THIS!!!

Add the fact that he might have heard just fine and is angling for the whole stack if he's good and only 100 if he's beat.

Call. All day long.

Earbuds guy opened the door for that angle. I have no problem with nuts guy going with it.

My only wish for this thread is that Suit finally learn that "allin" is not a word.

What if A cut out 100 and pushed them in but never said call?

I some times where buds with classical music playing low to help cut down the casino noise. If I dont I find that the continuous slot noise physically wears me out in just a couple of hours

Btw if I put on rock or similar the results,are not as good as I find myself listening to the music. Not a good thing.

If A pushes out $100, it's a bet of $100. What else could it be?

If B pushed in $100 after A acted, the dealer may ask him to clarify action. That's where gross misunderstanding may apply if the dealer tells the player that the bet is all-in.

it should still be a call to the all-in bet

If A cuts out 100 and pushes it in.... then it looks like he thinks the bet is 100 hopefully the dealer can stop B from tabling before we can get this cleared up.

I am in the minority, I would give a gross misunderstanding ruling.

Earphones or not, player A is the one who created ambiguity by saying "all in" then sliding out only $100. I get that it's a convenience, but when you do this, you create ambiguity. Whether or not the other player is wearing earphones, whether or not the dealer heard you say all in, taking this action is done for your convenience, and has the potential to cause confusion, because poker is a visual game. That player is the one who has to take on the onus of protecting himself from here on out in the hand.

Added to that, player B put out $100 when he called. Even if he had not, I would be tempted to give him gross misunderstanding protection. But since he did, it is clear that he (very reasonably, IMO) thought he was calling a bet of $100.

Player A has to be responsible for protecting his action by seeing that player B had not made a complete call, and waiting until he had done so before tabling his hand. In this case, he needs to tell player B that he is all-in, and let player B decide whether he needs to call the floor, or take his $100 back, or whatever options the dealer/floor/room rules make available to him.

*dons flame ******ant suit*

had he done this but cut out the bet instead of sliding it out, if I was the dealer I would make sure the ear buds guy knows it's an all in bet to stop an angle in progress.

The all in guy did nothing wrong, he slid out a stack which is commonplace.

It may be commonplace, but it causes ambiguity.

IMO, anyone who verbally makes one bet then physically puts out another amount for his own convenience is the one who takes all responsibility for any issues that arise as a result.

Don't want that to happen? Put out an amount that matches your verbal bet. (Or in this case, at least enough to cover the remaining players in the hand.)

A couple of thoughts on this. First off, I think the term "verbal is binding" is meant to say that verbal is binding on the person who makes the verbal declaration. So if a player says one thing, and puts out a different amount of chips, the verbal is binding. I don't take verbal is binding to necessarily mean that it's binding on someone who may not have heard the verbal in the first place. There's also a saying in our casino's rules that "poker is a visual game" so seeing someone put out a stack of 100 carries some consideration as well.

Here's the wording from RROP about gross misunderstanding.

Since the basis of the rule is obviously not whether the bettor made the larger bet but rather whether the other player understood what the bet was, then determining whether or not the player heard the verbal is important. RROPs example specifically addresses someone who didn't hear a verbal. So you look for supporting evidence.

Suit says that while he wasn't informed of it initially (a screw up by the dealer) the caller cut out 100 after saying call. So that could very well be evidence he didn't hear the verbal. The casino I play at is extremely loud. Not only do they pipe in very loud music, the PA system they use for calling list names and trying to attract players for SNGs blares at the same time. So if a dealer repeats the "all in" while looking at the bettor, and away from the potential caller, it's easy to have a case where the dealer repeats the all in, and the potential caller doesn't hear it, ear buds or not.

So I'm not sure which way I would rule, but I'm suggesting that just because "the dealer repeated the all in" doesn't necessarily bind the potential caller to it, as it doesn't necessarily mean the caller heard it. And poker's a visual game, and he saw 100 go in. So the floor has to try and put all the evidence together and could rule either way. I don't see this as the automatic call of the all in that many have.

edit: I see that by the time I type all this, Dinesh made the same point already. I'm slow.

As I think about it more, I believe a good policy would be to eliminate the practice of having players put out a small stack or a few chips when verbally declaring all in. What's the point? It serves no purpose other than to create confusion. If verbal is binding, then the player declaring all in is bound to it once the dealer hears it. Someone declaring all in for a 1000 stack is no more bound to it by putting in 100 in chips as no chips. If the dealer doesn't hear anything, since there are no chips placed out, there is no confusion. The player will realize the dealer didn't do anything and repeat his all in.

This would eliminate the confusion between "it's a visual game" and "verbal is binding".

Do they still have the guy there that says "Omaha-ha-ha-ha"? Been some years since I've been in THR, but that was kinda funny.

Re: All-in Buttons
I'm not a fan of these being used in cash games. If i silently push out my last $67 with a decent but not nut hand, I might want my opponent to possibly think there's more behind so there'll possibly be another street of betting and possibly fold to the pressure. Obviously I'm hoping V sees my bet but doesn't think to look at my remaining (non-)stack.

But if Dealer yells "67...and is all in" and throws out a lammer, the gig is up. In this respect, imo, he violated OPTAH.

He's still there, and is a really great guy. But TBH, while funny at first, after the first hundred thousand times hearing it, it gets kinda old.

I would rule it a call, but again, this kind of thing would not happen if player A hadn't done something stupid. I think it is best for someone to put in the whole amount of his bet. If you're too lazy to do that, just announce the bet and don't move forward any chips at all. There is no reason to ever bet one amount verbally and then move forward a different amount; it is just asking for trouble.

I almost agree with your sentiment. I don't, however, agree with how you got there. Players are conditioned by dealers to "put at least a stack in" when they declare all-in and push no chips out. I see this happen almost every time I play. A player is not obligated to put the exact amount of chips in after verbally declaring all-in, and did not willingly act ambiguously, but rather followed the rules and the customary practice.

If player B used colored glasses rather than headphones, and thought he was calling stacks of white chips, would gross misunderstanding apply here? That's effectively all that happened, with a different human sense involved.

There is a small chance that A was angling, since he is a reg and probably knows how to abuse people wearing headphones. I do agree that is a harder decision than it initially seems.

Finally, this guy is a pro and handicaps himself with headphones like that?? I guess pro just means you don't have another job, not that you're very profitable or wise.

I won't argue about whether or not players are conditioned to put a stack in by dealers, or whether they train each other to do so, but I will argue that it is a bad policy if it exists, and should be stopped because it hurts (much) more than it helps.

But honestly, the gross misunderstanding rule should apply (or at least be considered) regardless of the all-in/$100 stack ambiguity. That complication just makes it even more likely that a floor should rule a gross misunderstanding.

The gross misunderstanding rule is designed to protect the caller, not the bettor, in a wide range of circumstances where it is obvious/likely that the caller doesn't understand the bet amount (or even when it's just non-obvious that he did). This includes your colored glasses argument. In fact, in includes the "no particular reason whatsoever" argument.

Go read the gross misunderstanding rule that browser quoted above again.
When heads up, any time the caller doesn't put in a reasonable amount, the bettor is obligated to clarify. For whatever reason, be it headphones, colored glasses, inattention, loud casino, or no reason at all. Don't rush it - protect your action.

(If multi-way, and a call causes action behind, it may no longer be the bettor's obligation to do anything, which does complicate things somewhat.)

QFT. Things that tilt me 101

This information is very important to making the correct and fair decision, with it being left out I personally rule against B. If you were informed of it when you were making your decision I can see it going either way depending on B's character and your past experience with him.

Some previous threads on the topic, searching my own posts for the word "impair":

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27...uling-1435619/
(Suit posts in this one.)

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27...angle-1390848/
(Some classic ideas by chillrob about the NL game he doesn't play, which he is repeating here for some reason.)

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27...62/index3.html
(Page 3 of this thread discusses a post that seems to have been deleted.)

Given the divide in opinion seen in the above examples, this thread has a surprising consensus. And my views haven't budged :P

You have this backwards. Earbuds guy was the reg. Guy with the nuts was the pro

Okay thanks for chiming in I guess.

Fair enough, and your argument and statements are reasonable. However,

I have read this rule a few times for these threads, and the part not mentioned in your quote is the example, "On the end, a player puts a $500 chip into the pot and says softly, “Four hundred.” " It also says "Note that the character of each player can be a factor."

I'm not sure why the rules would have to qualify the word "said" with the word "softly" in the example, unless they were exemplifying something the player did (of failed to do) in order to be ambiguous. Stating it at a normal volume and having it repeated by the dealer, to someone willfully impairing their own normal hearing is nothing like the example written in the actual rule you're citing. I think this only goes to reinforce that the spirit of the rule doesn't apply to player B, even if you and I could reasonably debate the letter of the rule.

In terms of character factoring in, loud headphones = doofus = you lose. (IMO)

Dude, I said I would rule this a call, don't know why you've got a hard on for criticizing me everywhere.

I guess I can forgive the putting in just a stack if that is what dealers at a particular room normally tell players to do, but as others have pointed out, that is a pretty stupid thing to have as a house policy. I wouldn't do it even if a dealer asked me to do so. If I said all in, and they told me to put some chips in, I would put them all in.

I take the inclusion of the word softly in the example as simply a way of implying that the reason for the misunderstanding was that the other player didnt hear the verbal. I dont interpret that example to imply that the bettor did something "wrong" which therefore entitles the caller to relief as contrasted with a case where the misunderstanding was not due to the bettor doing something "wrong", and therefore the caller is held to the higher bet.

I read this rule to say that it's up to the floor to weigh all available evidence, like amount of chips put into pot, and character, as in is a player a known angle shooter or is he known for his integrity and so if he says he believed the bet was 100 the floor would have no reason to think he was lying. So it's not a clear yes-no type rule, but always a judgement call.

But ultimately I think the intent is for the floor to determine whether there truly was a misunerstanding, and action was based upon that misunderstanding, rather than evaluate what caused the misunderstanding in the first place.

Well this is a cl*st*rf*ck.

Pro is angling twice. First he says "all-in" vs reg who can't hear and then he pushes out $100 for no valid poker reason. Then when reg says call and pushes out $100 the pro quickly flips his hand to seal the deal.

What should have happened is this: Pro says "I'm all-in" then pushes out a stack of reds. Then pushes out another stack of reds. Then pushes another stack of reds. Until he has reg covered or reg calls. Now there can be no misunderstanding that there has been a verbal declaration (or else this would be a string bet). Once reg pushes out $100 and says call, Pro should be reminding reg that the bet is all-in. Now reg gets to decide what to do. And some houses will penalize him $100 for his mistake if he chooses to fold.

As a Floor I would definitely rule gross misunderstanding and warn the Pro to clean up his act. I would also try to get the dealer to see how he contributed to the mess and that when the reg puts out $100 that there might be a misunderstanding... Also Dealer must instruct reg to put out the $100 again so Floor can see it.

As a Floor if I didn't know about the reg pushing out the $100 I might feel differently about it - but I think in the end it would depend on how much I trusted the reg. Pro is angling and his attitude about it would matter some. But if reg was on the up and up in general then I would likely call it a gross misunderstanding.