Well, the reason (perhaps not a good one) is simply convenience (or laziness); people apparently can't be bothered to push out 12 stacks of chips.
But I think that if they don't, they then bear some responsibility for any confusion, especially if they push out only a smaller amount (as here), i.e., $100 to "represent" a $1200 bet.
My first reaction here was to agree with everyone that it was a verbal Allin, the dealer heard it, presumably the rest of the table heard it, and the dealer certainly heard it and repeated it, so too bad for Player B, it's his own fault for wearing earbuds, and it's a call.
However, upon reflection (and especially when considering the missing info re the attempted $100 stack to call), I would tend to agree with Dinesh that the bettor created the ambiguity, and bears responsibility to protect his action before showing. It does appear that there was a "gross misunderstanding", and that the caller really was acting in good faith. So I guess that I would have ruled it a $100 bet and call, perhaps with some reluctance, in the interests of fairness. But I think this decision could easily go either way, especially if either of the players has a history of angling.
I also think that if the caller hadn't been wearing earbuds during the hand (which irritates a lot of us), most of us on this forum would have had a lot more sympathy for him. If the caller hadn't been wearing earbuds, and had simply not heard the bettor or the dealer (because of loud casino noise, etc.), I think a lot more of us would say, "Sure, gross misunderstanding, $100 call."
As a final note, when I first encountered the "Allin" buttons in a casino, I thought they were really hokey. But I am now a firm believer that they are a very good thing, because they tend to avoid exactly this sort of problem.

First response on reading OP was to ship the entire stack over.


Now I can see reasons for both sides.


Does A have a responsibility to make sure B understands the wager?


Did A protect his hand/action?


If I'm A, I'm including some kind of motion to indicate that I'm shoving them all-in. Without a lammer, I might even make multiple moves to bring a stack at a time foward until the dealer waves me off.

If I'm B, I see that A bet a stack. I call, I show. Was A being 'sneaky' by showing quickly, without confirming. Would I have folded if I found out it was all-in, after putting in 100 and exposing my hand?


Interested to hear the ruling, and what factors were most important.

I'm not targeting you. You show up everywhere repeating things like this:

You can keep pretending like people didn't take the time to give you reasons, and I'll keep linking to the threads where we did. Maybe it will save someone from typing it all out yet again.

Alright, well then there is one reason to do so, if the dealer specifically tells you to. And even then I don't think it's a good reason.

There's really 2 scenarios here now... #1 is the OP and #2 is the OP with the added info that the reg said call, then cut out 100, and then tabled.

So for #1 - I ruled this an all in bet and a call. With the info given this was an easy call. I hate the pro for making this ambiguous action(I personally would like to see a rule that makes this not allowed) and I partially blame the dealer for not making it more clear to the reg that the bet was all in.

For #2 - if I had known that the reg cut out 100 before the pro tabled it makes this a much more difficult decision. I really could go either way on it and possibly I let the earbuds sway my decision but honestly I think I would have ruled that the reg only loses the 100 because of the gross misunderstanding rule and it is the bettors obligation to make sure the caller understands the bet before exposing his hand. Especially after being ambiguous.

I've never dealt with the pro before and the reg has never had any issues in my room that would lead me to think he was trying to get away with one here. I'm upset that that key piece of info was left out but there's nothing I can do about that now except educate my staff on how to better help me help them so to speak. It was clear to me that the reg was the only one paying attention that didn't know the bet was all in.

After the hand I went to the pro and told him in the future I highly recommend that he does not say one thing and do another. If your stack is this big and you want to bet all in then either say all in and put no chips across the line or push them all across the line. Anything inbetween is ambiguous and generally when action is ambiguous a floor will rule the lesser of the two actions will stand. He replied with "well this is how I've done it everywhere and it's perfectly normal" and gave me this "whatever" attitude. I said I'm simply giving you advice for the future as you may not get a favorable ruling from every floor. Certainly from me in the future this warning will come into play in my decision and you can take that for what you think it's worth.

Suit- i'm curious as to why you would make the caller lose the 100 in #2. I know some rooms have this rule, but if using the RROP gross misunderstanding rule as the standard, then the caller is allowed to rescind his call entirely. While one could say that he committed to calling 100, a case could be made that he assessed the strength of the bettors hand under the misunderstanding of a 100 bet, whereas if he knew the bettor shoved, that would lead to a different asessment of bettors hand strength and would result in a fold.

I think I would force him to lose the $100 in that scenario just because of the action it caused. If he had put in a stack and then somehow realized the bet was all-in BEFORE everybody starting opening their hand, then that's fine, but once everybody exposes everything I really don't see how you make a ruling where this guy loses nothing.

I think you made a good decision, but man, that was a tough one. Someone mentioned a hearing impairment. I wonder, if the reg was deaf instead of wearing earbuds, would it change your decision at all?

Also, what is your opinion of the all-in buttons?

While I agree with everyone who says it's ambiguous to only put out one stack, take a look at the two possible alternatives for player A:

1. Say "all-in" and do nothing. Dealer repeats "player A is all-in". Player B plays with his chips. After 2 minutes, player B looks at the dealer and asks "did he act yet?" Then he starts going in the tank. Everybody at the table is annoyed.
2. Say "all-in" and put out stack for stack until at least 7 are in, since he doesn't know if player B has $580 or $620 left. Honestly, doing that is annoying as ****. It's lots of physical movement and stacks fall over all the time.

Either way, people get punished because player B doesn't pay attention.

And in the end, player B finds a black chip on top of one of his red stacks and goes "wait, I have $715 and thought he only bet $700, not all-in!".
Are people here now calling for him to keep his last $15 because the bet was ambiguous?

1. This thread shows some deserved respect for Suit as the topic shifted from earbuds to ruling on actual action when he clarified.

2. Would the ruling change if there was a third player to act that pushes $1,500 and says call? This presents solid argument for misunderstanding by earbud pushing $100.

Completely agree verbal is binding, and pot gets shipped to confusing action of player with nuts. Dealer acted correctly, but could be a teaching moment that the intent of repeating "all-in" is not just to say it, but make sure it is known. Maybe similar to the practice of an exposed card not only be declared, but waved around for all to see.

Good ruling. Tough spot as bettor seeming followed what was required.

I hate this. I'm always telling players about the little nuances about things so they can protect themselves in the future, whether it be about tossing a single 5K chip and saying "Four" when 400 is a valid bet, the single chip rule, or other weird little things that unfortunately casual players can get caught on all the time, and their responses are always in extreme defensive-mode like I'm trying to yell at them or something.


For the record, I'm fine with this being a gross misunderstanding, but as someone above just said, after the bettor shows his cards, I can't let the caller take back the hundo. That needs to stay.

I know this little chestnut has been argued time and again, but it still doesn't make sense. Yeah, yeah, "chips committed to the pot stay in the pot" and all that.

It doesn't make sense how you can have it both ways. Either it's a binding call and ALL the chips go in, or "Gross Misunderstanding" applies and he gets to re-consider his entire decision. There's no scenario where Earbud only wins $100, so making him lose $100 isn't right imo.

Earbud put in the amount Bettor had put in, so Bettor's "action" had a much to do with causing damage as Earbud. Also, per RRoP, Bettor has an obligation to make sure action was properly understood before acting.

Having said all this, I'd still be inclined to let the earbuds affect my decision and rule that Earbud owes the entire all in. Sucks for him, especially being a good reg and all, but he put himself in this predicament by limiting his senses.

Regarding the gross misunderstanding rule: If the house rule is to penalize the caller and make him leave the chips in, I'm all for it. Hopefully in the long run, it will teach players to pay more attention. And if the rule is to strictly follow the "all or nothing" rule given by Robert's Rules, I'm fine with that, too. But I think it's a bad idea to let floors rule sometimes one way and sometimes the other. Either there was a gross misunderstanding or there wasn't. Just make that determination, and follow the rule.

Suit - have you ordered all in buttons for the room yet?

He replied with "well this is how I've done it everywhere and it's perfectly normal" and gave me this "whatever" attitude. I said I'm simply giving you advice for the future as you may not get a favorable ruling from every floor.


He is right, it is perfectly normal. Now you are telling the "pro" how to do his job. If you would of pharsed it like in "this house" or "in the future at our tables" it would of been different. You may not of got the brush off of your advice.

In some rooms pushing a stack out is considered a working stack. So that other player can be aware of a pending bet both visually as well as hearing it verbally.

With the introduction of earbuds, Ipads, etc.... the ALL IN button has become a valuable tool is combating the "I didn't know he was all in" excuse. Earbuds or not.

At the end of the day I don't think anyone had any maliuos intent so your ruling is super soild.

He's all in. Too bad for him that he can't read lips but did he have any other choice? Oh, wait, he did.


ALL IN buttons should be mandatory, imo.

My room does have this rule and he loses the 100 because both players have tabled their hand. I can't let him reconsider knowing his opponents holding. If cards weren't exposed then I could let him reconsider his action.
Every deaf player I've ever encountered has clarified any action before they act. They just know better and the dealer would probably go further to make sure they understand the action. But if it did happen I think it would potentially change my decision. Surely bettor would have to know caller was deaf.
LOL it's being discussed and we've talked about it before. Maybe this will sway the decision. I don't know yet. I like the idea of having them for when someone says all in but pushes no chips or only some chips. If they push all their chips in then I see no need to toss out the button. For that reason alone it makes me on the fence about the buttons because if you have them you should use them anytime someone is all in. Not sure about a rule for using them only if the player doesn't push his chips in.
Thanks. I left it as in the future because he could run into a problem anywhere he goes. Not just my place. Sure, where he is a reg I'm sure it is normal but he's a reg in a state that doesn't allow NL cash games so... Idk. I'm sure he has played all over but I think it's good advice for anyone no matter where you play because it can save you the potential of losing money. You never should leave that decision up to a floorperson if you like money.

Any room I've played at that has the all in buttons throws the buttons at any player who's all in, even if the player pushes all their chips in.

The flip side is, is there a good reason not to have the button in front of someone if they push all their chips in? A player wanting their opponents to not know they're all in doesn't seem like a good reason to me (since players are supposed to be giving a good view of their stacks anyways)

Ah, this is a perfect counter-arguement for my earlier contention that he should be able re-consider (if we feel Gross Misunderstanding applies). Thank you.

I'll re-iterate I'm not really a fan of the buttons. I still think OPTAH applies when a player silently pushes out his stack or announces his stack size as a bet but does not announce Allin himself. Probably (once again) a wierdo lone voice here.

Re: the ALL IN buttons

Anytime someone declares they're all in you should immediately toss them the ALL IN button whether they push all their stacks in, one stack, or no stacks. It would really make things a lot easier and then there would(should) be no reason or excuses for anyone who didn't realize what the bet was. Just toss them the button!

Re: This hand- My decision would not change if the player was deaf. You have to pay attention, and for the deaf player, that would require that both he/she and the dealer need to clarify all actions, but, the difference between the deaf player and the player with the ear buds is that the deaf player knows what he has to do whereas the other player is totally clueless and unaware that his hearing is impaired to the degree in which its impaired.

ALL IN BUTTONS

If a player goes all in by pushing all his chips in and says nothing...

Is it other players' responsibility to figure out he's all in on their own or should the dealer be pointing that out?

That is really the question that comes to me when considering using the buttons. I think the majority of people here will say the dealer should stay out of it unless asked. What are everyone's opinion on that?

I will say I think the dealer should announce all in every time a player bets all their chips. It just creates less problems and speeds things up. I'm likely in the minority but if every dealer did it the same way it wouldn't be an issue. I understand the arguments against it but I just don't think that being able to be sneaky about going all in is a good thing for the game.

Does this need its own thread?

Announce it and toss them the button.

The only reason that the player itt didn't realize his opponent was all-in was because he had ear buds on, otherwise, I think the % of players who wouldnt realize that someone had just push all-in is really low.

Maybe in the super high nl games you should remain quiet, but what are you talking about here, $1/2 and $2/5? Please. Allow everyone a fair shake at not being angled or having to call the Floor for Gross Misunderstanding etc.. Jmo

He *did* have a fair shake. He had just as much opportunity to pay full attention to the hand as anyone else, but he chose to handicap himself by wearing the ear buds. That's all on him. Procedures shouldn't be created to accommodate players who voluntarily inhibit their senses.

And if you read my first resonse, you will know that I fully agree with you.

But, that said, implementing the ALL IN buttons is still a good idea in these games because you're basically just trying to avoid this type of messy stuff from occuring, is all. Look, there's a lot of old people who play in these low stakes nl games and there are a lot of newbies; you wanting to be a hard nose on this matter where it makes you so against using the buttons is a bit harsh regarding to the type of player who's playing in these games. Tossing the button is good for everyone, not just Joe cool w/his earbuds.

*shrug*

Own thread would probably be good, but my quick view: dealer should be pointing it out. It's something that can cause different rules to occur later in the hand (ie: whether or not a player can raise, what a legal raise is to, whether or not that players bet is a legal raise, etc.)