Out of turn "if/then" statements... I'm sure you've encountered this.

[Brian Vickers]

Heads up on the river, Player A has not acted, Player B out of turn says "If you bet, then I'm going all in".  Player A bets, is Player B's action binding?
I know that if/then statements have been discussed before, but I was unable to find a thread.
What of these varients do you feel would or would not be binding also?
1. "If you check, I'm all in"
2. "No matter what you bet, I'm going to raise"
3. "I'm all-in no matter what you do"
4. "I'm calling whatever you bet"
Etc.
Would the ruling be the same whether player A checks or bets?

[JasperToo]

I think most people agree that it is just table talk.  Unless it is a singular "call" or "Raise" or a specific bet amount verbalized.  I question how appropriate it is but generally in a heads up situation it is accepted.

[AleaLeedsCardRoom]

One could argue that if you say, "if you check i'm going to raise" would be binding if the player was then checked to, as verbal declarations in turn are binding and the action hasn't changed, but it would be a hard argument to win IMO.  Had he simply said "all in" then it would be binding.

[MikeB]

Hi Brian: Here's a link to another thread on a similar topic:  http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=227.0

Personally I look at each of these situations from the point of view of "least damage" to the game (i.e. in the best interest of the game). As TD I don't want to have to enforce a statement that is not complete as to the intended action. Nor do I like to put the action of Player B (the out of turn declarant), in the hands of Player A in the case of "I'll do whatever you do".   On the other hand, some of these statements are unambiguous and complete (ex "I'm all-in regardless of what you do").

They are however out of turn (which we don't want), and so what do we do with the rule that allows for releasing an O-O-T player if the action changes (TDA Rule 29)? This rule clearly sets up the possibility that the player will not be bound if the action changes, so does a player have the right to elect to terminate a rule when they see fit by declaring "I'm all in no matter what you do"? On the other hand rule 29 by one interpretation makes O-O-T declarations absolutely binding if action doesn't change but it may give the TD latitude in deciding when to release a player from their declaration in that it doesn't appear to absolutely guarantee the right to release if action changes, just to absolutely bind them if the action doesn't change... Sometimes it just doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the game to allow a player to so completely and deliberately influence another players thinking and then be able to weasle out of it...

So I think as the rules currently stand you have to interpret each of these conditional out-of-turn situations on a case-by-case basis, looking for what ruling is in the best interest of the game, or perhaps more accurately is least damaging to the game. And always warn or penalize these players enough that they won't repeat it.  This all said, as to your specific examples: Example 1 I'd most likely treat as trash talk because it's so incomplete... Player B doesn't say what he'll do if Player A bets.... Example 2 I'd probably hold the player to a raise, or a bet if Player A checks. Example 3 I'd probably hold him to the all-in. Example 4 I'd probably hold him to calling Player A's bet... or to checking if Player A checks. I don't really like any of these rulings, but they are the least damaging to the game under the circumstances, IMO.

These rulings all presume the players are adjacent. Then you have the issue of a player who makes a conditional statement way out of turn (which was one of Dave's questions on the other thread)... with numerous players to act before him, it's just very damaging to the game... Example 4 doesn't make any sense in that case, how can player in seat 7 "pre-commit" to call any bet by seat 3 when there's 3 seats to act between them? What if one of those seats raises?... is he released because the action changed or is he held to calling 3 but can then fold ?? ... it just becomes nonsense. Keep in mind these are DELIBERATE declarations, not innocent mistakes out of turn when the player didn't recognize there are players before him... Example 2 is also iffy if there are seats to act between the players... Even example 3, despite unambiguous action still sets up a situation where we would have a player all-in to the left of several seats yet to act, and that's just not how we normally want the betting action to proceed... . so every one of these under current rules have to be considered individually IMO, as to whatever is best for the game at the time. The key is prevention by discouraging these statements in the first place. Fortunately, I don't see incomplete conditional statements very often, probably because most players recognize the jeopardy they put themselves in when they start making such rambling declarations.

Looks like this issue is on several people's minds so perhaps it's a topic for membership review at a future Summit.

[Brian Vickers]

My problem here actually occurred in a cash game.  I was not present for the floor call, but was asked about it a few hours later when I arrived.  After Player A did bet, the floorperson and shift manager both held Player B to an all-in.

What I've gathered from opinions here is that unambiguous statements could be held against a player who acted out of turn.  To me a conditional statement such as this is not a clear cut action, but does spell out exactly what the player's intention of action was should a certain condition be met.  The problem I see here is that, what action do we hold Player B to if Player A checks or goes all-in?

From other rulings that I've seen made, if player B just said "all-in" then he would be held to it if Player A checks, but not if Player A bets since action did change.  This is a really tough call, especially being in a cash game for hundreds of dollars. 
From reading a post on 2+2 regarding this situation, the consensus is split between "it's just trash-talk and shouldn't be binding" and "don't be an angle shooter, you get what you deserve".

Rarely has a floor called vexed me such as this one 

[Brian Vickers]

After thinking about it for a few days, the main sentiment I'm hearing is that we don't want to damage the game.  We don't want to give a free pass to angle shooters, and we don't want to disrupt a players ability to act on a hand because of his fear/uncertainty do to said angel shooter.
How do you guys feel about the following floor call:  "The offending player may make no aggressive action on the hand, therefore if Player A checks, then Player B must also check, and if Player A bets then Player B may only call or fold?"

I think this would help alleviate the problem of Player A now checking out of confusion only to be bet out of the hand, and also from Player A from gaining too much of an advantage by essentially getting a free double up should he have the nuts without having to make a decision on how much he would have otherwise bet.
I think this also speeds up the game, and is the least damaging solution for cash game or tournament play.  Also, successive offenses could result in penalties up to disqualification from a tournament, or a cash player being asked to leave for the night.

Toughts?

[MikeB]

Question for everyone: How often are you encountering conditional out-of-turn statements?

I run into a fair amount of O-O-T declarations, yes... but I can't recall the last one that I couldn't resolve using TDA Rule 29.

I think players are naturally cautious about making an incomplete/conditional statement because they certainly have no idea how a TD is going to react to it, and thus they put themselves at way too much jeopardy.

I ask the question because it's possible that at the end of the day we can't come up with a blanket rule to fit every possible ill-advised utterance that a player might come up with... not that we shouldn't try, if current rules don't cover it, but perhaps there aren't many of these happening anyway.

[Nick C]

I think any player that intentionally makes a declaration or verbal statement out of turn, must be held to that statement. Betting out of turn can seriously disrupt the flow of any game. The only way to stop it is to hold offenders to their actions.

[Dave_The_Maori]

We have adopted the "Excessive Chatter" rule which our TDs use to warn players and penalise if necessary. I've heard statements like, "Call him, he's got nothing" or statements in a foreign language which IMO justifies the need for the rule.

We also use this rule for when we suspect someone of 'Verbal Intimidation' against another player which I believe is the motivation behind if/then statements. Although we have the discretion of how or when to use this rule, we generally issue warnings to almost anything unnecessary or that the dealers can't answer.

[Stuart Murray]

I'm a little late to the party but if held under TDA rules I would rule the verbal statements as not binding, but I would penalise the player and warn him any further angle shots will result in disqualification.  If held under our version of TDA rules the statements would be binding and the player would be forced to go all-in, and then penalised or disqualified once the hand was finished.

Regards
Stuart