Spread Limit Hypothetical

This seems like the same thing as if someone playing PLO says "Pot" when he doesn't have enough to raise the pot. His raise stands as all in, right? If the dealer notices a big discrepancy, he should say something, but if he doesn't say anything it's still a valid raise.

The point here is that he can't raise. He was facing a bet of 100 and only had 90 left.

If P2 folded here I would do my best to identify his cards and declare them live. If they're lost in the muck, they're going to have to pay the 90. P1 may be warned or kicked out for the day depending on their history of things like this whether the cards are identified or not.

Some rooms or floors might be more strict and say that the hand is dead once it's thrown forward.

In my old room we did have one guy who loved yelling all in when he didn't have any cards. I could never convince him to stop and couldn't get a floor to take it seriously.

Almost completely agree. One point, not even disagreement, any floor killing a hand thrown forward as described is simply wrong. 5hrown forward FACING ACTION is a fold but as described (since no actual raise) bettor is not facing action.

The dealer should be protecting muck and thus keep cards identifiable. But ultimate responsibility is player must protect his hand.

I think that is the real problem here. Dealers are taught to muck folded hands, making them responsible for monitoring stack sizes hand to hand seems like asking too much. Players should protect their hands, but I also appreciate people acting quickly and keeping the game moving, there are no cameras. So should a player incorrectly announce action, it puts everyone in a tough spot.

I have done/ still do something similar, but distinctly different, and now I am questioning whether I am inadvertently angling in a way I hadn't thought about.

On occasion when I am not in a hand and a heads up player makes a bet and the other player folds, I will playfully throw out a chip (or a stack) and announce "I call". This usually elicits a laugh, sometimes a moment of panic by the bettor because they have discarded their cards (rightly) thinking the hand is over. I have done it numerous times and it always gets a good reception by other players. Only one time has anyone ever had a problem with it.

I have found three reasons to do this. The primary reason is that it is a great opener to get the bettor to talk about their hand. People who wouldn't normally show or discuss their hand are more likely to open up and talk about their hand if there was a theoretical call. Seeing the chips I throw in seem to make the call more real. People just talk more because of it. Just last night, there was a player who was being overly aggressive and I thought I had a tell on him. He bet the river against another player, the other folded, and even though I wasn't in the hand, I threw a chip forward and said I call. It caught the aggressor by surprise, but then he laughed. I told him I thought he was bluffing. He then started talking about his hand saying he wished I could call. He then went on a 3 minute diatribe about how strong he was and I would have been foolish to call him, yada yada yada. It was obvious he was trying to show strength where none existed. He was bluffing. Read confirmed. I think if I just asked him about his hand afterwards he would have said just a couple words ("I had it.") Or whatever. Instead the momentary jolt of thinking he was called made him more defensive and talkative.

The secondary reason I have used this is that it is a cheap (no cost) way of letting a good, overly aggressive player know that you know they are bluffing a lot and you will call them light. It often gets the same effect of calling someone light without the monetary risk of having to call them.

The third reason to do this is that it can loosen up a table. Casual poker players like to laugh and have a good time and this is one way of getting laughs.

Again, I don't do this regularly, but over the years I have found specific occasions where it is helpful.

The only time I got negative feedback on it was a couple years ago when I did it to a player I thought was bluffing and wanted confirmation. He didn't immediately react. Instead he just casually turned over his hand (he was bluffing) thinking he was called. When everyone else reacted and laughed, he realized he still won the pot. He was happy initially (he won), but then he got angry that he showed his hand. He asked the floor to kick me out for angling.

I thought it absurd at the time, but now I am questioning my actions.

On one hand, I am obviously not angling. I cannot win any money. I am not in the hand. I am not bending any rules for any advantage. The hand is over and the correct player is going to get the pot. No doubt.

On the other hand, I am using deceptive methods to gain information. I have always thought that this was no different than people discussing the hand afterwards. People can be deceptive (lie) about their hands or what they would or would not do if something happened. Lying is literally part of poker. I have just thought this was an effective way to doing so.

But I am questioning that. If I am doing something that gets people to actually do things (i.e. turn over their hands) that they wouldn't otherwise do, then maybe it is wrong.

I would genuinely love to hear thoughts.

If you're absolutely sure the hand is actually over, I don't have a big issue with this.

The problem is I've seen people pull this joke not realizing there's still another person in the hand. This can affect the hand and really aggravate someone.

It can also get old real fast, so use it sparingly.

Yes. I agree. It is not something done lightly. Furthermore, as someone who is absolutely more aware of the action than most players (just due to dealing, but there are other aspects as well), I understand your concerns. I cannot imagine even doing this with action pending and to date I never have.

I was more thinking about the time someone showed their hand because they were fooled. Does that affect the morality judgement on this?

I agree. I rarely do this. It is more likely that months exist between the frequency than weeks. Furthermore, there is no need to do this against a regular. I already know their play. It is better against randoms.

While I'm aware that this has become common practice in some poker rooms and has some justification when dealing with newer players, I am dead set against it. The number one rule in poker is that you should protect your own hand. It can be a hard lesson for some people to learn, but it has many reasons behind it. Rooms, where they have the dealers protect the muck, might as well have them catch cards that are about to fly off the table when someone tables them too hard or double-check the hands that were folded to make sure it wasn't a winner.

Even when played for fun, poker is a serious game and should be treated as such. Having a dealer protect the muck is tantamount to declaring the players are incompetent.

flame off.

Dealers should protect the muck, period. That has nothing to do with protecting newer players (which they should also do, and which I guess you disagree with).

It means that no player should be able to stick their cards into the muck themselves, not that it somehow contradicts that players should protect their own hands. The dealer controls the muck, and when a players cards are put into it.

Just like the dealer controls the pot, and no players should be touching it either.

More than a few people agree with you, but then again, more than a few people agree with me.

Vive la difference!

I had misread the OP: I thought the person had said re-max when he had $190, not $90.

This last guy should be warned that the next time he said "all in" during a hand, he was going to be all in with our without cards, and then that should be enforced. It should stop right away.