Still talking Forward Motion

[Steven]

A bit more on Forward Motion!

I'm  trying to get a better handle on how to treat forward motion!

I believe we have discussed that TDA does not recognize forward motion, but instead tends to honor chip release.

Given that, I think it is also natural to bind forward motion if the TD believes that the player is shooting an angle.

However, what do you all think of a situation in which a player who has initiated forward motion but has not released his chips, who then pulls those chips back based on comments from his opponent?

Specifically:
Player A bets 6000 on the river.
Player B thinks and appears to be ready to call by cutting 6 1000 chips, picking them up.
Then, as Player B begins the forward motion, Player A announces "two pair"
Determining that if what he hears is correct, Player B realizes that he is beat and retracts his chips!
The players call the TD for a ruling!

How would you rule, given that Player B was not shooting an angle but was acting on "premature" information from his opponent?
As an aside, some too argue that Player A was also negligent by "talking about the hand" during the play of the hand.

Thanks for your input!

[K-Lo]

Personally, I don't see this as a forward motion problem.  Rather, player A has breached the non-disclosure rule.  All options open to B, warning/penalty to A at the end of the hand. 

[Nick C]

Steven,

 Your situation is obviously head to head action. I mention this because; I've always been in favor of separate rules for head to head action, from pots with multiple players.

 As K-Lo mentioned, Player A's action is against non-disclosure. One of the problems could come from an incorrect verbal statement. There is no rule (that I know of) that prevents a player from...well...overstating their hand, or just plain lying. You can issue a warning, or even a penalty but, how much protection does that offer to a player that folds because the bettor lied to him? I personally think the calling player must ignore anything said by the bettor.

 It reminds me of the guy that makes a big bet, and while you are considering whether to call, he tells you to save your money because he has you beat! 

 Action in pots with multiple players could affect the ruling (IMO). My reasoning is the possibility of collusion. Head to head is different.

 



 

[Tristan]

I agree with K-Lo.