Interesting ruling..

[mts]

in this case, the house should cover the 125$ that the player would have been forced to put in if not for the dealer error. Whoever fucks up, then thats who pays. Its the dealers job to count the chips down.

And leave the river to what it was. What if he sees the river and decides he doesnt want to call the extra 125$ because it would not have helped his hand?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

You make an interesting point. The amount of money surely makes some difference, as no one would bitch over $5, but a larger amount might have made a big difference. It's a difficult situation in any case, not totally clear cut.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
Al,

FWIW, I came up with my decision indepentently and was happy to see we were pretty close as usual.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because we're Super-Geniuses. It's just a curse we have to live with. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

al

[steamboatin]

Kick in the Nuts for the mistake, write him up for a safety violation, failure to wear proper protective gear (a cup)

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Its a tough call to make. Obviously the biggest mistake made here was by the dealer. People here seem to place the second blame on player A for not correcting the dealer. I agree that he has a responsibility to do this. But no one here seems to place any blame on player B. It seems to me that Player B shares some blame as well, after all he asked how much the bet was and then accepted the dealers answer even though it had to be obvious that the dealer had not actually counted the chips. he may be least blameworthy but he does have to share in the blame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Player B may be a lot farther from the betting stacks pushed out and it might not be so obvious to him. Player A should know his stacks are 25 each.

[ QUOTE ]
Since the consensus here is that the original bet should be reduced to the amount announced by the dealer, let me ask you if you make the same ruling in this scenario.

Player A announces pushes out a single stack of red. Dealer does not break down the stack, but announces the bet as "$100" Player B calls. It turns out that Player As stack in fact was $105.

Should the bet now be reduced to $100?

If not? why should this be handled any different than the original case?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. A player can easily be unaware his chip stacks were slightly off. But in this case I'd lean toward having the stacks match up.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it based on the amount of of money? If so how much is the limit? Would it make a difference if the chips were $1000 chips instead of $5 chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

On lead bets the amount is usually the amount stated by the player or the amount pushed if nothing is stated. But in the freak error above everything is relative, so it shouldn't matter if it's $5 or $1000 chips (although in a big game there would be a higher expectation that Player A keep his stacks neat and the dealer count them correctly).

As an aside, in correcting raises some LA clubs (e.g. the Bicycle Casino) use a half bet guideline. For example, if Player A bets $100 and Player B raises with chips but puts in only $195, the raise would be corrected to $200 since Player B was more than halfway to the legal minimum raise. If player B put out $140 his bet would be corrected to a call.

Some clubs (e.g., Hawaiian Gardens) consider any raise below the minimum threshold to be a "fouled bet" and it would be taken back if the floor was called to make a decision.

In any event the rules need a tune up with all the inexperienced players now playing no limit.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
in this case, the house should cover the 125$ that the player would have been forced to put in if not for the dealer error. Whoever fucks up, then thats who pays. Its the dealers job to count the chips down.

[/ QUOTE ]

The house just isn't going to do that unless the error was completely their fault. In this case the error was in large part Player A's.

[ QUOTE ]
And leave the river to what it was. What if he sees the river and decides he doesnt want to call the extra 125$ because it would not have helped his hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone believes the river card should come back.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Rick, You would write the dealer up after already kicking him in the nuts? Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a player and a floor I've always been extra easy on dealers. But this may change if we get more of this sort of mistake [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[Randy_Refeld]

I am late to this because I was having trouble opening 2+2 for some unknown reason. I don't have much to add here, but there are a couple PMs in my box asking my opinion.

When Player B asked how much it is he is no longer reuired to see the bet, by asking he has told the dealer to countthat I can't tell how much it is. When he calls for $500 is player A wanted to object now is the time to do it, the dealer is taping the table to put up the river now is your chance to object.

THe $500 bet needs to stand because player A has allowed Player B to act on the $500 and gets the potential benfit of player B calling a bet that he would have folded for $625 and then asking for the addition $125.

I see more and more NL problems being posted because there are very few people playing that are familiar with NL procedures. In the past there were only a handful of NL games and the players all knew the rules and places that spread them woudl have floormen that knew the rules so it worked out well. Now NL is being played by inexperienced players with inexperienced staff. Player B did everything he could to protect himself (he isn't allowed to reach over and break down the chips himself).

[Chipr777]

I posted this problem as a learning tool for those that are less familiar with NL rules. My ruling was that the $500 bet would stand. The dealer made an error, and was dealt with accordingly, but the player that made the bet has an obligation to protect his action. On a side note the amount of the bet wasn't making a difference in this situation. All the money was going in regardless. It was a set over set.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
A dealer could be forgiven for stating that five 19 chip stacks is $500

[/ QUOTE ]



This is the only part I disagree with.
The fact that any stack COULD be 19 or 21 chips is the reason the dealer HAS to break it down and not just 'eyeball' it.
Failing to double-check it is inexcuseable.

These are poker players (sometimes drunk) stacking up their chips as quickly as possible after a won pot while the next hand is being dealt to them.
It is obvious that sometimes they are going to foul-up their stack-size.


When I was a blackjack dealer and got a reload of chips at my table I was required to always break-it-down and double-check before accepting it.
The chips were coming directly out of a tray and the chances of one of the stacks being off by 1 chip were pretty slim.
It did happen one time though...one of my stacks had 21 chips squeezed into the tube so they had to send the WHOLE thing back and do it again.


If a dealer accepting chips from the cage has to take such pre-cautions then I would think that a players' stack-size is deserving of the same scrutiny for the fairness of the game.

This dealer was just plain lazy whether the stacks were 20, 25 or 19 chips and misrepresnting the stack by 1 chip is no more excuseable then misrepresenting it by 5.