Coilean
05-24-2004, 08:37 PM
This is a rant of sorts about a ruling (and therefore the implicated rule) made earlier today in the Bellagio 80 game. For those unfamiliar, a "time pot" is how the rake is paid in many higher limit games; the time charge for all the players is taken from the first eligible pot, generally the first pot to achieve X dollars after a new dealer sits down. At the Bellagio, the time charge is taken from the first pot that has a flop, and no chops are allowed until the time is taken (chopping is otherwise permissible).
Anyway, I'm the BB, with some inconsequential trash, and the new dealer is in, so it's a time pot. Me and the SB have agreed beforehand to chop time pots, which, despite being disallowed, is a pretty common wink-wink-nudge-nudge under the table sort of affair. It folds to the SB, who raises, at which point I remind him it's a time pot, and throw down my hand. Unfortunately, the SB is unaware of the illicit nature of our prearranged agreement, and we take back our chips while he throws down his hand. The dealer reminds us it's a time pot and no chopping is allowed, leaving our hands unmucked in front of us. I (having forgotten already that the SB raised, because I am thinking "chop, next hand") tell the SB to give me 2 chips which I will give back to him, so he does. After a few moments, when it becomes apparent neither I nor the SB am going to do anything more, the dealer collects the cards and prepares to deal the next hand, and I return the SB's 2 chips.
After the shuffle begins, the two Asian girls who will be the blinds after the next hand complain and call for the floor. I wonder out loud what the point of calling for a ruling is, since no flop, no drop, right? And I think I've seen them do the under the table chops during a time pot as well, so our only mistake is making it too obvious. Meanwhile the next hand goes down: LP open raises, folded to BB who reraises, ace high ragged flop, BB bets it down and LP calls down, LP's QQ beats BB's 88.
The floorlady arrives and the dealer explains the situation, at which point the floorlady rules the prior hand was unactionable, so no time will be taken from it, and the time charge will come from the current pot, but she leaves to get her supervisor for approval. Since the time is now taken, the Asian girls no longer want a ruling, but the winner of the pot naturally picks up the banner and pushes for a ruling.
So now the floor supervisor arrives and the dealer again explains the situation, making sure to mention that he left our hands unmucked and told us that we could not chop (which makes me wonder if a dealer has gotten in trouble for this before). The previously silent winner of the QQ pot is now adamant that he shouldn't have to pay the time, while openly admitting "I didn't care before, but they can't chop so why should I have to pay the time?" The new ruling is that me and the SB from the prior hand must split the time charge, which has already been dropped, so we wind up paying Mr. QQ $36 apiece. As the supervisor leaves, one of the Asian girls explains that this is the right ruling, which she has seen made before. Aha, well that explains the prior objection anyway.
So yikes, what an ugly situation all around. I'm pissed, more because I feel used than because of having to pay the $36, my right hand neighbor is pissed because he wasn't aware of the no chop rule in the first place, the QQ guy is upset because he "wrongly" had to pay the time to start with, and quite possibly the dealer felt his job might be threatened to boot. I'm also upset simply for giving a rat's ass over 2 measly chips, but I felt used, like Mr. QQ (and the Asian girls as well, for that matter) had taken a shot by not objecting to the situation until it became obvious that it might be to his advantage to do so (and even openly admitting to it), and at a point when the legitimate action of raise-fold could no longer happen.
So the end result is both me and the SB leave when our blinds next come up (the game stunk anyway, and I was now half tilted for no good reason). But not before I call out Mr. QQ for making a dick move and taking shots, probably leaving him pissed, but leaving me feeling a bit better for having vented my frustration anyway. But what a fuss to make over a 2 chip chop, bleah.
Anyway, I'm the BB, with some inconsequential trash, and the new dealer is in, so it's a time pot. Me and the SB have agreed beforehand to chop time pots, which, despite being disallowed, is a pretty common wink-wink-nudge-nudge under the table sort of affair. It folds to the SB, who raises, at which point I remind him it's a time pot, and throw down my hand. Unfortunately, the SB is unaware of the illicit nature of our prearranged agreement, and we take back our chips while he throws down his hand. The dealer reminds us it's a time pot and no chopping is allowed, leaving our hands unmucked in front of us. I (having forgotten already that the SB raised, because I am thinking "chop, next hand") tell the SB to give me 2 chips which I will give back to him, so he does. After a few moments, when it becomes apparent neither I nor the SB am going to do anything more, the dealer collects the cards and prepares to deal the next hand, and I return the SB's 2 chips.
After the shuffle begins, the two Asian girls who will be the blinds after the next hand complain and call for the floor. I wonder out loud what the point of calling for a ruling is, since no flop, no drop, right? And I think I've seen them do the under the table chops during a time pot as well, so our only mistake is making it too obvious. Meanwhile the next hand goes down: LP open raises, folded to BB who reraises, ace high ragged flop, BB bets it down and LP calls down, LP's QQ beats BB's 88.
The floorlady arrives and the dealer explains the situation, at which point the floorlady rules the prior hand was unactionable, so no time will be taken from it, and the time charge will come from the current pot, but she leaves to get her supervisor for approval. Since the time is now taken, the Asian girls no longer want a ruling, but the winner of the pot naturally picks up the banner and pushes for a ruling.
So now the floor supervisor arrives and the dealer again explains the situation, making sure to mention that he left our hands unmucked and told us that we could not chop (which makes me wonder if a dealer has gotten in trouble for this before). The previously silent winner of the QQ pot is now adamant that he shouldn't have to pay the time, while openly admitting "I didn't care before, but they can't chop so why should I have to pay the time?" The new ruling is that me and the SB from the prior hand must split the time charge, which has already been dropped, so we wind up paying Mr. QQ $36 apiece. As the supervisor leaves, one of the Asian girls explains that this is the right ruling, which she has seen made before. Aha, well that explains the prior objection anyway.
So yikes, what an ugly situation all around. I'm pissed, more because I feel used than because of having to pay the $36, my right hand neighbor is pissed because he wasn't aware of the no chop rule in the first place, the QQ guy is upset because he "wrongly" had to pay the time to start with, and quite possibly the dealer felt his job might be threatened to boot. I'm also upset simply for giving a rat's ass over 2 measly chips, but I felt used, like Mr. QQ (and the Asian girls as well, for that matter) had taken a shot by not objecting to the situation until it became obvious that it might be to his advantage to do so (and even openly admitting to it), and at a point when the legitimate action of raise-fold could no longer happen.
So the end result is both me and the SB leave when our blinds next come up (the game stunk anyway, and I was now half tilted for no good reason). But not before I call out Mr. QQ for making a dick move and taking shots, probably leaving him pissed, but leaving me feeling a bit better for having vented my frustration anyway. But what a fuss to make over a 2 chip chop, bleah.