what is the correct ruling?

[jayheaps]

i wont tell you who i was as not to bias you.

NLHE game.

Player A and B are in the pot. Both of them have their cards protected with a $100 chip.

Player A bets, Player B moves all of his chips forwards and says "all-in" Player bet says "count it." Dealer counts the chips put forwards, however, not the chip coverign the card. Player A calls and B wins the hand.

When A is being counted down, B notices that the $100 chip wasnt counted. Should this $100 count and be counted down from player A?

[Randy_Refeld]

There is not anough info here to make a good ruling. How big are the stacks, what are the blinds etc.

[jayheaps]

i dont think it should matter. I was with 5/10 blinds. A had $1000 in front of him. B had significantly more.

[mts]

was there a max buyin and if so did this chip keep that player within the max?

[smoore]

I expect "all-in" to mean "all. in." However, B should have noticed it before the call because it *could* be an angle later if he loses and doesn't want to give that extra blackbird. If this happened on the flop and then B saw that chip on the turn I think he should be able to put out another $100 and A can fold if he likes. A should have put it out there and just held onto his cards in the first place.

EDIT: IANAFM (I am not a floor manager)

EDIT again (damn): Wait, we need to know when the extra $100 was noticed... before the call or at the end of the hand?

[Chipr777]

Randy,
Will all due respect, what do the blinds and stacks have to do with the question? I gather the question to be, is the chip covering the cards counted when a player says all in. The answer would be absolutly. If a player says all in, it doesn't matter how much he pushes foward. All in means all in. The chip counts.

[andyfox]

I imagine if A had won, he would have gotten all the chips, since B was all in. That would include the chip covering this cards. The guy can't have any playable chips left if he's all in. So I think he should get paid for that chip.

[smoore]

I think B had A covered. So if A was to win this and then says, "oh yeah... this $100 too"... what's THAT do to the ruling? Is that an angle?

[Chipr777]

If the chip was on top of the cards wouldn't it clearly be out in front of the stack? I can't see a player hiding his cards behind his stack with a chip he doesn't want to play. I understand the whole "larger denomination chips out front" rule but I can't see how this can apply here.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont think it should matter. I was with 5/10 blinds. A had $1000 in front of him. B had significantly more.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I ask about stack sizes is if there is a gross misunderstanding about the amount of the bet only the amount that was counted out has to be called. ($100 stacks the $100 chip clearly does not go in and with $10k stacks it clearly does go in). With it being about 10% of the bet it is close to a gross misunderstanding. In this case I would not allow the $100 chip to play. Player A asked for a count of player B's chips the dealer counted them and player B accepted this count by not correcting the dealer. So if B had lost he would not have lost his $100 chip so he cannot win the $100 chip from A. If this were a big game where the $100 chip is a "small" chip where the difference of $100 could not have affected the action the chip woudl go in.

RR

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
I gather the question to be, is the chip covering the cards counted when a player says all in. The answer would be absolutly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This of course is true. The OP wasn't completely clear, but what I am taking it to mean is it wasn't counted by anyone involved and then when the dealing is about to push the pot the winenr wants the extra $100 to go in. If it is a small anmoung I don't see a problem with throwing it in, but allowing someone a freeroll/angle for $100 is a problem (if it wasn't counted the first time it very well could be going straight into his pocket if he lsoes the pot). The stack sizes don't matter in a strict interpretion of the rules, but if the $100 chip was the size of the small blind I am sure they would toss it in without an argument of any kind.

RR


RR

[youtalkfunny]

EDIT: answered my own ?

[AngusThermopyle]

You story is all messed up.
A bets and B who has him covered, goes all in.
A asks for a count? Why?
A calls with less than all his chips--the $100 cap chip. He looses.
And then they are counting him?
Did you mean A had B covered?

[jayheaps]

Quick Summary:

A has $1200. B has $3000.

A raises $35 preflop. B reraises to $100. A Calls.

Flop: 9 Q K. A bets $150. B raises to $500. A reraises all-in. He shoved $850 forward and says "all-in". .(Adoes not push the blackbird cappign his cards forward.). B asks for a count ($350 more) and verbally calls.

Turn and River are blanks. A shows a set of queens. B mucks. Dealer counts down A's stacks for the additional $350 when A realizes the blackbird wasn't counted. The question is does B owe $350 or $450?

[AngusThermopyle]

Now that the story is clearer...$350.
Player B had a right to a correct count of how much it would cost him to call. Both the dealer and Player A had a chance to rectify the error before Player B called. By accepting the dealers count, Player A forfieted his claim on the additional $100.

[Chipr777]

This is one of those that can go either way and I can play devils advocate for either side. I still think it would depend on how visable the $100 chip was. Being that it was on his cards I would think it would be clearly visable and intended to be in play. Therefore, if I was the floor player B would owe player A $450.

[AngusThermopyle]

Could we agree that this thread demonstrates the cause of many, if not most, "bad rulings"?
The Floor does not get a full and coherent picture of what happened?

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Could we agree that this thread demonstrates the cause of many, if not most, "bad rulings"?
The Floor does not get a full and coherent picture of what happened?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most "bad rulings" aren't bad rulings but a player tries to apply a ruling from a similiar but different situation and decides the floor got it wrong. But you are correct that being able to describe to the floor exactly what happened is very important.

[Chipr777]

All floor have had to make tough floor calls at one time or another. When I make a floor call it's VERY important to get as much information as you can obtain before making a decision. The vast majority of the time the first thing that happens is 4 people try to yell at you at once. My standard line is as follows. "I'm going to hear all sides of what happened, but ONE AT A TIME PLEASE". I can't listen to everyone at once. If anyone at anytime interupts while hearing one side of the story it's important to reashure that their side will be heard. As a floor, I have an interest in making correct and fair decisions. Non correct decisions equal unhappy guests and unhappy guests equal an empty poker room. An empty poker rooms means I'm out of a job. Those of you that have played at Horseshoe Tunica know thats far from the case. I've met quite a few 2+2ers at Horseshoe and I know a few that come back on a regular basis because they know we have a fair game and floor calls are always fair and in the best interest of the game. There are many floor calls that can go either way and those situations are just unaviodable. In the subject at hand in this thread I feel its just one of those calls. It can go either way. A lot of it has to do with how the information was presented to the floor, and where the players were seating in relation to each other also could have a bearing. If they were next to each other the $100 chip would have been visable. 3 seat and 8 seat? Maybe not. I'm still going back to what I said in the beginning of this thread. I can play devils advocate for both sides. What was the ruling anyways? I'm curious now!

[jayheaps]

the ruling was that the blackbird plays and $450 was counted down. Here was the logic, which i am not sure I agree with. The floor said that it is the responsibility of the player calling an all-in bet to count of all of opponents chips and since the $100 was in plain sight (seats 1 and 3 were involved in the hand), it should play.

Now for the part I really don't agree with-- He also said that when a dealer counts down chips, it is only as a courtesy. If a dealer miscounts, the true amount of chips play.

one more thing, i had the set of queens.

[brokedickrooster]

All in means All IN. Of course it counts.

[Rick Diesel]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont think it should matter. I was with 5/10 blinds. A had $1000 in front of him. B had significantly more.

[/ QUOTE ]

If B had significantly more chips, then it shouldn't matter either way. By being all-in, even without his $100 chip, he still had A covered.

[LotsOfOuts69]

Verbal bets are binding, no matter how many chips are pushed foward. "all -in"/"call" means "all-in"/"call"

--LoO

[Rick Diesel]

This is like a completely different situation than was in the original post.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Actually, in most cases, but not all, I would rule that it does play. A $1 chip used as a cardholder plays, why wouldn't a $5 or $25 or $100 chip? It would CLEARLY play if the player had the blackbird as a result of coloring up excessive red chips that he had won. Also, this is a 5-10 blinds game, it's not unreasonable to believe there would be blackbirds on the table.

In certain circumstances of gross misunderstanding I would agree with you that it wouldn't play.

Another time it wouldn't play is if the blackbird took the player's total chips purchased above the table limit, in which case the chip would function only as a chipholder. This type of circumstance causes some confusion tho, so I prefer players to NOT protect their cards with chips that aren't in play, but are used in the casino they're in.

al

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
A $1 chip used as a cardholder plays, why wouldn't a $5 or $25 or $100 chip? It would CLEARLY play if the player had the blackbird as a result of coloring up excessive red chips that he had won. Also, this is a 5-10 blinds game, it's not unreasonable to believe there would be blackbirds on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of ourse it should play. The problem is they have already acted on it not playing. Now that we have learned it was the 1 and 3 seat involved I am muchmore inclined to let it play because it seems likely they were able to see the chip. I generally try to answer questions on the net, but sometimes I think my answer on the net should be the as in a casino "We do not speculate as to what a ruling might be as each situation is unique and a decision will be made on the facts of the situation."

[Rick Nebiolo]

I won't look at the other responses before answering. I'm also going to reword this a bit to keep my thinking focused.

After Player A bets small, Player B announces an all in raise and now sees his chips being counted down by the dealer (per Player A's request) and didn't make any effort to make the chip protecting his cards part of the count.

Player A calls the raise and Player B wins the pot. While Player A is being counted down to pay off the raise Player B now wishes his chip covering the cards (which wasn't originally counted by the dealer) to play and be matched up.

My guess is that in most cardrooms this could go either way.

That said, IMO Player B can't have it both ways, i.e., make no effort to make sure his $100 covering chip is counted during the period Player A has to make his decision whether to call and then have it play after the fact.

I'd rule the $100 chip doesn't play. The dealer may have made a mistake not counting it, but Player B had a chance to correct this in real time. Also note that many players use tokens that look very much like playing chips to cover cards - so a dealer mistake here is understandable.

~ Rick

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
I won't look at the other responses before answering.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should look at his restatement of the facts. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2204216&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I won't look at the other responses before answering.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should look at his restatement of the facts. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2204216&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[/ QUOTE ]

I did and was in the process of editing my response but the forum software went down (at least at my end). Now I'm late for an appointment and gotta run /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

[aggie]

Without question, the $100 chip should definitely play based on the "verbal is binding" rule

[Chipr777]

That's what I thought. I figured that since the $100 chip was in plain sight it would play. I also believe it's the players reponsibility to count the chips and the dealers job is to relay that information. Being that the players were in such close proximity in this situation I can't see that an argument that the chip was "unable to be seen" would fly. I've dealt and floored many of the larger NL hold'em and PL Omaha games. When a player in the larger games asks another how deep he is the answer is never to the dollar. A lot of times it's not even within $1000. Around 10 dimes, about $2000, or even.. "more than you have" are common answers. I've seen counts be off by $3000 in 5-10 NL and the all-in is never questioned. In a hand with $1000 or $2000 already in the pot what's $100.