all in or call ?

[Mateus93]

Hi all!

In a Heads up situation player A bet 11k (2 chips of 5k and 1 chip of 1k), player B who has only 3 chips of 5k left, pick then all put in the middle...

player B call the 11k bet or he was all in for he last 15k ?

Thank you

[Uniden32]

Without verbal declaration of a call, when a player places all of his chips in the pot, he's all-in.

[BillM16]

Without verbal declaration of a call, when a player places all of his chips in the pot, he's all-in.

Which TDA Rule(s) support this statement?

I would rule this a call based on rules #41 Methods of Calling and #46 Multiple Chip Betting.  The original bet is 11k and all three of the 5k chips are needed to make the call.  Player B didn't say raise or all in therefore, it is a call.

Regards,
B~

[Dave Miller]

A very similar situation was discussed recently, here: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1259.0

[Mateus93]

I agree with the call

Thank you dave

[Uniden32]

By definition, a player is all-in - "When you have put all of your playable money and chips into the pot during the course of a hand." as per Robert's Rules of Poker.

BillM summed it up in the other thread:

"Everyone knows that pushing all of your chips into the pot is an all-in bet unless you CLEARLY declare otherwise."

[Nick C]

Okay, I've been away long enough. It's a call. The only time all of the chips count (without verbal declaration) is if the player initiated the betting on that street.

The oversize chip rule applies.

[BillM16]

By definition, a player is all-in - "When you have put all of your playable money and chips into the pot during the course of a hand." as per Robert's Rules of Poker.

BillM summed it up in the other thread:

"Everyone knows that pushing all of your chips into the pot is an all-in bet unless you CLEARLY declare otherwise."

Uniden32,

I did say that in the context of the thread http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1259.0.  In that thread, I also pointed out that "technically it was a call" according to the literal interpretation of the rules.  The difference IMO is found in the more complete context give in the previous thread compared to the sparse information that is given in this thread.  In the previous case, I would rule that the player was all-in given the size of the blinds, his silent push of his relatively small stack, his maintained silence when the next player called his all in bet, his continued silence when the next player raised ... and then finally when it got back to him ... what appears to be an angle-shooting attempt to claim he wasn't all in.  Any player who knows the "technical rule" would also know that he is obligated to clarify his bet when the next player called the "incorrect" amount. (Of course, a better dealer could have helped.)  I often overrule a technical rule whenever there is substantial evidence of angle-shooting.  That is how I interpreted the scenario in the previous thread.

This thread presents a different situation without any evidence of angle-shooting - therefore the written rule should stand.  If you do not think angle-shooting was involved in the previous thread - then making it a call is reasonable.

Additionally, I would support a discussion at the next Summit on the question of the silent "gesture" all in move.  The notion of recognized gestures - such as checking by tapping the table - has been recently added.  Shoving all of your chips silently is USUALLY all-in and could be discussed.  However, having studied the history of the TDA, I'm not confident that this would win majority support given the departure from longer standing rules.  The fact that RROP has this as a written definition of All In, in the Glossary, is a plus (in regard to cash games).  But, that is not the same as an established rule.

Finally, this is yet another of those situations that could have been easily resolved by: a) verbal declaration, and b) the use of an All In Button.  If the dealer puts an All In Button out there and the player doesn't immediately complain - he is undoubtedly all in.

Regards,
B~

[Uniden32]

BillM,

I definitely think this could be addressed at the next TDA.  Certainly it would be easy enough to clarify with a rule:

A.  A player who puts all of his chips into the pot, without first declaring their intentions, will be all-in.

or

B.  A player who puts all of his chips into the pot, without first declaring their intentions, will be bound by rules #41 and #46.

Personally, I'm going to give priority to the All-in, as opposed to the single oversized chip in these scenarios, and rule the player All-in, but wouldn't be adverse to the other as long as there is a rule that covers it.

[Brian Vickers]

Blinds 100-200.  Player who only has one 5k chip in front of him puts it out.  If he doesn't say anything I'm ruling this the overchip rule all day.  I don't care that it's all his chips, it's a call.

[Dave Miller]

Bill -
You spell out your opinion on this very nicely. I could not have said it better.

By definition, a player is all-in - "When you have put all of your playable money and chips into the pot during the course of a hand." as per Robert's Rules of Poker.

That comes from the Glossary portion of Robert's Rules. Not exactly a rule. I couldn't find anything in the rules section that covers this.

It is my understanding that the TDA considers Robert's Rules something of a fall-back in the event of a situation where TDA rules don't apply or are unclear.

Also, don't most poker rooms use TDA rules rather than Robert's Rules, even for the cash games?

(On that note, is there a TDA defined set of 'exceptions' that apply only to cash games?)

[Uniden32]

Brian,

Certainly we can agree that your example and the one at the beginning of this post are completely different scenarios.

In your scenario, I'm with you, this is a call all day long.

In the scenario in the OP, you're ruling this a call as well ?

[Nick C]

Gentlemen:

TDA  Rule 46 covers this situation perfectly. It is a call...period! As far as Robert's Rules; they apply to cash games, but I'm sure that Robert's Rules would also consider the oversize chip rule in this situation.

[Dave Miller]

While I agree with you, and not to say that Robert's Rules by omission says something to contradict you, I thought I'd point out that Robert's Rules doesn't have anything similar to TDA Rule 46.

[Max D]

I agree rule 46 is very clear and works for this example, I would also add rule 2 "Players should...make their intentions clear".