All In (or Not)

It makes me cringe every time that I hear it. A player says the words "all in" in the context of a question or comment, with no intention of actually moving all in. Most of the time, it doesn't cause a problem, but every once in a while, it does.

I was playing in a $10-$20 no-limit hold'em cash game when the following situation took place:

Three players see a flop for a raise to $120. After the flop, John, the first to act, bets $250, the next player folds, and Steve, the only other player in the hand, raises to $500. It's back to John, who reraises to $1,000. The action is now back on Steve. John hears Steve say, "All in," and announces, "Call." The dealer starts to run the board out as Steve slides out another $500 in chips (presumably to match the last raise).

After the river is dealt, John shows pocket aces and Steve mucks his hand.

This is where it gets sticky. John slides out a stack of chips and some bills, and counts them down. It's a total of $950 more. The dealer looks at Steve and says, "You owe $950 more." Steve quickly protests.

The dealer, somewhat confused, tells Steve that he made an all-in reraise on the flop, and John called. Steve, realizing where the discrepancy is coming from, explains that he never made a reraise. When John had reraised to $1,000, Steve had asked, "Is he all in?" Steve had assumed that once the dealer started dealing the cards out, John was in fact all in, which is why he slid another $500 into the pot to call the last raise.

The floorperson is called to the table to try to determine exactly what happened and make a decision. This is one of those complicated situations that isn't easy to rule on. In this case, the dealer and John both thought they heard Steve announce, "All in," and the hand played out, in their minds, as if he had. Steve, with the support of three other players at his end of the table, claimed that he only asked if John was all in. The rest of the table seemed to be pretty neutral.

Who is at fault, and what is the correct decision?

This is a tough one. I was at the table, but wasn't paying close attention. I didn't hear Steve say anything, so I couldn't objectively give an opinion. I was given the same information that I described here after the hand was completed. After hearing all of the facts, I started to "play floorperson," and thought about how I would rule.

Because three other players had quickly sided with Steve and backed up his story that he had merely asked if John was all in, I believed that Steve did ask that, and did honestly believe that John was all in. That being the case, I couldn't see ruling that Steve had to call the $950 without bringing the turn and river back. In a perfect world, that is the correct decision. Bring back the turn and river, and put the action on Steve, facing the reraise to $1,000 made by John. I quickly thought of that decision, and when it was obvious that the floorperson was struggling with what to do, I explained to him the possibility of doing what I just described. He kind of winced and made a funny face. John quickly told me to stay out of it; the hand was over and he wanted to get paid.

Looking at it from John's perspective, he had called an all-in bet, and his account was substantiated by the dealer. The dealer, being the impartial participant, should have more credibility when it comes to explaining what happened. But the dealer wasn't seated next to Steve, and easily could have heard the words "all in."

Ultimately, the floorperson made the decision to let Steve keep the $950, as he was convinced that Steve had asked the question. I didn't like the decision, because I thought they could bring back the two cards and play it out with the correct bets. But I also understand why floorpersons sometimes look for the most nonconfrontational solution.

This situation highlights two important points that I have written about previously: (1) Don't say the words "all in" unless you are going all in. (2) There is no good reason for poker rooms not to force players to put the chips they are betting into the pot. Time and time again, situations come up that could have been prevented if chips that were bet were actually put into the pot, instead of left sitting in front of a player, where they sat when the hand started.

Mike O'Malley is a consultant for www.PartyGaming.com, and can be reached at [email protected]. His website is updated regularly at www.rzitup.com.