Is this an All-In Bet or Specific Amount?

[MikeB]

Interesting situation:

1: Let's say blinds are 1000 / 2000
2: Player A has about 10 BB's in chips remaining in stack.
3: Action is checked to Player A who starts counting all her chips well behind any real or imaginary "betting line". She is clearly making an effort to count all her chips.
4: She declares "17,200", THEN pushes her entire stack out. She never declares "all in".
5: Player B says "okay I'll call", and then asks "17,200 is it?" as he is counting out the call

Q1: Is this an all-in bet or a bet of 17,200 ?
Q2: If it's an all-in bet, what options does Player B have if the actual count of Player A's chips reveals she made a minor undercount (say 1K or 2K more)
Q3: If it's an all-in bet, what options does Player B have if the actual count is a "major undercount" (say 8K or more, or whatever you consider major)

[chet]

Mike: 

Response to Q1:  Based on TDA Rule 29, I would hold the player to the 17,200 verbal declaration.  That said, if the player had stated "All-in for 17,200", then I would hold her to the "All-In". 

Your description of the situation said, "She is clearly making an effort to count all her chips."

Response to Q2:  If this is an "All-In", based on your description of the situation, in which you said "Player A has about 10 BB's in chips remaining in stack.", which would be about 20K.  The difference is right around 15%, so I would hold the player to the full amount.

Response to Q3: If you are at the WSOP, under Rule 91 (I think that is what it is now) Player B is responsible for ascertaining the correct amount of the action by Player A.  Once Player B says, "Okay, I'll Call", he is bound to the amount of Player A's action regardless of the amount. 

If there was a "Major Undercount" of lets say 8K, then player A had to have considerably more than 10BB's to start the hand.  An undercount of 8K would be almost 50% of the stated amount, so depending upon other factors (remember you said she was "...making an effort to count her chips.", I may very well release Player B or I may hold Player B to the All-in.  I think a lot depends upon the experience level of both players.  If A is a "newbie" for example and B is not, I again may hold B.  If reversed, A is experienced and B is a newbie, I may release B.  If both are experienced, I may hold B again as I would if both were experienced but drunk. 

[Brian Vickers]

A1:  I would consider it a bet of $17,200 because that amount was declared first.  If I announce $5 and then push out $1000, my bet would be $5, right?  Just because it's a close amount doesn't mean we can allow a string bet, does it?

[Nick C]

I would say it's an all-in bet because she pushed all her chips out. IMO, The question is who is responsible for making sure the count is correct? I was always under the impression that the dealer would confirm the amount upon request. If the All-in player was incorrect; a) I would rule that if she lost the hand (provided the opposing player had her covered) she would lose everything. or b) If she won the hand, she would only win the 17,200. stated by the dealer. I am not a fan of the new WSOP Rule #91? (formerly #89.) I believe the responsibility of clarification, on a bet, is up to the bettor, not the caller if given the wrong information.

I don't think we should start using WSOP Rules until they are discussed at the TDA Summit next week. The scary part (for me) is, what two new rules did the WSOP interject to move rule #89 up to #91? I'm afraid to ask.

[DCJ001]

Once she declared "17,200." her action was complete. Anything said or done afterward is irrelevant.

[Stuart Murray]

"A verbal statement in turn denotes your action and is binding"

That is sufficient for me to make it 17,200

The rest of the questions I will not answer as her verbal statement binds everything else, because she announced 17,200, even if she has 17,300 she gets the 100 back and actions continues at 17,200 total.

Best
Stu

[Nick C]

When a player pushes ALL of their chips into the pot, it is expected that the dealer will declare the player is all-in. Brian, you are a dealer, what would you have done? One of the duties of a good dealer is to let the players know who's bet it is, and how much. The intent was all-in.

[DCJ001]

She declares "17,200", THEN pushes her entire stack out. She never declares "all in".

[Brian Vickers]

When a player pushes ALL of their chips into the pot, it is expected that the dealer will declare the player is all-in. Brian, you are a dealer, what would you have done? One of the duties of a good dealer is to let the players know who's bet it is, and how much. The intent was all-in.

It's been a few years since I was a dealer (been a full time floor since 2007), but if I was the dealer here and I could see that the player had more than $17,200, I would have immediately announced "Player bets $17,200, player is not all-in," and pushed back the excess chips.

[chet]

Nick:  I have to disagree.  If we were to follow your train of thought, then what is the purpose of the first sentence of TDA Rule 29?

[Nick C]

Chet and DCJ001,
 I do not want to change any rules. Verbal is binding and overrides the action. I am putting myself in the position of the dealer at the table. The improper action of the bettor (Player A) would have been clairified before the action moved to the next player. When Player A announced 17,200 and pushed all of her chips forward, you can only assume her intent was to go all-in. You do not (as a player) have to announce when going all-in but, I would expect a good dealer, to tell the table, that the player is all-in. You can get real technical and play around with a bunch of different scenario's, from gross misunderstandings to wagers that are only slightly different. I really think the intent of the player, and the clairification of the amount has to be made before any action follows.

[chet]

Nick:

You said, in part, "..When Player A announced 17,200 and pushed all of her chips forward, you can only assume her intent was to go all-in..."  I still disagree in that the players verbal declaration removed ANY NEED TO ASSUME ANYTHING.  If verbal declarations are binding, the dealer should have clarified Player A's bet as 17,200 as was explained by Brian quite clearly.

You are in the business of training dealers and have been for years and years and years  .  Are you telling me that you train your dealers to make assumptions?  I would find that hard to believe.

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet if a player pushes all of their chips in.....they are all-in. Yes, that would be my assumption. Who pushes all their chips in, and doesn't mean to? You can critisize my method of training dealers, if you'd like but I'll put any dealer I've trained, and certified, against what I see in some card rooms, and on TV.

[chet]

Nick:  In the absence of a prior verbal declaration, I totally agree with you.  However, if a player verbalizes his/her action PRIOR to moving chips, that verbal declaration is binding, to rule otherwise ignores TDA Rule 29.  Furthermore, if you look at TDA Rule 30 specifically option #2 for making a raise, which refers to verbally stating the AMOUNT of the raise PRIOR to moving chips, I think this supports our position.

[DCJ001]

I'll make it easier to understand:

"She declares '17,200',

THEN pushes her entire stack out.

She never declares 'all in.'"

At the point that a bet of 17,200 is declared, the action was complete. Anything/everything that happened after the bet had occurred is irrelevant.