Should all-in bettors be required to verbally declare all in or face penalty?

[MikeB]

Suggestion from NickC related to the following thread:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=940.msg8386#msg8386

Suggestion is:
*************begin quote ************

The more I look at this post...the more I believe this could be the perfect model example of; why we need to come up with "solid" rules. Rules that can not go either way. None of us agreed with the call that was made by the floor...yet, you could argue and defend the decision that was made, because there is always a rule that allows us (floorpersons, TD's, management, etc.) a "way out." I looked to the dictionary and found a better way to convey what I'm trying to say. The word decision: #1 the passing of judgement on an issue under consideration...#2 the act of reaching a conclusion or making up one's mind...#3 A conclusion of judgement reached or pronounced; verdict.

 I will highlight #4 because it best defines what I'd like to see applied to our rules: #4 Firmness of action....

 How about something like: Whenever a player pushes all of their chips forward, or goes all-in, they MUST declare that they are all-in. Failure to announce an all-in wager, or make your intention clear, will result in a penalty, and possible forfeiture of uncalled chips. If deemed the winner; there will be no financial gain from the unclear all-in. The use of an all-in button is encouraged, however, this will not shift any responsibility from the all-in player to the dealer.
**************end quote *************

Please explore and comment on the pros and cons of this suggestion in this thread.

[Nick C]

Mike,
 I don't think moving these original posts does anything to promote others to participate. This was posted over a year ago, with no response. What do you think?

[MikeB]

There's alot of participation on the original thread, which wasn't moved... This thread is just a placeholder to remind that this is possible topic at the 2015 Summit.

[Brian Vickers]

A rule I have used and enforced which I believe addresses the subject of the original post is:

If players allow the hand to play out as if they are all-in (i.e. both players turning up their hole cards prior to all chips being wajored and allowing the board to run out without either player attempting to stop the dealer from dealing any board cards) then they have accepted the action of being all-in whether techincally declared or not.

Now I'm sure this rule needs some wording help for clarity, and I fortunately have only ever had to enforce it when the chips remaining are relatively tiny compared to previous wagers. 

Just for "fun" here's a scenario of when this rule would not apply and you'd have a different kind of dilemma: Player A makes a large bet on the turn.  Player B turns his hand up without comment to "get a read" (yes, I know he would be penalized), Player A thinks Player B has folded and so he turns his hand up just to show what he had.  The dealer thinks the players are all-in and quickly burns and turns.  Player B now seeing A's hand wants to call the bet.  What do? 

[WSOPMcGee]

No. Next topic. 

With regard to Brian's scenario..... I think I would treat this situation the same as an uncalled bet, meaning when someone still has a hand and there's been a bet to them and they neither called, nor stopped any action by the dealer prior to another street being produced and action continued.

Player B is already angling and is going to be penalized. Penalize him further by forfeiture of the pot for angling, inducing action, and forfeiting the right to act by not stopping the dealer. Then have a chat with the dealer.

I see the scenario going down something like this:

TD to Player B: Why'd you turn your hand over?
Player B answers - and if it's anything other than, "I thought we were all-in" (which in this case we know it's not), then....
TD to Player B: So you're angling.

TD to Player A: Why'd you turn your hand over?
Player A answers - and if it's anything other than, "I thought we were all-in" (which in this case we know it's not), then.....
TD to Player A - At what point did you think he was folding or thought he had a dead hand?

TD awards pot to Player A and puts both players on a penalty for exposing cards with action pending.   

Alternatively I have witnessed a TD allow Player B to call, pull the river card back, reshuffle the card back into the stub and continue the action with both players KNOWING EACH OTHERS HOLE CARDS. I can't see that as a reasonable solution.

Push the pot, no one is damaged other than Player B, who was angling.