AC Bally's: nice room, awful floor decision.

[VarlosZ]

I sat down at a 1/2 NL game at Bally's two nights ago, at about three in the morning. On the whole, I really liked the room -- loose, affable players, smoking permitted (if that's your kind of thing), and dealers that were friendly and ranged in skill from competent to virtuoso.

However, we did have one dispute that led to a terrible decision by the floor manager. The hand in question involved the CO, button, and SB. On the turn, the SB checked, the CO bet $30, and the Button called. The SB then said "He [the Button] is on a draw, so I'm going to set you [the CO] all-in." While he was collecting his chips for the raise, the CO folded.

The problem was that the SB saw the CO's stack of about 14 chips in front of him and thought they were all reds ($5). He didn't notice that the bottom five chips were greens ($25). When informed that his bet was approximately $170, he refused, saying he never intended to raise that much, and that he would just call the $30 instead. Half the table immediately jumped down his throat, but he stood his ground, and the floor had to be called. Here we begin amateur night.

First of all, the dealer had to call for the floor about five times. He was sitting at an empty table about 30 feet away, having a social conversation with a dealer on break. When he finally arrived, he was clearly irritated and wondered out loud why the table couldn't take care of itself. The situation had to be described to him several times, and even then he seemed to have a shaky grasp of who did what. Finally, exasperated, he shoved the CO's hand back to him and stomped off without saying anything.

Because it was a such a bizarre thing to do, and because he offered no clear explanation of exactly what bizarre thing he was doing, this solved nothing. The table continued to argue for another two minutes before he finally came back. He went through the process of listening to the arguments another few times, then confirmed (angrily) that the SB was just calling the $30 and the CO gets his fold reversed. The rest of the hand was checked down (the SB wound up winning with top pair).


So, this was a terrible ruling, yes? The only rationale I can see for it would be that the SB's statement that he was going to set the CO all-in was just informal conversation (not an official declaration of a poker action), and that the CO then acted out of turn. Indeed, the SB didn't even have the CO covered.

Still, since it caused the CO to fold, I figure the SB's statement has to be taken as a bet. Does anyone side with the floor on this one?

[Jeffage]

Horrendous. The SB should be held to his verbal declaration. It is not the dealer's responsibility to inform him how big the cutoff's stack is. It is his. If he is unsure, he should ask. He didn't. He simply said he was tapping the cutoff...thus, that should be what he has to do.

The only way I could see this differently is if the higher denomination chips were not in plain view (ie. hidden behind towers of chips). In that case, they wouldn't play and a reasonable ruling could consist of the floor saying, u have to raise him as much as is clearly visible. But this is only if the player obviously was hiding the other chips...if they were just at the bottom of a stack in plain view...too bad, so sad. Calling is def. not an option.

The floor sounds horrendous. I would have raised a hell of a stink if I was there.

Jeff

[Bremen]

This is why you should have to declare an ammount. Last time I played a tourney at the Taj one guy kept trying to do this and the dealer refused to continue the action until he declared a raise ammount.

If the chips were placed at the bottom of the stack, it is possible the the CO's hand was covering the lower chips, or that there was some other obstruction involved. Based on your assumption of 14 chips, the difference between the intended amount and the actual amount of the raise was less than 50% ($170 vs $70), and may have been the reason that the verbal commitment was not enforced. Its very easier to floor to interpret this as the player not knowing how much he was raising. I don't think this is a terrible decision.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on your assumption of 14 chips, the difference between the intended amount and the actual amount of the raise was less than 50% ($170 vs $70), and may have been the reason that the verbal commitment was not enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? The difference was either 59% or 142%, depending on which way you want to count.

[ QUOTE ]
Its very easier to floor to interpret this as the player not knowing how much he was raising. I don't think this is a terrible decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's any question that the player didn't know how much he was raising, but you can't run a card game where take-backs are allowed just because you didn't understand the situation. Among other reasons, it opens the door to blatant cheating: I declare on a bluff that I'm going to set someone all-in; if he folds, great, if not, I announce that I didn't know he had so many chips and actually wanted to bet much less.

[SossMan]

If the words 'all in' come from your mouth when it's your turn to act, you had better be damned prepared to put all your chips in the middle. Ignorance of your opponents chip stack is second in stupidity only to ignorance of your own chip stack.

[tpir90036]

Sounds like garbage to me. If the CO moved his hands to let the raiser check his stack but was hiding some big chips in his hand or behind the stack, that is one thing. The way it went down, he should have asked for a count or been paying better attention.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I sat down at a 1/2 NL game at Bally's two nights ago, at about three in the morning.
The only rationale I can see for it would be that most cardrooms assign their least competent floor staff to graveyard, to minimize the damage they can cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

[young nut]

I can see how the ruling makes sense if the guy had his higher denom chips on the bottom of his stack or not in easy plain view. Things like this make me wish there was a rule that made the players put their higher denom chips in other stacks or on top of lower denom chips.