# What is the correct ruling?

Playing in a 1-2 game-gets to turn and I go all in with for about a 1000- it was a 1600 before my bet)

Opponent hems and haws and then says fold and throws his cards in face up- showing a set of kings-the rest of the players voice their amazement-

I breath- I had aq and two pair-- and then a another player says he called-guy running the game says he said fold...the dealer asks the guy and he says I called. (I believe at this point he was embarrassed that he said fold.)

Bottom line is his call was allowed to stand---it was more then me that heard the fold-(and the guy running the game was sitting right next to him)

*as a disclaimer- English was not his native language. But the guy running the game has lived over here for years.

• Just some clarification for myself, did this player make it 1,600 before you shoved with 1,000 or was that a different player?
– Grinch91
Oct 27, 2015 at 9:31
• I want to edit this, but want to make sure it's correct. I think this would read better if you replace "1600" with "pot of 1600" to indicate that the 1600 is the amount in the pot prior to your bet, rather than an amount that the villain bet into you. Oct 27, 2015 at 21:19

If he said fold before he threw his cards it is cleary a fold. If the dealer heard fold normally this means what it is.

If you showed your hand before the other guy said that he called that's even more shady. Because that means that after seeing the end result he would than assume the other player won and that's why he would say the other said call.

• But from the described action it sounds like he was all-in, and the cards were face up and easily identifiable. There was no additional action remaining in the hand after hero calls all-in, so is a verbal statement binding when there's no action to be made? Oct 27, 2015 at 15:45
• From the description, villain takes time to consider his call, so he's quite clearly NOT all in. Oct 27, 2015 at 19:18
• Oh, never mind. I think this question makes most sense if you replace the "1600" with "a pot of 1600," implying that the hero acted first and then the villain did have action to him. I had originally thought the 1600 was the villain's bet. If it's instead the size of the pot, then this question makes a lot more sense and I agree that the ruling is goofy. If he said fold then, the hand should be dead. Oct 27, 2015 at 21:18
• I think this hand should be described more in detail so that we have a better underdstanding of what was going on. It's not clear enough what happened. The whole action should be explained from the start to the end explaining every decision made. It's also not clear who those people are. Are they friends ? Is that why the other guy helped him ? Is this home game? More information could help us give a better explanation. Oct 28, 2015 at 3:46

I have dealt this situation countless times around the world and have seen TDs make the same ruling 99% of the time. As I posted in a comment, I'm a little unsure of the starting situation but either way there are two situations that could happen.

If the villain was the one who bet the 1,600 he is considered all-in, as hero can only shove with 1,000, so cannot fold in this case. Especially seen as he threw his cards face up. It would be different if he threw his cards in face down, but cards talk, and his hand cannot be folded, until the river and showdown, seen as he would be considered all in. It sucks when it happens but it is there to protect people from misreading their hands when they're all-in.

If he didn't make the bet of 1,600 and still had to put more chips in to call then it'd be a fold.

• I agree that it sounds from the action that the villain's hand should be live if the hero and villain were the only players in the hand and hero was all-in for less than the villain's bet. Oct 27, 2015 at 15:15
• The villain is quite clearly NOT all in, because he takes time to consider his call. After that he vocally says "fold". This is a fold, no question. Oct 27, 2015 at 19:17
• So have you never seen any player ever in your time playing not be aware of the amount bet? I've seen it happen many times where the player doesn't realise his bet has the hero covered. Hence why I put in the two situations. People make mistakes and sometimes don't realise these things.
– Grinch91
Oct 27, 2015 at 19:26
• I think Lee is right that this villain is not all in, because he hasn't actually acted yet when the hero bets. The original question is confusing. Oct 27, 2015 at 21:21
• +1 because this answers both possible situations (as given by the unclear question.) The villain cannot "fold" if hero went 'all in' with less than enough to complete the call. If the villain had 1600 to call, but said "fold", then it's a fold. Nov 3, 2015 at 0:20