Cash Game “Whatever you bet, I’m gonna call” Conditional Statement? (1 Viewer)

[upNdown]

This came up on Bart’s podcast recently. In a casino cash game, drunk guy first to act checks the river, and announces “whatever you bet, I’m gonna call.” His opponent goes all in. Drunk guy tables his hand, mumbling about what he flopped, but without actually calling or putting in any chips. His opponent tables the winning hand, and expects his all-in bet to be paid off.
Floor rules that drunk guy made a “conditional statement” and thus he was obligated to call. Apparently Mohegan Sun has a rule that if a condition statement is made, the floor can make the judgement call that the statement was binding.
Thoughts?
I guess my thought is, if that’s Mohegan’s posted rule, then fine, that’s their rule. I’m not sure it’s a good rule, but in an “eff around and find out” kind of way, I don’t hate it.

But has anybody seen a rule or ruling like that before?

 

[demonnic]

I saw that video and I'm a bit conflicted about it. I mean, their house their rules and all that but it doesn't really feel like a good rule. Definitely an element of FAFO involved though.

 

[jpietrella]

Something similar actually happened to me at Encore, somewhat recently. The guy wasn't drunk but made the same statement to me on the river card where I boated up with Queens full. I shoved, he tables his hand, I tabled my hand and asked the dealer "that was a conditional statement correct? He's committed to call?"

They called the floor, talked it over and made him put his chips in for the call. I don't know if it's a posted rule there but that's how they ruled it in that instance.

 

[jpietrella]

Something similar actually happened to me at Encore, somewhat recently. The guy wasn't drunk but made the same statement to me on the river card where I boated up with Queens full. I shoved, he tables his hand, I tabled my hand and asked the dealer "that was a conditional statement correct? He's committed to call?"

They called the floor, talked it over and made him put his chips in for the call. I don't know if it's a posted rule there but that's how they ruled it in that instance.

And I should clarify if it was a friendly game or a friendly player, I probably wouldn't have prompted the dealer. This guy was a total c*nt though, so I pressed the FAFO button as hard as I could.

 

[TheYeti]

Can't agree with the ruling, but house rules is house rules I guess.

In my home game and any casino I've played in, verbal declarations in turn are binding. I would have ruled this as "out of turn" and hence not binding.

 

[Omar65]

Hmmm.....I could see that statement being made in my game. I was not sure how I would rule on it if it did but after thinking it through and talking with a poker friend of mine, I think its the right ruling. Verbal statements are binding makes it make sense, but I had to convince myself that this would still hold true even if the action to you had not yet occurred. I think I got to that point thinking about a scenario where someone says "check" out of turn, or checks blind, then when the action actually gets to them, they bet, or try to bet after actually looking at their cards.

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

This came up on Bart’s podcast recently. In a casino cash game, drunk guy first to act checks the river, and announces “whatever you bet, I’m gonna call.” His opponent goes all in. Drunk guy tables his hand, mumbling about what he flopped, but without actually calling or putting in any chips. His opponent tables the winning hand, and expects his all-in bet to be paid off.
Floor rules that drunk guy made a “conditional statement” and thus he was obligated to call. Apparently Mohegan Sun has a rule that if a condition statement is made, the floor can make the judgement call that the statement was binding.
Thoughts?
I guess my thought is, if that’s Mohegan’s posted rule, then fine, that’s their rule. I’m not sure it’s a good rule, but in an “eff around and find out” kind of way, I don’t hate it.

But has anybody seen a rule or ruling like that before?

I've had to rule on this at my game a few times. As it turns out, drunk bastards do stupid drunk bastard shit and need to be reigned in.

I use WSOP rules (see rule below). I give a player 1 warning, and then drop the hammer after that making them follow through on their conditional bet.

WSOP Rule

61. Conditional statements regarding future action are non-standard and strongly discouraged; they may be binding and/or subject to penalty at Tournament Director’s discretion in accordance with Rules 40, 113, and 114. Example: “if – then” statements such as “If you bet, then I will raise.”

Rules 40, 113, and 114 discuss the integrity of the game and potential penalties.

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

I've had to rule on this at my game a few times. As it turns out, drunk bastards do stupid drunk bastard shit and need to be reigned in.

I use WSOP rules (see rule below). I give a player 1 warning, and then drop the hammer after that making them follow through on their conditional bet.

WSOP Rule

61. Conditional statements regarding future action are non-standard and strongly discouraged; they may be binding and/or subject to penalty at Tournament Director’s discretion in accordance with Rules 40, 113, and 114. Example: “if – then” statements such as “If you bet, then I will raise.”

Rules 40, 113, and 114 discuss the integrity of the game and potential penalties.

There is a noteworthy caveat that sometimes saves the drunk fools. If the action changes before it's the drunk fool's turn to act, he's off the hook. It's treated the same as acting out of turn.

 

[buzzmonkey]

I would not rule it a call in my game because the action was not on the commenting player, but I would discourage that behavior and make sure the other player was aware in the future.

 

[Josh Kifer]

Can't agree with the ruling, but house rules is house rules I guess.

In my home game and any casino I've played in, verbal declarations in turn are binding. I would have ruled this as "out of turn" and hence not binding.

Agreed. Not your turn, not binding. At least at our table.

 

[acezag]

The statement + flipping his cards after hero shows his is very standard angle shooting behavior, regardless of how much he's drunk.
If he shows a winner in that scenario, he's 100% trying to rake the pot.

The floor ruling is great - angle shooters are scammers.

 

[joeyshin]

Knowing that different casinos or house rules may differ if I jammed and somebody table their hand, then I would ask “did you call?” before o table mine

 

[allforcharity]

I would like to say that the conditional statement made out of turn is not binding....

But....

It could be used as an angle shoot, so I would punish the angle shooter by making it binding.

Depends on how mean I want to be, I suppose.

 

[fishandchips]

Have not watched the video, but I'm inclined to stick with out of turn actions are not binding (except for checks).

Maybe I just don't see the harm in the verbal antics (only heads up of course).

 

[merkong]

Can't agree with the ruling, but house rules is house rules I guess.

In my home game and any casino I've played in, verbal declarations in turn are binding. I would have ruled this as "out of turn" and hence not binding.

That was my first thought; not your turn so anything you say, while it might be angling, isn't necessarily binding. I would though rule more directly and ongoingly if it happened more than once.

 

[Omar65]

Have not watched the video, but I'm inclined to stick with out of turn actions are not binding (except for checks).

Maybe I just don't see the harm in the verbal antics (only heads up of course).

So then if a player, out of turn, announces "all-in" and the subsequent action gets to that player with no change in action, that player can check or bet less than all-in?

 

[fishandchips]

So then if a player, out of turn, announces "all-in" and the subsequent action gets to that player with no change in action, that player can check or bet less than all-in?

hmm, it's early I didn't really think that through. And it's not even the thread subject, so my bad for the aside. PS. I did look for the delete button after I posted but couldn't find one.

 

[Omar65]

hmm, it's early I didn't really think that through. And it's not even the thread subject, so my bad for the aside. PS. I did look for the delete button after I posted but couldn't find one.

Not arguing with you at all, and I think it is related to the thread subject, at least from the standpoint of trying to compare the scenario to others that we as players might be more familiar with. It's a grey area and I can definitely see something like that happening in my game so I'm just trying to get clear how I will handle it. I appreciate the different points of view on the subject!

 

[BGinGA]

I'm with @Seeking Alpha Social Club, using wriiten home rules that conform to RROP/TDA/WSOP. Conditional actions may be considered binding, so use them at your own peril. Same goes for "If you fold, I will show" stuff.

Don't mean it? Don't say it.

 

[surfik]

In tournament I would say depend on house rules
in cash I consider that just trash talk (if there are only twou players in the hand) so no binding, if more than two players are involved and he speaks out of turn he should get some form of penalty

 

[jayfiggy]

Whether action is on a player or not, verbal is binding. Same with out-of-turn bets, unless a aggressive action is taken before. (In my game)

In my mind I feel that a player saying this could influence action to his favor, misleading the player who action is on.

So if button says to small blind on the river: I am calling ANYTHING, then SB jams. button has a much easier fold than if SB put in a 2/3 or 1/2 pot bet, IF his verbal was not binding.

Basically I feel that if verbal is not binding, players can continually use it to angle. Which will then lead to complicated situations that people may take the wrong way. Completely stops that when all verbal is binding.

It’s pretty simple to avoid. Don’t say shit about action unless the action is on you. Or you have the nuts and are trying to get some speech play in.

 

[ekricket]

I’ve played in European casinos that make out of turn action binding. In other words

8 players at the table. Button is in #1, action is on #2. Player #6 pushes or announces $200 over the betting line out of turn.

Player #2 must either call that - because the bet stands - or fold. When it gets to player #6, he can’t raise since he already bet.


Whacky and crazy and full of angles but it’s the truth.

 

[Machine]

All I'm saying is, if this is a thing, then 'Half-Pot' should be binding as well!

 

[4SUMERZ]

I would like to say that the conditional statement made out of turn is not binding....

But....

It could be used as an angle shoot, so I would punish the angle shooter by making it binding.

Depends on how mean I want to be, I suppose.

if they were head to head prior to the river, would it be binding or not, especially if he was the last to act?

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

This is the WSOP Rule that covers in and out of turn bets.

90. Methods of Betting: Verbal and Chips

a. Bets are by verbal declaration and/or pushing out chips. If a player does both, whichever is first defines the bet. If
simultaneous, a clear and reasonable verbal declaration takes precedence, otherwise the chips play. In unclear
situations or where verbal and chips are contradictory, the TD will determine the bet based on the circumstances
and Rule 56.

d. Verbal Declarations / Action in Turn: Verbal declarations in turn regarding wagers are binding. Participants must
always act in turn. Action out of turn will be binding if the action to that Participant has not changed. A check, call or fold is not considered action changing. If a Participant acts out of turn and the action changes, the person who acted out of turn may change their action by calling, raising or folding and may have their chips returned. Participants may not intentionally act out of turn to influence play before them and may incur a penalty in accordance with Rules 40, 113, and 114.

 

[Gavin]

I’ve played in European casinos that make out of turn action binding. In other words

8 players at the table. Button is in #1, action is on #2. Player #6 pushes or announces $200 over the betting line out of turn.

Player #2 must either call that - because the bet stands - or fold. When it gets to player #6, he can’t raise since he already bet.


Whacky and crazy and full of angles but it’s the truth.

OK, question with this example...

Player #2 is supposed to have first action, so #2 still has 3 options with #6's out-of-turn betting:

1. Check, or...
2. Bet somewhere between the minimum and $200, or...
3. Bet something more than $200 - correct?

If so, then if option 3 is chosen, then #6 can fold, call or raise.
If options 1 or 2 are chosen, then #6 must keep his $200 bet out there, which is now either a raise or a call - correct?

I ask this as if I'm #2 with the nuts - then I'm betting $100, let #6 bet his $200 (which is a raise), and then I'd reraise when it gets back to me. Correct?

Just wondering...

Oh! And another question just pop into my head - what if #2 bets $150? #6's $200 out-of-turn bet does not qualify as a true raise... is #6 required to post $300?

 

[Taghkanic]

In my home game and any casino I've played in, verbal declarations in turn are binding. I would have ruled this as "out of turn" and hence not binding.

Huh. As a host I would actually be more focused on out-of-turn declarations. More opportunity to angle with those.

Scenario 1: Villain checks then says out of turn “whatever you’re going to bet I’m gonna call.” Other player checks back because of this threat. Villain has angled to gain an advantage (not having to decide whether to call).

Scenario 2: Player bets because he expects to get called and paid off. Villain renegs and exploitatively folds, having angled to find out how strong the other player was.


If the villain making such a statement only has to call with the nuts, then they are freerolling.

In any case, verbal declarations in turn are plainly binding so I don’t know what there is to discuss there.

 

[LotsOfChips]

If you want to punish angle shooters, post a rule that says any conditional statements (in or out of turn) will automatically kill the hand of the person making the statement. I'm guessing that they will only do it once...

 

[Budha]

So, if after making the declaration, the other player goes all in, by showing their hand instead of just folding, isn’t the declare’r reinforcing their previous declaration to call anything .?

Ugh, that was hard to keep straight in my head - lol.

 

[Dbxela]

Huh. As a host I would actually be more focused on out-of-turn declarations. More opportunity to angle with those.

Scenario 1: Villain checks then says out of turn “whatever you’re going to bet I’m gonna call.” Other player checks back because of this threat. Villain has angled to gain an advantage (not having to decide whether to call).

Scenario 2: Player bets because he expects to get called and paid off. Villain renegs and exploitatively folds, having angled to find out how strong the other player was.


If the villain making such a statement only has to call with the nuts, then they are freerolling.

In any case, verbal declarations in turn are plainly binding so I don’t know what there is to discuss there.

As long as the rules are clear neither of these are angles. As others said above, house rules are house rules etc. There's no place in poker for an assumption people should be honest about their game plan, the goal is to misrepresent it.

I'd just approach it from a policy POV for home games. I want clarity and I want banter; this type of between-action-chat is what the game should be all about.

Here's my ruling:
- out of turn action is binding if the action ($ bet size to play) doesn't change
- the conditional part of the statement is not a poker action, it's just hot air

Now we have a clear corollary that conditional statements can only be binding on checks, and we never run into a tricky ruling situation as far as I can see.

IP: "(If you check) I bet $n" - binding after a check, not after a bet
IP or OOP: "(If you bet) I call" - villain bets changing the action, out of turn statement not binding, if villain checks, call is not valid, so not binding.