go into the middle here which I think negates the entire verbal is binding rule.

Results: It was ruled that because of his ambiguous behavior leading the dealer to believe he had called and not objecting to the dealer saying he was all in even after my repeated attempts to confirm, he called the bet. So he was forced to put in the $45.

And later, the dealer said "I guess there was a misunderstanding" which basically means he either didn't hear him call or is lying about it now. Otherwise the dealer would have told the table and floor that he heard the other player call.

And yes, against this player I would make sure he puts the chips in or verbalizes a call so everybody can hear it. You don't want to put yourself in situations where you depend on the mercy of the floor.

You misunderstand me. I'm not looking for the dealer to "confirm" for the third or fourth time that Villain called — I'm looking for Villain confirm it.

This is what it means to protect your interest in the pot.

Ok, so then make sure you have heard the player himself verbally declare a call of your all in before you turn your hand over.

You're probably right that asking him to put the money out is over doing it, but turning your hand over before you've heard him give a verbal declaration doesn't make since.

It doesn't negate the verbal is binding rule at all. Verbal is binding.*

What is does is strengthen your case in case of a disagreement about the facts (and as an additional benefit, it helps identify times when there is a misunderstanding about the action, or the amount being called, so that things can be corrected before cards are shown and a floor decision is required).

Verbal is binding, but the player now states that he didn't verbally call. Now a floor comes over to adjudicate. He wasn't at the table, so he has to rely on other witnesses. You clearly didn't hear him call, since you asked the dealer whether he had. The dealer may say he heard him call, but perhaps he was mistaken and heard someone else say call. Or maybe the dealer misunderstood the action and didn't realize you had raised all in, or that your stack was more than his original bet. Or maybe he now says "I guess there was a misunderstanding". There are many situations where, the facts being in dispute, you relying on the dealer is not going to work in your favor.

You can whine and gripe about it, or you can protect yourself. Your choice.

*Except when it isn't. But let's ignore cases like gross misunderstanding and whatnot for this discussion.

No, the point people are making is that if you have to rely on third party testimony for confirmation of a verbal declaration, then you haven't really confirmed the verbalization (and thus the binding element), and you should seriously consider taking the extra step of hearing it yourself.

Otherwise you're practicing the "pull out method" equivalent of protecting yourself. Glad it worked out this time.

Actually it appears the dealer did. Which is why the dealer twice said he did.

Maybe the dealer heard wrong. Maybe he heard right.

My biggest gripe with live poker is players who don't follow the action.

Why would he flip his cards over? Either it's a angle or he is an idiot.


I never ask the dealer what a players action was, I ask the player directly.
It's up to him, not the dealer, to define his move.

I don't know what your card room rules at but I would have asked if flipping up your cards with players still to act kills his hand. (Not sure if that is a thing since I haven't really encountered that)

But there aren't any players still to act, he is closing the action. Everyone else with a hand is already all in.

You are correct.

Sorry about that.

I guess really I'm annoyed he doesn't follow the action enough to realize OP is all in/has more than 2nd all in player


Either way, the dude is a turd.

The Op with $200 goes all in. Behind him is an all in foe less with $120. Now the big stack who has not acted at all yet claims he is calling the original all in of $155 but not the $200.

That is not an option. He called the $200 because he claimed he called the other allin.

OP why did you not push all your chips out? Now big stack can clai he did not know you called. If he had made the JT comment and not the othe all in comment then I say he folded as why call when you know someone has JT. In that case does he not only not have to put in the $45 more, but he doesn't even have to pit in the $155.

But since he claimed to make the smaller call he calls the full $200. That changes things.