Raising in No-Limit Hold'em - The Conclusion

In my last column, I asked for your opinion regarding a decision that I had to make in a no-limit hold'em game. The situation involved a player who had intended to bet all of his chips by announcing, "All in." The problem was that the other player involved in the hand and the dealer did not hear him say anything. I asked for your ruling and also mentioned that I had thought of a rule that might have prevented this situation from happening.



Here's a recap: In a heads-up situation on the river, Player A had announced, "All in." Player B, not hearing Player A, pushed in all of his chips. Player A, thinking he had been called, showed his hand, at which point the dealer mucked his cards.



The first decision I had to make was whether Player A had made a legitimate all-in bet. Player A explained to me that he announced "all in" when it was his turn to act. The dealer told me that he saw Player A make a motion that looked like a check, and he took it as such. Player B reiterated what the dealer had explained to me, that he thought Player A had checked. One of the players next to Player A told me that he had heard the all-in announcement, but no one else at the table had. Based on this information, I ruled that Player A had checked.



With that decided, Player B's bet would stand. The decision that I had to make now was whether Player A would be able to call the bet. Player A had turned his hand faceup on the table because he believed that he had been called. Allowing him to act on Player B's bet was the decision that I made.



Earlier, I mentioned that a new rule should be implemented for no-limit hold'em that might have prevented this situation from happening. Before I tell you what that rule is, here is a story that originally got me thinking about it.



With 54 players left in the 2004 World Series of Poker main event, the following hand took place. Four players folded to Doyle Brunson, who was sitting in the No. 9 seat. Because Doyle was still in the tournament, the ESPN cameras, along with most all other media, were filming and watching this particular table. There were cameras and people standing all around, and the noise level was higher than normal. When the action got to Doyle, he announced, "All in." The dealer reiterated the bet and two players behind Doyle folded. The action was now on Bradley Berman in the No. 3 seat and the small-blind position. Bradley thought for a minute and then announced "All in." When the big blind folded, Bradley pushed his hand forward, thinking the hand was over. It was at that point that he realized (and was told) that Doyle had moved all in ahead of him. Because of all the commotion around the table, Bradley had not heard or seen Doyle act.



The hand was dealt out and Doyle's pocket tens lost to Bradley's A-6 when an ace flopped.



In both the hand decision that I made and the hand involving Doyle, had either player moved chips into the pot instead of just announcing "all in," there more than likely would not have been an issue.



In today's TV poker world, people are watching final tables with loads of chips in play. They see players announcing "all in" all of the time while not moving any chips into the pot. This has caused an epidemic of new players simply announcing "all-in," even if they have only a handful of chips in front of them.



I believe it is time to implement a rule that requires a player to move at least some of his chips into the pot when making an all-in bet. He would of course have to announce clearly that he is moving all in prior to putting a stack of chips into the pot. This would force each player to explicitly show what action he is making; it would make the dealer clarify what the player is doing; and by having at least some chips put into the pot, it would alert the other players that a bet has been made. There is no reason that a player should simply be able to announce a large bet and not make any further justification of that bet.