Poker Forum

Guys i'm after your thoughts and comments about this, so we can forward them onto the powers that change things

I agree that there should be one set of rules. It is very frustrating as a player to play in different card rooms in the same country sometimes even in the same town that have different rules, it is the very reason situations like that occur.

It would save everyone a lot of time if we didn't have to debate the rules so often, the tourney clock usually ticking away while these things are sorted out it just makes everyone else in the game frustrated as well. There will never be a rule book that covers every single situation but there certainly could be one that covers most and is used by everyone. You wouldn't see chess players saying "i'm moving my pawn forward 6 places because he said........"

As for that situation, it's hard to say. I don't really think saying "I have to call" can be classed as banter it seems in effect to be along the same lines as string betting. The fact Frazer had not yet declared the amount of his bet or put any chips over the line makes it harder....

'rule 44 Verbal declarations in turn are binding, verbal declarations out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed when it is their turn to act, check, call or fold is not considered an action change.'

....because in that instance as no bet had been declared how could anyone possible know if it had changed or not? Perhaps he was going all in, perhaps he was betting or maybe even checking, no one knows.

So I would say Priyan's comment shouldn't have stood but he should have been given a warning. It was more than likely just banter but there needs to be less grey areas and obviously with one set of rules it never would have been an issue.

This reminds me of the 2006 WSOP where they introduced the "All-In Chip". There was more than one occasion where a player accidentally crossed the line with that chip and was forced all in because of it. Needless to say, those chips started going in the players' pockets instead of on the table.

Sorry, but I have to agree with the ruling. While no bet had been declared, this comment can affect that decision in an adverse way too. It could be used as a "bluff" move if this rule is not enforced the way that it was. Now, enforcement can include a warning first and then forcing the declared action rather than going straight to forcing the action, but something has to be done to prevent these types of comments during a hand.