official terminology

[CoreySilver]

Here's a few things ive heard players say at the table, I'd like to know how everyone would rule...

Player A goes all in, Player B says, "ok, I'll double you up" Player A turns over his cards...Player B says, wait I didnt call yet.

Blinds 400/800 , player A asks how much the bet is, dealer says 800, player A says, "ok, I'm in" then makes it 3000 to go...

Player A goes all in Player B says, "ok, you can have it" then releases his hand right in front of his chips, Player A throws his hand in the muck before player B's hand is in the muck.

Thanks for your comments

[Stuart Murray]

Hi CoreySilver,

In the order that you gave this is how I would handle each infraction:

"Ill double you up" although has not committed to calling has made unclear statements that are unethical, depending on what he does he will receive a penalty after the hand is complete, for example if he goes on to call, knocking the player out, I would give a big enough penalty that he does not benefit from the all-in call.

400/800 Man has done nothing wrong, I don't see any real issue with what he has done, and will allow the 3000 to stand as the bet, I don't feel a penalty is justified, however may instruct the player to use plain english, and ensure his verbal declarations are clear and to the point in future.

"You can have it" this is a pretty awful one, from the sounds of things a blatant angle shot, and I know whatever I say on this one is going to be argued either way, here are my considerations:
Player B has made a gesture to concede the pot, releasing his hand, although not making a forward motion with his hand in a face down manner, which would simplify this, as a forward motion that illicits a re-action from another player is binding in my book, there is also the consideration that B has made a motion releasing his cards, conceding the pot and by not calling the all-in from player A.
Player A has irrevocably mucked his hand, without waiting for the pot to be awarded, nor for the other players hand to be irrevocably mucked.
There are therefore faults on both sides, player A for not waiting and player B for his angling/query yielding of the pot.  As I am typing this I am swayed both ways tbh, should I award the pot to A or B, I think for me it would come down to what everyone at the table thought of player B's actions, was the majority satisfied that player B has conceded the pot?? if they were I would give the pot to A, if they were not I would give the pot to B, that really is a judgement call for me, ensuring I listen to everyone's 'piece' at the table of what they considered the intent to be.
EDIT<I didn't edit my earlier typing but the more I consider the 3rd the more I am leaning towards player A still getting the pot, for a whole multitude of reasons, which I have already typed above as considerations.>

Regards
Stuart

[CoreySilver]

THANKS STUART!

[chet]

CoreySilver:

For your first two examples, I am in total agreement with Stuart.  As for the third example, I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever, in awarding the pot to Player B.  Here are my reasons:  A)  His verbal statement of "Ok, you can have it" is, in my opinion, a binding statement;  B) The release of his cards in front of his chip stack.

I would certainly caution player A about prematurely sending his cards to the muck.  Some very good advice, When I have the winning hand,  I NEVER RELEASE my cards until the dealer has pushed me the pot.

Chet

[K-Lo]

I agree with the posters above, and Chet brings up a very good point.  If there was some doubt as to whether B actually made a folding motion, A could lose the pot here.  A must protect his cards.

As an aside, I am of the school that a folding motion and release ought to be binding as a fold, even if the cards have not been irretrievably mucked for whatever reason.  They should be dead by default, although a TD may rule them live (if they can be identified) in some rare circumstances.  We had this debate in a different thread - some believe that cards remain live until they are irretrievably mucked, regardless of what the player did with them.  There was disagreement.  So the moral of the story is -- the winners of hands need to protect their cards until they are awarded the pot, and dealers must muck folded cards immediately and without delay.

[Nick C]

Gentlemen,
 The first situation when Player B says "I'll double you up!" It should have been clarified by the player and/or the dealer before  Player A showed his cards. I'd have to say, Player B should be forced to call, and get a penalty.

 I don't agree with the next situation either. "I'm in" would indicate that the player was calling. If he were going to raise, why wouldn't he just say raise?

 Finally, verbal is binding, right? The player that went all-in should have held his cards, but his chips were pushed into the pot, a clear bet, correct? Therefore, the way I see it, Player B folded, or are we to consider his act of tossing the cards in, without putting any chips in , and saying "okay you can have it" actually ment he wanted to call You can't be serious!
 The dealer should have protected the bettors hand from hitting the muck, and killed the other players discarded hand because he; a.) surrendered the hand and    b.) did not put any chips in the pot. Sorry, that's the way I see it. Which violations of TDA rules have presedence, the official terminology in rule #3 Which were not followed, or the last line in the same rule that says; It is the responsibility of players to make their intentions clear?

[DCJ001]

For your first two examples, I am in total agreement with Stuart.  As for the third example, I have NO PROBLEM ... I NEVER RELEASE my cards until the dealer has pushed me the pot.

Chet

http://www.google.com/search?q=typing+in+capital+letters&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

[Nick C]

CoreySilver gets a nice post started, followed by some great advice from Stuart, K-Lo, myself and Chet, only to have DCJ001 offer his opinion on Chet's use of capital letters!
Once again, I'd like to thank you for your worthless contribution to our conversation. DCJ001 reminds me of an English teacher that I had years ago. I didn't like her either.
 

[Spence]

The first one seems pretty cut and dry. It's a call.
Secondly, The player stating "I'm in". I would bind that player to a call if another player acted on it as a call. It seems understood in most cases to be a call but clarification by the dealer would be preferable. If clarified before another player took action I would allow it.
Third I agree with Nick. Seems like a far stretch to let this guy win the pot in thius manner. If player A's hand is irretrievably in the muck it may cause issue at the table but I wouldn't be searching for it in this cicumstance anyhow. Player A verbalized and motioned to fold. Whether it was past the line or whether he used official terminology does not matter at this point. He has folded. I would warn plyer A to ensure that the pot is sent towards him before releasing his cards in the future. Some situations are not as obvious.