Rules and clarifications in AC
 

A couple questions, sorry for the longish post.
1.) What is the purpose of not being allowed to receive chips from a player just prior to sitting? A friend owed me $200 for the room, and I went to sit down at same table. He offers me the money in chips. Table tells me I can pay him for them but not just take them. If this is to stop collusion wouldn't it be more helpful to see this and keep an eye out for team play?
2.) I sell 40 in chips to a woman at table. I am playing 2/4 with about 250 (it was a decent session) in front of me. I go to put the money in my pocket and am told to leave it on table. This was between hands. I am told you don't want short stacks doing this, but why? I like to play people that don't have the money to make correct plays. And since it was between hands, is this different than tipping the server with a chip?
3.) There was a huge argument regarding a side pot. This is 2-4 limit. On turn, in three way pot, one player is all-in. Side pot gets created. Dealer puts main pot in front of all-in player and side pot in middle of table. One man in hand objects saying it goes the other way. Huge fuss, floor comes over and rules in dealer's favor, saying thats how Caesars does it. Argument ensues. Bitchy man complains, then all-in player (who loses) starts in. Bitchy man says he will call casino regulators and complain. Is this not how the pots go? And why would the regulators care?
4.) Told you this was long. Last one though. 3-6 limit. I hit the nuts on the turn. Bet out six. Player after me raises 2 (all-in) next guy calls. Action back to me. I try to complete/raise (I ask what my options are). The dealer tells me that to raise the all-in player would have needed to bet at least half the bet (three). I say ok, I'll complete to 12. Dealer says no. I let it drop. Turn comes, I bet, other guy calls. River pairs board. All-in completes boat wins the pot, I win the side pot. The ruling cost me money, but really I just want to know if that is the rule.

Re: Rules and clarifications in AC
 

1) You can buy chips from a friend, but he is not allowed to take money off the table, so if you want $200 one of you would have to replace the 200 in chips with 200 in the form of cash. This is to allow whoever lost the money to your friend an opportunity to win it back as long as he decides to stay in the game. It is a universal rule in all card rooms.

2)Same as #1, there really is no difference as opposed to tipping with chips, other than that is an accepted practice.

3)The whiner was a whiner, makes no difference, GC wouldnt care. Take advantage of the guy on tilt [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

4)Im pretty sure that is the correct rule, but not 100%

Re: Rules and clarifications in AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
A couple questions, sorry for the longish post.
1.) What is the purpose of not being allowed to receive chips from a player just prior to sitting? A friend owed me $200 for the room, and I went to sit down at same table. He offers me the money in chips. Table tells me I can pay him for them but not just take them. If this is to stop collusion wouldn't it be more helpful to see this and keep an eye out for team play?
2.) I sell 40 in chips to a woman at table. I am playing 2/4 with about 250 (it was a decent session) in front of me. I go to put the money in my pocket and am told to leave it on table. This was between hands. I am told you don't want short stacks doing this, but why? I like to play people that don't have the money to make correct plays. And since it was between hands, is this different than tipping the server with a chip?
3.) There was a huge argument regarding a side pot. This is 2-4 limit. On turn, in three way pot, one player is all-in. Side pot gets created. Dealer puts main pot in front of all-in player and side pot in middle of table. One man in hand objects saying it goes the other way. Huge fuss, floor comes over and rules in dealer's favor, saying thats how Caesars does it. Argument ensues. Bitchy man complains, then all-in player (who loses) starts in. Bitchy man says he will call casino regulators and complain. Is this not how the pots go? And why would the regulators care?
4.) Told you this was long. Last one though. 3-6 limit. I hit the nuts on the turn. Bet out six. Player after me raises 2 (all-in) next guy calls. Action back to me. I try to complete/raise (I ask what my options are). The dealer tells me that to raise the all-in player would have needed to bet at least half the bet (three). I say ok, I'll complete to 12. Dealer says no. I let it drop. Turn comes, I bet, other guy calls. River pairs board. All-in completes boat wins the pot, I win the side pot. The ruling cost me money, but really I just want to know if that is the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The table stakes rule prohibits him from taking $200 off the table to pay you until he leaves. Just because you are going to play with the chips doesn't change that he is taking it out of his stack. If he has cash on him he give you cash and you can buy chips. Or he can leave the table and give $200 in chips.

2. Again the table stakes rule prohibits you from removing chips or money from the table until you leave. An exception to this rule is made for tipping, and in someplaces for purchasing food or cigarettes.

3. Who the hell cares where the pots are set-up as long as everyone knows which one is which. Why anyone would complain about this is beyond me. In the case of a small main pot and a large side pot it may be easier for the dealer to keep the side pot in the center.

4. You can not complete here. The players all in for 2 more (which is less than half a bet) does not count as raise. Since it was not a raise for you to complete his bet would raising your own bet. If the all-in player had acted before you, your choices would have been to call $2 or complete to $6.

Re: Rules and clarifications in AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
4. You can not complete here. The players all in for 2 more (which is less than half a bet) does not count as raise. Since it was not a raise for you to complete his bet would raising your own bet. If the all-in player had acted before you, your choices would have been to call $2 or complete to $6.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, if a player goes all in for less than half the bet - it does not reopen the betting round for anyoone who has already acted. (someone who hasn't acted on action previous to the allin raise, still has the options to raise to the completion, and reopen the betting to everyone)

Re: Rules and clarifications in AC
 

Sorry, I am really lazy and stopped reading after the first two, mainly because these are not AC rules. Poker played in cash game format is played by a rule called table stakes. You cannot take money off of the table at any time unless you are leaving.

Re: Rules and clarifications in AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
3.) There was a huge argument regarding a side pot. This is 2-4 limit. On turn, in three way pot, one player is all-in. Side pot gets created. Dealer puts main pot in front of all-in player and side pot in middle of table. One man in hand objects saying it goes the other way. Huge fuss, floor comes over and rules in dealer's favor, saying thats how Caesars does it. Argument ensues. Bitchy man complains, then all-in player (who loses) starts in. Bitchy man says he will call casino regulators and complain. Is this not how the pots go? And why would the regulators care?


[/ QUOTE ]

The main pot is placed in front of the all-in player to signify the individual that does not have a right to the pot. It is used to help the dealers keep track of who has a right to which pot. It can become confusing if 3+ people are all-in on a hand with multiple side pots created.

Re: Rules and clarifications in AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3.) There was a huge argument regarding a side pot. This is 2-4 limit. On turn, in three way pot, one player is all-in. Side pot gets created. Dealer puts main pot in front of all-in player and side pot in middle of table. One man in hand objects saying it goes the other way. Huge fuss, floor comes over and rules in dealer's favor, saying thats how Caesars does it. Argument ensues. Bitchy man complains, then all-in player (who loses) starts in. Bitchy man says he will call casino regulators and complain. Is this not how the pots go? And why would the regulators care?


[/ QUOTE ]

The main pot is placed in front of the all-in player to signify the individual that does not have a right to the pot. It is used to help the dealers keep track of who has a right to which pot. It can become confusing if 3+ people are all-in on a hand with multiple side pots created.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why any player would care or want to get a rulign on pot placement, but this is a horrible procedure. The main pot shoudl already be in roughly the center fo teh table (the flop in the center to it needs to be somepalce else). TO know move it to some other location on the table would not be a good procedure. Also the burn cards are protected by the main pot so to move this pot is risking exposing the burns. If a dealer has trouble keepign track of side pots he should be removed from the gaming floor and receive additional training until he is able to keep track of side pots.

Thanks for the answers
 

Thank you. It was my first time. Some rules like taking chips I should have known, since I can't do this online. I had never noticed that I could only complete if the bet was over half. The part about the side pot was more amusing than anything else. This was a heated discussion. I learned there are many bitter people playing live poker. One guy asked to see my hand out of the muck four or five times. When I asked him why he kept needing to see it, he said "You tell me". One of the people that told me to keep the twenty out, under his breath, says "this is a little different than online." It was only that the table was running great that I didn't tell him that the major difference was how much tougher it is online.

Re: Rules and clarifications in AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why any player would care or want to get a rulign on pot placement, but this is a horrible procedure. The main pot shoudl already be in roughly the center fo teh table (the flop in the center to it needs to be somepalce else). TO know move it to some other location on the table would not be a good procedure. Also the burn cards are protected by the main pot so to move this pot is risking exposing the burns. If a dealer has trouble keepign track of side pots he should be removed from the gaming floor and receive additional training until he is able to keep track of side pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything Randy said -- but I was just going to post that my understanding is that as Randy implied the presence of the burn cards identifies the main pot, for whatever reason. Tradition?

Re: Thanks for the answers
 

[ QUOTE ]
TOne guy asked to see my hand out of the muck four or five times. When I asked him why he kept needing to see it, he said "You tell me".

[/ QUOTE ]

I anticipate that this will lead to yet another heated discussion about I want to see that hand. It's been three or four days -- we're overdue.