Author Topic: Re: Binding conditional statement or not?  (Read 4983 times)

BIG AL

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Re: Binding conditional statement or not?
« on: September 08, 2014, 04:03:36 AM »
Nine players at the table.
Middle phase of the tournament.
All players fold to SB
SB asks BB if you play all in want to pay me?
BB says yes!
SB says all in.
Does BB have to pay or not?
What is your opinion on this situation
« Last Edit: September 08, 2014, 09:10:55 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Binding statement
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2014, 08:55:22 AM »
No...his verbal was not in turn. That's how I see it.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Binding conditional statement or not?
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2014, 09:10:42 AM »
Al, thanks for the interesting case.

IMO this is totally governed by Rule 51 and, in turn, by Rule 1.

Whenever you have 51 and 1 involved, you're looking at a completely discretionary ruling by the TD. The TD has complete latitude to rule however he or she deems is fairest and in the best interest of the game. Do you want to bind the bet here or not? Do you want to issue a warning or penalty (almost certainly, btw!)?

Anyway, here's how I dissect it and would rule:

SB asks the BB (verbatim, this is all I have to go on): "If YOU play all in, want to pay me?"... and to that the BB says "Yes".

Now in my mind, I stop right there. What the &^%$#@ does the above statement mean?? If I interpret this literally, word-for-word, the SB is asking the BB whether IF THE BB GOES ALL-IN, whether the BB would like to ship his money to the SB. At best that's a real stupid question, and by rights it's based on whether the BB decides to declare all in, not whether the SB declares all in.

Further, even if this question/statement can be construed as saying the BB has promised to "pay" the SB if the SB goes all in (which is a real stretch in the wording), the BB could say "Okay, I'm paying you my BB, here it is", and fulfill any obligation he might have.

As TD I don't want to have to enforce any of this. I might enforce it if I think it's fairest and in the best interest of the game, but I absolutely don't think that's the case here.... the SB has contributed the lion's share to this mess and so I'm not going to reward him by forcing the BB all in.

SB has shoved all in, the action is now on the BB.

After the hand, if first offense, SB is being warned sternly not to pose such questions, and BB advised if not warned not to respond to them. Ask the dealer or call the floor if you're uncertain as to what your opponent's action is.

This all said, the next TD via his or her discretion may make an entirely different ruling; players put themselves in jeopardy and only have themselves to blame when they create these situations.

Thanks again for a great case.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Binding conditional statement or not?
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2014, 10:57:30 PM »
No. Table talk.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Binding conditional statement or not?
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2014, 03:06:54 PM »
I like Mike's answer.  I don't know what the verbal even meant...but I would not rule it binding, I would issue warnings unless they were repeat offenders and then possibly penalties.  What SB did is worse than what BB did from what I understand about the situation.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
Re: Binding conditional statement or not?
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2014, 04:02:11 AM »
Al, thanks for the interesting case.

IMO this is totally governed by Rule 51 and, in turn, by Rule 1.

Whenever you have 51 and 1 involved, you're looking at a completely discretionary ruling by the TD. The TD has complete latitude to rule however he or she deems is fairest and in the best interest of the game. Do you want to bind the bet here or not? Do you want to issue a warning or penalty (almost certainly, btw!)?

Anyway, here's how I dissect it and would rule:

SB asks the BB (verbatim, this is all I have to go on): "If YOU play all in, want to pay me?"... and to that the BB says "Yes".

Now in my mind, I stop right there. What the &^%$#@ does the above statement mean?? If I interpret this literally, word-for-word, the SB is asking the BB whether IF THE BB GOES ALL-IN, whether the BB would like to ship his money to the SB. At best that's a real stupid question, and by rights it's based on whether the BB decides to declare all in, not whether the SB declares all in.

Further, even if this question/statement can be construed as saying the BB has promised to "pay" the SB if the SB goes all in (which is a real stretch in the wording), the BB could say "Okay, I'm paying you my BB, here it is", and fulfill any obligation he might have.

As TD I don't want to have to enforce any of this. I might enforce it if I think it's fairest and in the best interest of the game, but I absolutely don't think that's the case here.... the SB has contributed the lion's share to this mess and so I'm not going to reward him by forcing the BB all in.

SB has shoved all in, the action is now on the BB.

After the hand, if first offense, SB is being warned sternly not to pose such questions, and BB advised if not warned not to respond to them. Ask the dealer or call the floor if you're uncertain as to what your opponent's action is.

This all said, the next TD via his or her discretion may make an entirely different ruling; players put themselves in jeopardy and only have themselves to blame when they create these situations.

Thanks again for a great case.

Next time I begin a floor call, I'll be sure to start the decision by asking the player, "What the *@&#$* does that even mean?!!?!?"  just like Mike taught me  :)

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Binding conditional statement or not?
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2014, 09:29:33 PM »
Anyway, here's how I dissect it and would rule:

SB asks the BB (verbatim, this is all I have to go on): "If YOU play all in, want to pay me?"... and to that the BB says "Yes".

Now in my mind, I stop right there. What the &^%$#@ does the above statement mean??

Next time I begin a floor call, I'll be sure to start the decision by asking the player, "What the *@&#$* does that even mean?!!?!?"  just like Mike taught me  :)
I like Brian.

I like K-Lo's answer.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter