Preflop, lots of limpers, action gets to cutoff, a talkative, little bit drunk player. He thinks a litte, and another, impatient player says "are you going to call?" Hijack says "hell no, I'm not going to call". Thinks a little more, and then calls.

One player objected, saying his verbal was binding. Dealer said it's not binding because he never actually declared the action that he WAS doing. So it was was table talk rather than declared action. IOW the dealer felt that saying that you are NOT doing something is not the same as declaring you ARE doing something and therefore is not binding.

So what do you think? Is a declaration excluding an action binding or is it not binding because he never actually declared the action he was taking.

BTW, the objecting player didnt make a big deal of it so floor was never called and play just continued.

What if he said "I'm not going to fold." Would he be forced to at least call a bet?

Well, according to the objecting player, yes. I side with the dealers interpretation. I think the verbal is binding rule is a proactive one, where if you verbally declare the action you are going to do, its the same as doing it physically. But I dont think a declaration of a nonaction is binding. But I could see how some could think it should be, so that's why I asked ITT.

If he's not calling, he's either folding or raising. Which one are we going to force him to do?

A lot of the time it's going to depend on whether your action caused another player after you to act on your announcement. If another player acted quickly before his cards were gone or announced quickly all in after that was said etc and pushed all in. (that can happen) THEN imo the ruling should be different. He should be forced to keep to the action.

If no one acted after and he changed his mind. It hasn't affected play.

If no one has acted after ....he can do whatever

so if he says "I'm not going to call, fold or raise" do we break the table?

So if you say “I’ll get another beer” and the next player acts out of turn because of that, are we gonna hold you to an action? If so, which one? Besides having to drink another beer.

As long as it is at most two people who acted or he actively tried to stop the action then he can do what he wants. Them acting out of turn does not remove his option. And since he has not acted they are acting out of turn.

But as I read this action was not yet on the speaker do the whole table behind him could act and it means nothing. You can’t lose your right to act until action is on you.

The rule you are thinking of is he is bound to his action even if misunderstood once there is action behind jus action. But what he said is not acting. What action would you bind him to? Fold or raise?

First of all, I am not sure if it matters that it was in response to a direct question. I am of the opinion that when someone is trying to get information from you with inappropriate questions, you should be free to answer however you want, but I know that opinion is not really supported by the rules.

In this case, it seems like this should be treated as action out of turn. It should be binding if action does not change to him. However 'I am not calling' is not a legitimate declaration of action, so I don't think there is anything to bind him to. Since you can't bind him to action, I don't think there are any provisions to bind him from actions. So I don't see a way this is anything but inactionable tabletalk. Maybe the guy who asked the question and the guy who answered both get a warning, but shouldn't be more than that.

This happens all the time and the ruling is usually very vague. Rarely will they be forced to fold if they say they are going to fold out of turn.

Also let the drunk player splash around and say what ever he wants when it's not on him - he will most likely donate any ways.

Stop ruining good games with this garbage.

It's the same type of people who refuse to straddle when the rest of the table is straddling. Just roll with it, and try and make the game enjoyable.

The only way this is binding is if you make the player call because he said "(something something something) call." And even then, the player would have to be known for a pattern of angle shooting before it would ever become an issue.

"I'm not going to" does not contain any words that have meaning during a hand of poker.

Spots like this can be tricky since action is on the 'offending' Player and the statement although not 'defining' is suggestive.

I think the best way to handle this particular spot would be for the Dealer to warn both Players that they can't talk and influence action and then 'remind' the Player that action is still on him.

Even if someone does act behind .. and I wouldn't blame them .. I would back action up and allow all options.

I would make more of the issue if this Player just started on his own, without being goaded, making statements that could influence a physical reaction or actual OOT action. Tough spot for Dealers since they get thrust into the interpretation business. GL

Sounds like someone had KK cracked.

Verbal is binding to what you're going to do. Verbal is not binding to what you're not going to do. Especially when someone is trying to drink and have fun playing poker in a live cash game. Rules nits can go cram.

Dealer was right.

Exactly.

If you know enough poker to know that this might be slightly afoul of the rules you should damn well know enough poker to have fun and encourage this kind of environment at your local table whenever possible.

Rule 0, which comes ahead of all other rules, is to have fun and grow the game.

One way to look at it would be to consider his words if action had been on him. Let's say a player is tanking, and says out loud 'I'm not going to call', then thinks for a second, and announces 'call'. Would the first declaration be binding? Considering that he is not declaring a valid action, I don't think it could be, though some floors might rule it binding just to prevent angling (using ambiguous, null meaning declarations to try and elicit a response or, worse, make it appear that you have acted when you haven't).

Generally not binding, but in a heads up situation, with action on the player, it could situationally be treated as binding by floor.

this is not even close to binding. It is just drunk table talk to piss off the impatient player.

a scenario where I would consider it binding is when a player is facing a large bet in a heads up situation and he says to his opponent, "if you show me a card, I am not going to call". THAT would be binding.

Why would that make it different?

I think most rooms rule conditional statements non-binding, though a floor may easily rule it binding if the player is known to use this angle.

To those who are claiming it is or can be binding. What do you bind him to? Even if you remove the option to call he can still bet or raise in addition to folding. If there are multiple options I don’t see a means to bind him to the verbal non action words. So imo all options must remain or no options.