I don't know the answer to that. The Caller couldn't have been the winner in this OP. And to the extent that the Bettor/Pro knew that, it makes a difference as to how he acted.

I think there was a good chance that the Pro understood that the Reg thought the bet was $100. And he saw a way to capitalize on that. It was a no lose situation. Once he flips his hand up he is going to win $100 no matter what. But probably the reg will be held to all $600 because he said "I call".

I tend to agree that player B should lose his stack. But, I would like to play devils advocate because I'm not 100% sold on it.

Do we make the same ruling if player B legit does not hear player A and is not wearing headphones?

There needs to be a rule in poker rooms that regardless of the verbal bet size, if you put an amount of chips in the pot then that can be considered the bet. Because in rooms where they do not have all in buttons (duh just get all in buttons, how can you not have a button that will denote a bet size in Big Bet games where you allow people to put out less chips than they are actually betting) you are always opening up a possibility of a "gross misunderstanding of the bet size" and someone is going to feel like they got screwed over, regardless of the floors ruling. I really am sick of seeing people doing this $1 chip call on a $75 bet, or an all in bet and a part of the bet placed in the middle, (which I understand is for camera purposes and such) but it leaves the possibility for very ambiguous actions.

I don't know why poker rooms make the game more difficult than it needs to be. Use all in buttons, make players put in the proper bet, or only verbalize it. You don't see people betting less than all in and sliding out less chips than the bet, so why should you do it for an all in?


yeah i grunched all this BTW. pretty much repeated everything that was said already. carry on

the dealer 100% should say the player is all in. It is not a violation of OPTAH in any way, and whoever said you want to trick the others to not know you are all in for $67 is totally in the wrong here. Your stack should be in plain sight for all to see.

Dealers will verbalize a $135 bet, so why would it be different on a bet that happens to be an all in. Don't want the other players to know you're all in, then have a bigger stack so you are not all in. That excuse is absurd and basically an angle shoot.

While I agree it is a possibility that Bettor knew that Caller did not think it was an All-IN bet at the time that the Caller made his call. I see no reason to assume that. Without knowledge of the actual player I tend to doubt that he is thinking in these terms simply because my experience is most people do not. Even if they are slimy scum trying to get an advantage they think in far more simplistic ways.

The "IMO" that followed my doofus statement means "in my opinion" on the internet.

I'm not 100% sure what the last part of what you wrote means, but I may agree with you.

Unfortunately, in this room putting in chips less than the bet does not constitute a call of the the full bet.

We had actually talked at the table this happened at earlier in the evening about this rule, so it's possible the "pro" thought this room would be easy to angleshoot in.

My primary point was that how you or I or the floor feel about B or why or what caused B to have the gross misunderstanding does not matter. Once it is decided there is a gross misunderstanding then allowing reconsideration becomes a real possibility. B could be an angel or the devil incarnate and that really should not matter.

Also almost everyone assumes the ear bud were the cause on Bs part. We do not know that. Was there anything playing? It is convenient to blame the buds but we really don't know if their presence had any part of the issue. It seems likely bit it is still an assumption.

Player A gets Player B's whole stack. Otherwise Player B would be free rolling Player A. IF Player B did end up having a better hand, Player A would have to push in his entire stack. Im highly doubtful that Player B would say, I thought it was only 100 river bet and take only 100. The dealer and the table would expect Player A to put in the all of his chips.

If this were the case(he was angling) then he would be intentionally trying to only get 100 since you say he was told putting in less than a full call doesn't force you to call the full amount.

I think if he was indeed angling, he was trying to get B's whole stack by making him think it was only 100 to call.

Were you at the table when this hand happened? Or was it during your "break".

My local room actually requests players to move some amount of chips forward when declaring an all in bet. The wsop circuit also does this. It's to show that a bet has been made.

I don't think it's fair to suspect player A of angling when he's doing something that many places require. I typically do not move or say anything during a hand unless absolutely necessary. Forcing a player to go back to his stack and move each $100 stack forward seems unnecessary when he clearly has player B covered. He announced all in, the table heard it, the dealer repeated it, he wins the full amount.

If player A had been bluffing he would have to pay the full amount. Player B would have said something like "oh? I thought it was only $100 haha" while pushing his stack out for a count on the double up. That's not fair to player A. Ear buds or player B's perception do not change the action.

So what was the final ruling?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that he was trying to angle in that particular way, just that he might think it would be easy to pull off an angleshot in general. I don't think this is the case though, he seemed very well behaved.

I was away from the table keeping the casino open when this happened

You're welcome.

It should be the regs responsibility to know what he is calling. You can't just assume the bet is $100 because you see a stack of $100. Clarify the action if you are unsure and don't just say call.

Once he says call and tables his hand, if I'm pro I would table my hand as well. If you hold your hand and say something about the all it, it would be obvious that you have a winning hand and thus provides him a chance to try and angle you if that's not what he's doing to begin with. Your responsibility to know the action!!!!

Don't blame the guy for saying all in and only putting out a stack if there isn't a rule that says you must put all your chips in. Like was already stated in this thread often times dealers will tell you not to push them forward and to wait after the hand is over.

Unfortunate situation if the guy really didn't hear/know it was an all in bet but it's not the other guys fault and he should be awarded the pot.

Good ruling IMO.

I cannot disagree with this strongly enough. Of course you can, and should, believe the bet is $100 if you see a stack of $100 put into the betting area by an opponent, and then his hands come to rest and the action is now on you.

If you're implying that you must clarify any bet where you've seen an opponent put out a stack of chips, then you'll be clarifying every single bet made non-verbally. That is ridiculous.

It is completely nonsensical to believe that an all-in is some magical bet, the only one where the player is allowed to put in an amount different than what he verbally bet. I have no idea how that practice got started, let alone encouraged, but it is terrible, and should stop with as much prejudice as is humanly possible. Is is that terrible a policy, IMO.

aren't you a parx reg? that is SOP there. they don't have all-in buttons

It doesn't have to be all-in. If a player bets a large amount verbally on the river they move less than that amount.

But of course there are cues that would tell a player that they should clarify the amount of the bet. The most obvious is the VERBAL ANNOUNCEMENT by the bettor. Followed by the VERBAL ANNOUNCEMENT of the Dealer. And of course if you can't hear those you would likely have seen the Bettor's mouth moving when he made his verbal announcement and that should put you on notice that something was said and therefore you should clarify the bet.

While I do not think a player should have to move all his chips in the case of a big bet I would prefer that they not move any and rely on the verbal declaration. Some years ago I started running into dealers insisting that you move some chips "For the cameras." of course this makes no sense but it became very common place.

Yes. In fact, I disagree with the "policy"/SOP. That is at least part of the reason I posted in this thread.

I find it deeply counter-intuitive. It solves a minor problem (game slows down because "I didn't realize he had acted") by creating the potential for a major one (having a floor make a decision to take someone's entire stack when clearly he did not intend to risk it). And it just fundamentally makes no poker sense, historically or on its own, given that poker is a visual game (too).

What if effective stacks are 2000, and I want to bet 800. Am I allowed to verbalize 800, then slide out 100? If not, what is the difference?

[And at the risk of getting lambasted by someone for having an opinion about a game I don't play, I'm primarily a limit player, so this sort of issue will rarely ever impact me, and I almost never see it at my table, which is at least one reason why I don't have a crusade at Parx to change it.]

I'm not sure I get the point you're making, but I think you mean that it's not just an all-in bet, he could also just verbalize a bet which effectively covers his remaining opponents.

In which case - yes, I understand, and still think this SOP is ridiculous, too. With effective stacks of 500, I bet 600, and slide out a stack of 100? Why on earth would anyone think that is a good idea?

I agree there are verbal cues. I'm saying, and have said, that if you take an action that is ambiguous (verbalize one amount but slide out a different amount), you run the risk of causing a problem at the table, and IMO you should be the one to bear the brunt of any irregularity that results. The floor of course has discretion if there are other weird issues that also come into play.

Some might argue that wearing headphones is one such mitigating factor. I don't agree, or at least think it's a much smaller issue, and puts a much smaller amount of blame on the calling player than creating the ambiguous action does on the bettor.

Finally, we agree that it would be far better for the bettor to slide out no chips than to slide out a stack of chips far below the amount verbalized in the bet. The fact that the latter has become commonplace and SOP is exactly what I am fighting against here, so it's safe to say that I understand this is the case, and wish for it to change.

There aren't verbal cues. There is a verbal action.

Verbal is binding.

The only out here for the caller is gross misunderstanding - and frankly I don't think such courtesy should be granted when the misunderstanding is caused by the fact that the player is tuning out a key component of the game - the verbal aspect.

The misunderstanding is caused by the bettor putting out a physical amount (vastly) different than the verbalized amount. It is just not prevented from turning into a floor call because the caller wasn't paying attention.

As is often the case in these headphone scenarios, you can alter the OP to one where no one is wearing headphones, and the caller just misses the verbal action because who knows. now what?

i'm really just playing devil's advocate because i agree with you. the only thing that makes sense about the bettor putting out a stack is so if the other guy snap calls the bettor can;t deny having made a bet. but that's such an usual thing to have happen and i've never seen it

How are you so sure headphone guy isn't shooting the angle?

He thinks his 2 pair might be good but he might be able to only pay 100 if he's beat.

The guy who is maybe blocking out all sound or maybe can hear fine and is
using it to angleshoot... doesn't deserve to get the rules bent to protect him.

But the real isn't getting bent. The rule is very clear, it never mentions "maybe blocking out all sound", and in fact it doesn't contain the word "maybe" at all.

A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation.

That just opens it up for the Reg to angle us when we say "put the rest of the money in the pot". At that point he realizes he is beat and says "i just called the $100" thus angle shooting us, intentionally or not. If I'm betting and I hear someone say "call" what else do I need to hear or do? He said call, not fold, not whats the bet, not check, not hi, HE SAID CALL!!!!

WE SAID ALL IN.
DEALER CONFIRMED ALL IN AND SAID "PLAYER IS ALL IN"
VILLAIN SAYS CALL.

How can you do anything but award him the pot. If there is a "gross misunderstanding" it is V's fault because he had head phones in. How did he even know what the bet what if he didn't hear the dealer? He just looked up, saw a stack of reds and called? Sorry you didn't pay attention but you owe the full amount.

Suit...since you warned the pro about going all in and only sticking a stack in, did you warn the reg about verbal actions while playing with head phones? Are you going to make a house rule that says if all in you have to put all chips in pot?

I have a third alternative that I think might be a good solution.

Bettor says, "all-in" and throws a $1 chip out. This is sure to get a potential caller's attention because $1 is not even a legal bet, never mind a reasonable one. It's perfectly clear that he's facing a bet, and also that the bet size is different from the amount of chips that have actually been put in the pot.