Player forced to call all-in?

[Tristan]

Good discussion material.

Posted on 2+2 at: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/65/mttc-live/you-announce-raise-but-no-amount-villian-says-call-turns-over-cards-1385946/

"lets say its heads up and you river quads.
villian bets. you announce raise but don't specify an amount nor do you push any chips forward.

in his excitement he says call and flips over top boat.

What happens?
Can you then say all in and get all his chips?"

[MikeB]

Tristan: Great question, and hopefully we can develop a greater consensus on this at Summit VI. I think the 2+2 thread summarizes the two basic interpretations:

Version 1. When player A says "raise", he's at least committed to a min raise. So if Player A min-raises, Player B must call the min-raise. If Player A raises any more than that, Player B has all options open.

Version 2. Player A says "raise" and Player B says "call". There is a unstated condition statement "I'm going to call whatever you raise", it's implied. Therefore under TDA Rule 51, the TD may hold Player B to calling any raise amount.

This is clearly a Rule 1 decision as it is so non-standard. Personally I hate the idea of a player getting to look at his opponent's cards and decide how much to raise him after he sees the hand, and KNOWING that whatever he raises, the guy must call... that's just gift upon gift. However, the opponent is 100% responsible for putting himself in the situation. Further there is zero doubt in my mind he would have called any bet, including all-in, and his gesture probably looked for all the world, turning up his cards, like he thought he was calling an all-in. ...  and I also hate like *&^%$ denying Player A the opportunity to bust Player B which he almost certainly would do, if Player B hadn't made two mistakes.

At the end of the day, you have latitude to make the fairest ruling you can. IF the situation is 100% the fault of the caller / tabler then I'm really leaning towards holding him to call anything. If there were other causal factors then I might look at other remedies.

[Nick C]

Mike,
 I prefer the first part of your Version 1. You wrote: " When player A says "raise", he's at least committed to a min raise. So if Player A min-raises, Player B must call the min-raise." I'm not quite sure I like the second line of your quote: "If Player A raises any more than that, Player B has all options open." Although, I guess it's probably the right thing to do because the OOT was at fault.

 It is interesting that no amounts are mentioned. Let's say for example; there is very little discrepancy between amounts...or, the difference could be quite substantial. My ruling would be based on the fact that the bettor could have gone all-in (initially). Also, I'd like to know the difference in the amount of what the min raise would be, and if he raised all-in?

 Example: Player (holding quads) has 2200 in chips and is facing a 1000 bet, he says raise...The opposing player says call....not much difference between an all-in or a min raise, is there?

 This also raises questions about when the amount makes a difference, or if we stick to a rule no matter what!

[chet]

Guys:

One other point that might be part of the decision making process would be the experience level of  the two players involved, especially player A who got so excited and turned his cards over.  If this is a really new player then I think it "in the best interests of the game" to hold him responsible for only the min-raise.  If this is a player that has been playing for some time (and I think a few months of tournament experience qualifies as "for some time"), then I could rule the other way.

Chet

[K-Lo]

I personally favor version 2 if there is no evidence that the tabler was misled into thinking that an amount was mentioned.

If there was evidence that he was misled (e.g. the dealer thought he heard an amount of the raise and announced it), I would allow the bettor to complete his action by announcing the raise amount, and give player B all of his options.

Be wary of the related angle, where a player will not table his cards immediately, but will instantly announce "call" right after "raise" is announced but before the raiser announces the raise amount, hoping that this will scare the raiser will raise a lesser amount for fear of having run into a big hand.  This happens more often, and I will certainly treat this as a version 2 scenario.

[Nick C]

So here it is...in a nutshell:...If the bettor does not make his bet or raise amount perfectly clear...and the calling player does not pay attention to the action in front of him and exposes his cards before the correct amount was established...the floor can make any ruling they see fit.

 And I don't object, because both player's could have avoided the confusion...the initial raiser by stating the amount... and, without a doubt, the fool who called and turned his cards before he knew what the raise amount was.

 In any event, I think we all agree that the player who called the unknown raise amount, must at least lose the min-raise amount...correct?

[Tristan]

I personally favor version 2 if there is no evidence that the tabler was misled into thinking that an amount was mentioned.

I agree.  I do not like that the first player gains extra information before making their bet clear...but ultimately they did not gain that information unfairly, it was freely given by the other player.  I also think the greater evil would be to allow OOT players to limit the action of the people who are to act before them.  What is the point of acting having players act in turn if we allow them to abuse it?  Isn't the reason for 38:   Action Out of Turn (OOT) to take away as much of the advantage as we can from a player acting OOT and give control back to the skipped player(s)?  Seems that this would be along the same lines.

In the 2+2 thread, for those who didn't read it, one of the posters said that they asked Matt Savage...he said that the 2nd player would have to call any amount.

If the bettor does not make his bet or raise amount perfectly clear...

because both player's could have avoided the confusion...the initial raiser by stating the amount...

It is clearly within the TDA rules to state raise and then push out the amount of the raise.  Yes, it would have been more clear if they stated an amount, but the first player did not do anything wrong in my opinion.

[Nick C]

Tristan,

 Here's your scenario: Player a says "raise" and before Player B knows the amount he says "call"...he then turns his cards over. Player A sees Player B's loosing hand and decides to raise Player B all-in. You actually think that's the best choice? I say he's committed to the min raise and at least should have an option to fold, if they allowed a raise to any amount. Wow! we sure don't agree on much, do we.

 As far as what Matt said, it would be nice if he answered some of our questions, the way he does 2+2.

[chet]

Nick:

By my understanding you have the order of things wrong.  Copying directly from 2+2:  "lets say its heads up and you river quads.
villian bets. you announce raise but don't specify an amount nor do you push any chips forward.

in his excitement he says call and flips over top boat"

My understanding is that "Villian" is Player A as he bet first.  You, Player B (with Quads), announce "Raise" but nothing else is said nor are chips moved forward.  Player A still the "Villian", then says "Call" and flips over top boat.  

The following is very important as it describes how the action progressed;

1.  Player A Bet.
2.  Player B said "Raise".
3.  Player A said "Call".

Player B cannot say "Call" since he already said "Raise".
 
So I go back to my original response.  I would take into consideration the experience level of Player A.  If a genuine "newby", hold "B" to the min-raise and "A" has to put the call amount into the pot.  A cannot fold.

If Player A is experienced enough to know better, let B make whatever raise he wants to and Player A has to call. 

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet,

 I don't believe I got it wrong. In fact, I actually agreed with you earlier. I'll tell you where the problem became more complicated...when Tristan described the action as "out of turn."
There are two players left in the hand. The player who called the raise acted "in turn." He did, however prematurely expose his hand. Out of turn should be specifically for player's who skip the proper bettor...not the situation described in the original post.

 Chet: Let me see if I have it right. Two player's remain, Nick bets...Chet raises Nick calls and turns over his cards! Chet says, "wait a second, I didn't tell you how much I was going to raise!"
Nick was wrong for prematurely exposing his hand...and Chet did nothing wrong. The big question is: Should Nick be subjected to call any amount that Chet wishes to bet? Or is Nick obligated to call only the minimum raise? If you agree with Matt Savage, then Nick could be eliminated from the tournament.

 The action was improper (exposing his hand) but it was "in turn." 2+2 is going in the wrong direction on this one. Forget the OOT.

[Tristan]

I described the action as out of turn because, in my opinion, it is OOT...or at least partially in between in turn and OOT.  Are players supposed to hold up their action after a player says raise if they have not stated an amount?  I think so.  I always tell players they need to wait to fold/call/raise until after the player ahead of them makes their action clear.  If you do not do this, errors are much more likely to occur.

Example: UTG preflop says raise but does not say the amount and is reaching for chips.  UTG+1 does not wait and folds, UTG+2 says call thinking they are calling the big blind as they do not see any other amount out there yet... FLOOR!

Why are players supposed to wait unless it is not their turn to act yet?

But whether you agree that the action is OOT or if you think it is in turn...
Either it is a verbal call, in turn, and it should be binding.
OR...
It is an OOT action and it should be binding because the action did not change after the player acted OOT. The first player said "raise" and then the other player acted, so there was no action change. Since there was not a verbalized amount, there is no way for us to be sure there was even an amount change.

Chet: Let me see if I have it right. Two player's remain, Nick bets...Chet raises Nick calls and turns over his cards! Chet says, "wait a second, I didn't tell you how much I was going to raise!"
Nick was wrong for prematurely exposing his hand...and Chet did nothing wrong. The big question is: Should Nick be subjected to call any amount that Chet wishes to bet? Or is Nick obligated to call only the minimum raise? If you agree with Matt Savage, then Nick could be eliminated from the tournament.

Question for you Nick.  Would you allow Chet to raise to any amount at that point and Nick would have to put in the amount of a min raise and then have the option to call the rest or fold if Chet raised more than the minimum? 

[Nick C]

Tristan,

 I would allow Chet to raise but, I would only hold Nick to the call of a minimum raise. What makes your original post unique is the fact that Chet has the nut hand. To me, it makes no difference whether nick showed his hand or not! Nick is still obligated to call, because he reacted prematurely. The big difference is; I am not holding Nick to his tournament life (possibly), where Matt's ruling would.

 I'm sure we agree in a "perfect poker world" we would like all player's to make their bet and raise amounts clear to all. We are trying to improve on rules, for the best interest and fairness for all player's. I remember when player's could raise until their arms stopped pushing chips forward! Thankfully, that obscure rule is no longer used. At least not that I know of.

 Back to your original post: The initial raiser (Chet) did nothing wrong. Nick is guilty of calling before the raise amount was established. You know how I feel about Accepted Action, so I won't voice my disapproval now. However, the fact that no amount was clarified (or pushed) would surely demand that Nick is obligated to call a minimum raise. That's what I believe is in the best interest of the game, and that's the call I would have made.

 The "twist" or diversion that is throwing everyone off is; The calling player exposing his hand...and that in my opinion is irrelevant.

[chet]

Nick said, "To me, it makes no difference whether nick showed his hand or not! Nick is still obligated to call, because he reacted prematurely."

If Nick did not show his cards, we have only one issue and that is covered by TDA Rule 38, Action out of turn.  Following that rule, if Chet raises only the minimum, I would require Nick to call.  If Chet raises more than the minimum, then I believe one can interpret rule 38 to hold Nick to only a minimum raise amount as the action has changed.

So the question we have left what to do because Nick showed his cards.  Under TDA Rules he should get a penalty, but nothing more.

I don't see where Accepted Action really comes into play other than possibly using that rule to require a call from Nick. 

So I guess that I have to agree with Nick (Oh the agony of it all ).

Chet

[Tristan]

Ok, now let's take it one step further.

Chet said 'raise' but stated no amount, Nick said call and tabled his cards, and now Chet tables his cards in his excitement of being called with quads.

Dealer ( ) says..."Wait, you never said how much you were raising!".  Chet responds, "Well of course I was raising all-in, I had the nuts!  Besides, Nick wouldn't have tabled his cards unless he thought he was calling my all-in!"

Same ruling or different?

[Nick C]

Tristan,

 I see it much different...but I guess I always do If we start looking at the player's holding, (the nuts or not), I think we'd really be stretching our power...at least not in your example. There are far too many times that we watch player's with the best hand raising, but wondering the maximum raise their opponent will call.


Chet,

 IMO, forget the OOT. (damn...I hate abbreviations!). We all know who was at fault (Nick)...Next time, perhaps Chet will make his raise crystal clear...and next time Nick will know better than call before he knows what the hell he's calling.

 As far as Nick getting a penalty...if Matt has his way, Nick probably played his last hand!