Tourney "I'm gonna put you all in" (1 Viewer)

I see no need to clarify a statement that uses the words "all in" when the amount of that "all in" can clearly be determined.
I’m really sorry, I’m not trying to be an ass. But are you saying that when the original better said “I put you all in” that he is really saying HE is all in for all his chips because he said the words all in somewhere?

or if you are suggesting that because the amount of the victims stack can be determined?
So then bets like “ I bet 1/2 of Bills stack, plus 1/3 of seat threes stack, minus half the amount of the last pot” become legal? Because you can figure that out.
 
Relaxed home game or not, people need to learn how to make a proper bet. It can be embarrassing if they go play in a local casino tournament and get called out.
That's a fair point. But I think the point of the post was that the person saying "all in" wasn't doing it out of ignorance. They were trying to get information. If it's an honest mistake, I think it's pretty obvious from the reaction of the player.
 
I do not think that should be considered all in.
Let me quote two situations I have been unwilling spectator of...

First...Most expensive annual tournament freezout in local Warsaw casino. Tournament director, very respected guy is MIA away from the tables. Tournament should start at 1900 but despite room full of players everyone is away from the table at the bar, talking and drinking or smoking. Staff is siiting at the tables ready to deal but noone is sitting. Me and my friend sat at the table joined by well know recreational player in his mid 60s. Young girl dealt hands despite the fact that we are only 3 people at the table. I am holding AQ of hearts. Recreational player BB talks to very attractive dealer an says...I guess I should now go all in...My friend says CALL and pushes chips at the middle of table. I fold. Discussion starts between players and young unexerienced dealer. My friend position is that what elderly gentelman said stands as all in because it consist words All In, plus such a move is likely to scary eventual callers.
Dealer is confused but eventually agrees and All in stands. Elder gent reluctlantly pushes chips and his QT looses to AA of my friend.e His visibly frustrated and leaves......


Scecond ...very loose cash game, 4 handed, players know each other quite well. My friend ..call him Player A is a nice guy but at the poker table he is worst popssible combination of Tony G and Phill Helmuth characteristics, lus this day he is paticulary nasty, having beef with player B, also my friend.
Hand is dealt and Player B is on big blind. I have folded and when Betting goes tohim, player B says (showing me his hand), What should I do? Go all in?
Player A jumps in his chair and says "Call" Hell breaks loose.... As it was up to me to make a rule I decided that frase
What should I do? Go all in? is not binding....

So you need to be carefull what to say at the poker table but there must be room for social banter..otherwise we all should stay home and play on line

In first scenario I talked to the tournament director and he said that if he would be called by the Staff he would rule against all inn situation
 
I understand the casino ruling on this and if it were me I absolutely would ask the bettor “is that a bet?”. If it were at my house I would also ask the bettor to confirm, BUT if push came to shove and the caller acted I absolutely would hold the bettor to the “all in” because that was his intended message. I’m not letting someone benefit from an angle like that at my house.
 
Last edited:
I’m really sorry, I’m not trying to be an ass. But are you saying that when the original better said “I put you all in” that he is really saying HE is all in for all his chips because he said the words all in somewhere?

or if you are suggesting that because the amount of the victims stack can be determined?
So then bets like “ I bet 1/2 of Bills stack, plus 1/3 of seat threes stack, minus half the amount of the last pot” become legal? Because you can figure that out.
No worries. I'm not taking it personally. Yes, I'm saying in a heads up situation, if one player says "I'll put you all in" effectively that's an all in. Because regardless of the size of either player's stack, the most one player can lose is the size of their stack. If there are more than two players involved in the hand, then clarification is obviously needed.

Saying 1/2 or 1/3 of someone's stack, again, I see as completely different. I've never heard someone say that. "All in" has an obvious implication that you mean the entire stack, whatever the amount turns out to be.

I get that tournaments need rules. I just see this as a pretty obvious bet size.
 
If your the chip leader and first to act, can you say stuff like “I’m putting anyone who calls me all in” and it be a binding bet? Now you have a variable amount being bet to each person.
TDA changed their rules a few years regarding "conditional bets."

59: Conditional & Premature Declarations

A: Conditional statements of future action are non-standard and strongly discouraged. At TDs discretion they may be binding and/or penalized. Example: “if – then” statements such as "If you bet, I will raise.”
 
I’m really sorry, I’m not trying to be an ass. But are you saying that when the original better said “I put you all in” that he is really saying HE is all in for all his chips because he said the words all in somewhere?
I think you are putting form over substance. I think a reasonable interpretation of those words is equivalent to “all in.” Please provide a reasonable alternative meaning ... I can’t think of one.
 
I think you are putting form over substance. I think a reasonable interpretation of those words is equivalent to “all in.” Please provide a reasonable alternative meaning ... I can’t think of one.

I don’t have to at the table. It’s not up to me to interpret your Russian or pig Latin or Tennessee home game colloquialism - it’s up to you to make clear actions with clear amounts. And if you don’t, you can get penalized - read the OP, cause that’s exactly what happened. No matter one or ten players, you still have to follow the rules or confusion and hard feelings result - once again, read the OP cause that’s exactly what happened.
just saying “I’m all in” is even less words and this should be even easier for someone to say without the angle shoot implications.
 
Interesting points all around. We've had this exact situation arise (more than once), and whenever somebody says "I put you all-in", the meaning is clear, and the dealer responds with a) "you can't force another player to put chips into the pot, sir", and b) "the current bet size is xx chips (size of player B's stack). If a third player has a live hand and a larger stack, he can call, fold, or re-raise.
 
Interesting points all around. We've had this exact situation arise (more than once), and whenever somebody says "I put you all-in", the meaning is clear, and the dealer responds with a) "you can't force another player to put chips into the pot, sir", and b) "the current bet size is xx chips (size of player B's stack). If a third player has a live hand and a larger stack, he can call, fold, or re-raise.
I've also never heard someone say "I put you all in" when there are more than two players involved in the hand. Because which player would be the "you" in that statement? Sounds like in your game it's the next player to act.

Whatever the ruling, it seems very reasonable to force the initial player to make a raise at the very least (if no responding action has yet been made). And a call if their opponent acts on the "I put you all in" statement.
 
TDA changed their rules a few years regarding "conditional bets."

59: Conditional & Premature Declarations

A: Conditional statements of future action are non-standard and strongly discouraged. At TDs discretion they may be binding and/or penalized. Example: “if – then” statements such as "If you bet, I will raise.”
I’d love to see a situation where that was enforced. I can’t imagine why this rule was adopted.
 
I’d love to see a situation where that was enforced. I can’t imagine why this rule was adopted.
I mean, we’re talking about stuff like “if you bet, I’m jamming” right? Why would a TD want to enforce something like that. It kinda goes back to (what should be) rule 1 - never believe anything anybody says at a poker table. To me, it’s that simple.
 
That's a good example of waiting for chips to cross the betting line before acting. Depending on my mood, I may have told the guy to just try and touch my chips. It was tough lesson learned by the calling player. I think the smart ass should have had at least a 2 orbit penalty, though....IME newbies don't say that shit at the table in a casino.
 
Not in my house . . . . I see some "magic words" in that statement. No one should utter words like "call" "raise" or "all-in" without some concern for how they will be interpreted. The speaker's intention is clear. The bet is "all in".

The floor's ruling is an invitation to future trouble, both in this event and in every cash game & tournament spread in their building. Perhaps the ruling is consistent with house rules, but all that means is the house rules needs some work.
I'm with Dr. Strange on this.
 
That's a good example of waiting for chips to cross the betting line before acting. Depending on my mood, I may have told the guy to just try and touch my chips. It was tough lesson learned by the calling player. I think the smart ass should have had at least a 2 orbit penalty, though....IME newbies don't say that shit at the table in a casino.
So remember this was at the next table and I didn't witness the event, only some of the fallout. People were trying to say that he was a newbie and he didn't know any better (probably because he was the son of one of the better, more popular regs.) But its hard to put together a scenario where this was a well-intentioned mistake. If he really was a newb and didn't know any better, how would he have known he wasn't actually in, when he got snap-called?
I guess the only possibility is that if the dealer interfered after the snap-call to say "he hasn't acted yet." I suppose that's possible. Again, I don't know, and I wish I did. All I know is that when I was a newb, if I did that, I believe I would have said "yeah I meant to bet there" and taken the loss. But people of different characters react differently, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Floorman should be fired. Or at least disciplined. It's a bet, 1000% and he knows it. He's probably buddies with the guy. If that bullshit happened to me, the local gaming commission would have been called.
 
I'm surprised that we've heard from some very experienced people here - the people I'd like to hear from - and all we've really gotten is opinions. Isn't there a rule to be cited? Is this really an unresolved issue? My take on it is that it's generally accepted that "I'm going to put you all in" is not an actual bet. Clearly some people want to infer intention and make it so. Personally I don't think we can do that. I may have to spend some time reading rules.
 
I’m rather certain the rule is that “I’m going to put you all in” is not a valid action.
 
Last edited:
Apologies for the terrible youtube production on this video clip, but it's the only clip I could find on this particular scene.

Citing the Office (US version) Casino Night where Pam says "I'm going to take you all in." (she then puts out chips, which would make this irrefutably binding by all parties in this thread), but this is an example of TV telling people that it is a valid and appropriate thing to say in this situation. Shame shame.

 
I'm surprised that we've heard from some very experienced people here - the people I'd like to hear from - and all we've really gotten is opinions. Isn't there a rule to be cited? Is this really an unresolved issue? My take on it is that it's generally accepted that "I'm going to put you all in" is not an actual bet. Clearly some people want to infer intention and make it so. Personally I don't think we can do that. I may have to spend some time reading rules.

I haven't found a clear cut rule, closest is RROP on poker etiquette:

POKER ETIQUETTE
The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:
.....
"Making statements or taking action that could unfairly influence the course of play, whether or not the offender is involved in the pot"

Otherwise, you're piecing different sections together:

GLOSSARY
ACTION:
A fold, check, call, bet, or raise. For certain situations, doing something formally connected with the game that conveys information about your hand may also be considered as having taken action. Examples would be showing your cards at the end of the hand, or indicating the number of cards you are taking at draw.
BET: (1) The act of making a wager before anyone else on a betting round. (2)The chips used by a player to bet, call, or raise.

BETTING AND RAISING
9. A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over a differing physical action.

I'm not finding anything that states you have verbally announce a particular number for the verbalization to constitute action. There are sections which note this but it's in reference only to string bets, which wouldn't apply here. With all of the above, the question comes down to whether or not you agree with what @markleteenie posted:

"I will put you all in" is shortened way to say some variation of "I will [bet the amount that is the total of your current chip stack and thus will] put you all in [if you want to continue in this current hand]."
 
Muttering "I....all-in" is just asking for trouble, no matter what actual words are in the middle -- unless your intent is to bet/raise "all-in".

I'm surprised that we've heard from some very experienced people here - the people I'd like to hear from - and all we've really gotten is opinions. Isn't there a rule to be cited? Is this really an unresolved issue?
@DoubleEagle posted the TDA rule on conditional statements (player may be penalized or ruled binding), but I think there is also a similar rule for using other 'non-standard' or unclear action words/phrases.
 
I think it was a good decision
I feel that although it might have been technically correct, it lets the angler get away with a freeroll bluff, i.e. the ruling helps the bad guy. At my game, my rule, although perhaps technically wrong, would be that the bet stands. Hard to angle that way :)

Question for you all: If it was added to the TDA rules (not sure how it should be worded though) that this was a binding all-in bet, what would the downside be? Serious question.
To not derail the question: I'm not taking about bets like "I bet a fifth of your stack", I am talking about bets where the implication is that if called, the caller is all in.
 
In every case where I've seen the "I'll put you all-in" move, if was either simultaneously (or shortly afterwards) paired with moving chips forward.

So how much delay is necessary for the verbal action to not be considered an actual bet? None, imo -- it might be worded poorly, but the intent (and the 'magic words', to quote @DrStrange) are there.

To rule it binding prevents the offender from any type of angle-shooting. Ruling it as non-binding opens up all sorts of unwanted behavior.
 
Anybody tries to pull this at my game and there is 2 things that will happen. First, the chips from the “I’ll put you all in” player are going in the middle. Second is that player is off the invite list.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom