Tourney "I'm gonna put you all in" (2 Viewers)

[Quicksilver-75]

Harsh lesson for the caller, but tough titty. People say all kinds of stuff at the table. Only the pot talks, EVER. It’s pretty simple. Don’t act until his chips hit the felt. Other than that it’s the dealer’s job to maintain the table.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Second is that player is off the invite list

I hope you're taking about trying to take back the bet, not the poor verbalization of the bet?

 

[Prenders17]

Technically that’s correct, but a bit pedantic. I think if I were TD, I’d rule against the guy citing TDA Rule 57.

57: Non-Standard & Unclear Betting
Players use unofficial betting terms and gestures at their own risk. These may be interpreted to mean other than what the player intended. Also, if a declared bet can legally have multiple meanings, it will be ruled the highest reasonable amount that is less than or equal to the pot size* before the bet. Ex: NLHE 200-400, the pot totals less than 5000, player declares “I bet five.” With no other clarifying information, the bet is 500; if the pot totals 5000 or more, the bet is 5000. *The pot is the total of all prior bets including any bets in front of a player not yet pulled in. See Rules 2, 3, 40 & 42.

 

[BGinGA]

Technically that’s correct, but a bit pedantic. I think if I were TD, I’d rule against the guy citing TDA Rule 57.

57: Non-Standard & Unclear Betting
Players use unofficial betting terms and gestures at their own risk. These may be interpreted to mean other than what the player intended.

Yep, ^^that^^ is the rule I mentioned earlier that would apply in cases like this.

 

[JustinInMN]

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 believe we all understand that "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]."
No one is actually meaning something different, such as I will put you all in [to a 5 star hotel on my dime, congrats!].

I tend to fall on this side of the argument, and I don't think the rules to condition apply to this particular statement because the word "if" is nowhere to be found.

I think "I will" is indicating an action and the player should be bound to something, If a player says "I will check" and the next person acts on that, what floorperson in the world is going to back up the action?

So if the player making the statment is indicating an action and should be bound to it, I think the floor gets to decide the most likely way the statement should be interpreted, even if the statement itself isn't valid. The extended sentence @markleteenie describes above strikes me as the far more likely conclusion than the first player intended to check.

I do agree that the second player did himself no favors by acting when the action was unclear as AH77 said.

As wrong as angling is, people need to adopt a policy of “protect yourself at all times” especially when playing for serious money. Instead of snap calling and shoving your chips in like you just won your first 25 cent pot against your grandma on the kitchen table, allow a moment for the dealer to confirm the action before acting yourself. Sometimes people speak under their breath and aren’t even trying to angle necessarily. If you are unsure, ask before acting.

But I think since it appears the second player interpreted that as an all in and it was reasonable for him to do so, that's how the action should stand. If the player making the statement had the winner, there is no way the floorperson would back that action up either. I have now pointed out two ways the first player gets the benefit of his irresponsible statement because of this ruling.

I think one can believe both "I put you all in" is improper context and that ruling was flawed at the same time.

used to respond with "if you can put me all-in, then I can fold your hand....". But now I typically just respond with "so you're all in then?"

I like this idea.

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.

Another reason not to like Pam.

 

[Rhodeman77]

I hope you're taking about trying to take back the bet, not the poor verbalization of the bet?

Yes. If they try to say they didn’t make a bet or not put chips in.

It is very rarely said at my house because any time I have heard someone say it I correct them that they can’t force a player to go All-In but that they bet that amount of chips and it is up to that player to decide if they will call or not.

I really don’t like terms like that so I try to discourage them as much as possible.

 

[Coyote]

Betting action must be clear.
Whatever explanatory, descriptive or poetic / humorous comments should only follow a clear initial statement of call / bet / raise / all in, ending in a clearly stated amount.
Closest crap I have witnessed (in a cash game) was an anyway sleezy AND drunk player saying "X amount, that's all I 've got". Next player said "call". Sleezy player said "but I didn't bet that; just counting"
The sleezy person never got invited back.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Betting action must be clear.
Whatever explanatory, descriptive or poetic / humorous comments should only follow a clear initial statement of call / bet / raise / all in, ending in a clearly stated amount.
Closest crap I have witnessed (in a cash game) was an anyway sleezy AND drunk player saying "X amount, that's all I 've got". Next player said "call". Sleezy player said "but I didn't bet that; just counting"
The sleezy person never got invited back.

So where do you play now?

 

[Coyote]

Still, at home

 

[Coyote]

I would just add that the well known legal principle of [I]contra[/I] [I]proferentem[/I] should apply.
[/QUOTE]

Cruell ironic that even Anglo-Saxon jurists have to resort to the abysmal depths of Roman Law :D
(Coming from a person who had to learn some definitions in pure f*ckin' Latin, in order to get their Law Degree)

 

[Hornet]

I just like using Latin because it makes me look smart

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

At my game: 100% considered a bet and offender will be reprimanded.
Officially: Not a bet, per the following scenario -

Player A has 200, player B has 201. Player A states, "I put you all-in." This is clearly not even a possible bet, so definitely cannot stand. If there are occasions that verbiage is not binding, it should never be binding, a la the unclear statement rule above.

Question: for those agreeing that this is not a binding bet, what is the opinion of, "I bet whatever the value of Player B's stack is unless it is greater than mine, in which case, I am all-in." Would this be accurate enough to stand as a bet?

 

[Coyote]

Any near or distant future tense is wrong and dishonest.
The real question is "what are you doing right now with your chips"? (add "asshole" for emotional purposes)

 

[Dix]

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.

^^^^ This ^^^^

And if need be...

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.”

End of story in my joint.

Been there.... done that. It's been said multiple times I know of (even done it myself) & I'm yet to see it interpreted any differently, and/or anyone argue the point.

Current bet becomes the size of that player's stack & he then has the option to call or fold. (other player(s) has/have all options open if there are any yet to act)

 

[Mr Winberg]

In my town it's very common to hear this, and has been ever since the poker boom. I've tried twice to politely question the bet.

First try a few years ago:
Villain: I'm putting you all in
Me: So what's the bet?
Villain: Whatever you have.
Me: So what's the bet?
Villain: D'fuck should I know?? Count your own damn chips!
Rest of the table (directed at me): Jeez, just count your chips if you wanna know!
Me: But what's the bet?
Table: Your stack!! Stop delaying the game FFS!!!

Second try a few weeks ago:
Bettor: "I'll put you all in" (to some lady with ~70 left)
Me, as an observer: "Does anyone know how much he bet?"
Bettor, clearly annoyed and clearly having heard this debate before: "Ok fine, I bet 100, the bet is 100. All good?"

I'll continue to push this issue once every few years, but for now it's a binding all-in bet at my place.

 

[pltrgyst]

.... I would just add that the well known legal principle of contra proferentem should apply.

Hmmm. I've known thousands of attorneys over the years, and not one of them has ever claimed to have taken even one semester of Latin.

 

[pltrgyst]

Just a quick note because I'm pedantic

better == more good

Pedants everywhere cringe at your use of the term "more good" without a justifying context.

 

[horseshoez]

All seriousness aside, if this was at a home game knowing my opponent would take my statement humorously, my response to an attempt to argue out of it, “kiss my ass and put all your chips in...let’s tango” lol

 

[asian bino]

Players need to know the rules of the game they are playing.
Not knowing the rules can be monetarily perilous.

In a casino, "I'm putting you all in" without any chips moving is NOT a bet, unless you have a poorly educated floorman.

Bets don't count unless chips cross the line, or the dealer throws an 'all in' plaque in front of someone (and I'm against that, but.....)

I have an enforced betting line in my home game. Before every game, I reiterate that chips moved forward are NOT a bet UNTIL they cross the line. (Yes, 'pump faking' is 'allowed' but discouraged and has never happened.) And if you take chips across the line, or touch the line, they are in the pot. I've had 2-3 home games every year for 20 years, and zero arguments.

I also post rules on the wall in the room, and assign 3 of the most experienced casino players as 'floor people' to make rulings if needed (If you are in a hand, you cannot make a ruling, that is why I have 3 people)

Good solid rules and educated players are the best tools to prevent arguments.

In a casino, ALWAYS ask the dealer if you are unsure of action.

 

[tabletalker7]

No serious poker player will say "I'll bet your stack". They will just say "all in" knowing that they have you covered.

 

[Gear]

Pedants everywhere cringe at your use of the term "more good" without a justifying context.

I was particularly proud of an exchange I once had with a co-worker:

Him: Oh, you and your pedanticness.

Me: I think you meant to say "pedantry".

 

[Highli99]

I was particularly proud of an exchange I once had with a co-worker:

Him: Oh, you and your pedanticness.

Me: I think you meant to say "pedantry".

"I was proud, until he got unexpectedly stabby with me" In all seriousness that's pretty epic.

 

[JustinInMN]

Bets don't count unless chips cross the line, or the dealer throws an 'all in' plaque in front of someone (and I'm against that, but.....)

This isn't true. Forward motion moving chips toward the pot is a bet. The betting line is actually a terrible idea that promotes more angle shooting and fake outs and other shenanigans.

I do not believe Robert's or TDA have any reference to a betting line.

http://www.pokercoach.us/robspkrrules4.htm

12. A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action. 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.

13. In limit poker, if you make a forward motion with chips and thus cause another player to act, you may be forced to complete your action.

https://www.pokertda.com/poker-tda-rules/

 

[Prenders17]

This isn't true. Forward motion moving chips toward the pot is a bet. The betting line is actually a terrible idea that promotes more angle shooting and fake outs and other shenanigans.

I do not believe Robert's or TDA have any reference to a betting line.

http://www.pokercoach.us/robspkrrules4.htm



https://www.pokertda.com/poker-tda-rules/

I agree, and I’m still ruling against the bettor. Rule 40 states that if a verbal declaration precedes the motion of chips, then the verbal declaration takes precedent. If said verbal declaration uses non-standard or ambiguous language, then I think we refer to Rule 57 and Rule 1.

 

[Hornet]

Hmmm. I've known thousands of attorneys over the years, and not one of them has ever claimed to have taken even one semester of Latin.

I never took a class in Latin, but they taught me all the Latin I needed in law school. Habeas corpus, res ipsa loquitor, mandamus, obiter dictum, sua sponte, etc. I’m a walking Latin dictionary.

 

[upNdown]

I never took a class in Latin, but they taught me all the Latin I needed in law school. Habeas corpus, res ipsa loquitor, mandamus, obiter dictum, sua sponte, etc. I’m a walking Latin dictionary.

semper ubi sub ubi . . .

 

[Gear]

I never took a class in Latin, but they taught me all the Latin I needed in law school. Habeas corpus, res ipsa loquitor, mandamus, obiter dictum, sua sponte, etc. I’m a walking Latin dictionary.

Wait 'til they find out you can use Arabic numbers, too!

 

[Mr Winberg]

I never took a class in Latin, but they taught me all the Latin I needed in law school. Habeas corpus, res ipsa loquitor, mandamus, obiter dictum, sua sponte, etc. I’m a walking Latin dictionary.

Romanes eunt domus!

 

[upNdown]

 

[Lemonzest]

I agree, it’s an angle and not a bet.

9 times out of 10 when someone says that I just assume they are an inexperienced player. I have no way of knowing if it is an angle or not but pretty sure some new players just don't know how to announce their action clearly. Live and learn.