I saw a similar situation on 2+2 forum but there is a difference in this scenario.....

This is a loose, as in rules, recreational friendly home game playing Texas hold em tourney style on a point system for final game chip stacks. After a year of playing this is the championship game with $2000 at stake.

The game has frequent string bets, players throwing chips in finding out there was a raise and then announces fold and pulling chips back, saying raise only to find out that a raise has already been put in and are allowed to call, etc., etc. To say the least, the home game is loose in the rules department and everyone is fine with it.......until this happens.

The question.....on the flop 1st to act checks, last to act makes big bet. 1st to act check raises; grabs all his chips, reaches to center of table, places chips on felt in the pot and says call at the same time the chips hit the table (possibly says call a millisecond after chips leave hand). Player not in hand stops game and says its not an all in, rather its a call.

1st to act states his intent was obviously to go all in, hence grabbing all of his chips (amount way over a call) and placing them in the center of the table but admits he made mistake in saying call. Last to act wants to see turn card for free saying it was a call. 1st to act says chips went past hole cards, past line, and into pot prior to verbal. Verbal call made as the chips hit the felt; therefore, chips were committed to the pot the moment they went past the line and into pot before anything was said.

1st to act also brings up the issue that the rules are loosely followed and it is obvious to all that the all in reraise was the intent. If the situation was reversed and the 1st to act wanted to only call after going all in it would be an angle shoot and not be allowed.

The majority agrees that the intent was to go all in because the chips had already made it into the pot and it should be honored. The verbal either happened at the same time chips hit table or a second after. Last to act has some choice words and throws cards (literally) for the fold.

10 minutes later Google search for commerce casino tourney rules says if a push and a verbal are simultaneous the verbal is honored. A few argue that the chips were not being pushed because they were already in pot. Last to act disagrees.

Thoughts?

If you do not closely follow the rules, then you have to go by intent. If everyone agrees his intent was all-in, and he clarified this before the other player acted, he should be allowed to go all in.

In a casino, it would depend on the room rules. If these was a betting line or a forward motion rule, then it would be a clear all in. In the case where the bet was only what you dropped in the middle, the fact that the action and the verbal was simultaneous, most dealers will either ask for clarification, or honor the verbal.

In the situation you described above, given that other rules have been loosely applied, I would say that this was an all-in. Last to act is somewhat shooting an angle by trying to get a free card when the clear intent was to shove.

Intent is subjective and should be avoided as a consideration

Ruling it as all-in was correct. The way the player put (all) his chips into the pot makes it seem obvious it was his intention to raise and was not an angle. Also important is that his bet should be viewed as having been made before his verbal miscue slightly muddled things. Factors suggesting this ruling was wrong would be

Accidentally dropping chips when it was not clear which action he would make, in which case the verbal could reasonable be treated as more important
And this would most likely combined with a habit of holding varying amounts of chips over the felt regardless of final action

KITN all round. Saying "call" when meaning to go all in gets a double KITN. More KITNs for playing so loose with the rules with $2k at stake.

You're playing in a game where there are no written rules. Everything is done by majority vote. Therefore, whatever the majority thought was right is right.

If you were following Robert's Rules of Poker, it would be a call because a verbal statement in turn takes precedence over a different physical action.

I agree in most cases, but in a home game where intent or loose interpretation of the rules is the standard, it is inappropriate to suddenly go straight RROP or TDA with no leeway. Better for them would be to start adopting stricter tournament rules so the game can be clean. In lieu of that, if intent is the standard(which it appears to be), you have to apply it consistently.

I see this sort of thing often. I even see it in casinos too. Someone grabs a stack of chips, reaches forward, starts to set them down and says "call". Then counts out the needed chips to call.

It is room dependent. Some rooms say the forward motion of the chips is binding. Others allow for it to be a call and the pulling back of chips if you have not released them. It often depends on what stakes are played in the room.

At a loose home game I would allow for the call to stand.

1) You state '1st to act check raises' when in fact he has done nothing but picked up all his chips and moved them. In a game this 'loose' with the rules I would consider this to be nothing but the start of an unknown action.

2) You can't place chips 'on the flelt' and 'into the pot' at the same time since the pot is 'on the felt' blocking the chips from getting there. (I know this is technical, but at a home game every 'fact' counts) You may simply mean on the felt 'in the betting area' as being the same as 'in the pot' for your purposes.

3) Mainly ... in a game where you can string bet and take chips back 'if you screw up and don't like the previous action' I would have to lean towards a call here. But I also think there is plenty of room for this to go both ways. You don't really explain (nor do we really want the lengthy post) if any of the other 'follies' also come with verbal declarations involved. I think this would be pretty important since you can only really go off of previous situations when looking at this one. GL

I rule this a call, due to a presumption that the ruling goes against the person who's ****ed up, especially since the other player has kinda revealed the strength of his hand. However, in a game where nobody follows the rules (does a straight beat a flush in this game?), just do whatever, nobody has any real cause for complaint.