Interested to hear some views on this:

http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/ukipt/...-b-094549.html

8.20pm: Floor! Table 19
A little bit of controversy here in Dublin. There had been one limper to Domonic Cugudda before he moved all-in for around 8,500. It then passed to the small blind who said 'call' and then almost immediately put out the 300 chips to make up the big blind, having obviously missed Cugudda's all-in.

The floor was called and made what I believe falls under the banner of 'common sense rulings', in that he surmised, from the information given, that it was obviously the small blinds intention to just call and therefore he had the option to either surrender his 600 or call the all-in. He opted for the former and everyone else folded too.

It was obvious that Cugudda did not agree with this ruling he said: "He should be following the action, it's happened to me before. He said call and then put the chips in and yes fair enough he did only mean to call the big blind, but verbal decelerations are binding. I think it's a bull$@@% ruling." -- NW

=============

Personally I thought it was a poor decision but it caught my eye because in the same tournament last year, a girl declared "all-in" against me blind on blind without realizing that UTG had already jammed in seat one. Her bet was made to stand.

I'm not sure if the same floor made both decisions but should there be a distinction made between calling/raising/all-in in what is a very similar scenario?

The SB in this instance was allowed to change the amount of chips he put in the pot because his "intention" - not something I feel a TD can decide - was to only put 300 chips in, even though he said call when there was an 8,500 bet in front.

In the example I used, the girl's "intention" was I assume to go all-in heads-up with me because she thought she only needed to fold out one hand to win the pot. It was very obvious given her holding that she would not have gone all-in had she spotted that UTG had already shoved, but is this made to stand because her "intention" was to wager all of her chips?

Sorry if this is a bit long, I just felt it was a strange case and perhaps a bit of a grey area.

From Robert's Rules of Poker:

"Section Three - Subsection 'Betting and Raising' Rule 13. A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action and must make the amount of the wager correct. (This also applies right before the showdown when putting chips into the pot causes the opponent to show the winning hand before the full amount needed to call has been put into the pot.) However, if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you. At pot-limit or no-limit betting, if there is a gross misunderstanding concerning the amount of the wager, see Section 14, Rule 8."

In this situation, I will almost always give a first-timer the benefit of the doubt and let them take their money back, especially if the chips they put out is exactly the amount of a blind call. If they toss out an oversized chip that covers the raise, it's a trickier situation and I'll often fall on "verbal is binding."

If they repeat the behavior again in the same game/night then I'm less lenient, and if a regular customer tries to take advantage I'll have a chat with them about the rule that states you must pay attention at all times.

Notice the part of the rule I highlighted. While I think in this case we should apply the rule and let the player take back their call (assuming no action following) ..... this rule is applicable to a player who bets or calls by releasing chips intop the pot .... not to players who verbally call.

Correct, but I think that in NL, OP would fall under the last sentence of the RRoP paragraph above, which refers to this rule (in Sect. 14):

" Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action..."
This is the "Gross Misunderstanding" rule; I think it applies whether the action was physical or verbal. In my experience (at least in cash games), floors usually let someone take their bet back in this situation, as long as it appears that they were acting in good faith and as long as there hasn't been subsequent action ("damage"). So I think the floor's decision in this case was reasonable.

OP, you are comparing two vastly different scenarios.

Calling for $300T more is very different from announcing all in.

The gross misunderstanding rule applies in the first scenario and does not apply in the second scenario.

I think the players intention here was pretty clear, he wanted to call an additional $300T, not call an all in.

Even the all in player agreed that the SB was only trying to call the other half of the SB. Demanding the SB call the all in bet is pretty douchey IMO.

Actually, under the rule quoted by others here, the SB should have been allowed to take back the $300T.

Thanks for the replies guys.

I don't know whether it's douchey (I wasn't at the table btw, just read about it) but I just don't feel as though there should be such a disparity between calling and raising/going all-in.

I highlighted the example I was involved in last year because I feel as though one of the decisions has to be unfair and incorrect.

In the main example, as far as the SB is aware, action has folded to him and therefore his play in the hand from that point forward is going to take this information into consideration. This is exactly the same scenario as the girl faced in my example. The only difference is that one elected to call in what they thought was a blind-on-blind scenario (which they definitely would not have done had they been aware of the prior action) and the other elected to go all-in with their short stack (which they definitely would not have done had they been aware of the prior action).

FWIW the girl had 58o which is clearly not a hand she would re-shove with for 90% of her stack.

When both are entirely unaware of what has gone on before them, why should one move be punished and the other protected?

IMO both rulings have to be the same or it leaves an exploitable gap for angle-shooting.

If the SB in the main example was in a difficult spot he could conceivably call and then play dumb to the action to gauge a reaction from the original raiser (who in this case seemed to make it very clear that he wanted a call).

You're right, the girl in your other example should have been givn her chips back and allowed to re consider her action. Forcing her to leave her chips in when she was not aware of the first all in violated the "Gross misunderstanding" rule IMO.