You're a Bunch of Factors

3 people left in the hand at the river. Prior to this, all 3 players checked the flop and turn.

First to act bets 200. Before the second player has a chance to act, the third player to act says "one of us has to call, I'll fold if you call".

Is this table talk or a verbal?
If it is a verbal, should the third player have to fold if the second player calls?

Without getting the rule book out its collusion.

Plus
If the second player calls the 3rd person must fold as its a verbal
I would have put it in the hands of the TD

It's a great example of why nobody should say anything about the hand

To let you know what happened, I (the second player to act) ended up calling, slightly based on what was said but not entirely. The 3rd to act ended up calling and took the pot. Not happy Jan

mr_niceguy_1979 wrote:3 people left in the hand at the river. Prior to this, all 3 players checked the flop and turn.

First to act bets 200. Before the second player has a chance to act, the third player to act says "one of us has to call, I'll fold if you call".

Is this table talk or a verbal?
If it is a verbal, should the third player have to fold if the second player calls?

i hate this grrrrr i think it is a verbal
and in a way i think this is cheating and this upsets me... lol

It's more an angle shoot than collusion. And it's not on.

I would not force him to go All-In.

I see this as table talk ‘borderline’ as not in the spirit of the game and would give the player a warning for such behaviour.

I personaly believe any conditional action should not be binding.

Heads, I call, Tails I fold.... Does the coins decision become binding?

A.) It is table talk and it is more of an angle shoot but can be viewed as collusion with two or more players working in conjunction to the detriment of another player.
B.) If you call I will fold, that is a verbal declaration and should be enforced, although I don't like it; the player has verbally declared a fold (out of turn) if a hand plays out a certain way. It's the same as saying if you just call I will raise.

But in my honest opinion I believe that the talk should not have happened in the first place and the verbal declaration is the least of everyone's concerns.

Hey guys,

I think this is the perfect time to put another point across, some players have brought up 'consistency' as an issue in NPL, "some directors do this and others do that..." But as you can see, especially with this question, Interpretation of the rules can get tricky and 'borderline'.

So please read this.
http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_ ... _go_all-in

And try to understand, most decisions a Director makes is in the interest of fairness and enjoyment for players.