Question - all-in total

[bobbyeis]

We have a home game and had something come up last game which we were uncertain how to handle?  A guy went all-in, the other player in the hand asked him how much is it?  He said 1750, the guy called.  The guy who went all-in won the hand and as he was raking in his chips he noticed he had 2 extra chips he forgot to account for, so when he went all-in he actually had 2750, not 1750.  What do we do in this situation?

[Martini]

"20. A player who declares all in and loses the pot, then discovers that one or more chips were hidden, is not entitled to benefit from this. That player is eliminated from the tournament if the opponent had sufficient chips to cover the hidden ones (A rebuy is okay if allowable by the rules of that event). If another deal has not yet started, the director may rule the chips belong to the opponent who won that pot, if that obviously would have happened with the chips out in plain view. If the next deal has started, the discovered chips are removed from the tournament."

http://www.homepokertourney.com/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm#SECTION_15_-_TOURNAMENTS

[bobbyeis]

But the person who declared all-in won the pot, so does the person who lost the pot have to give the person who won the pot the extra 1000 chips he did not declare when told his chip total when he went all-in?

[Martini]

As stated in the rules, he cannot benefit from it. I would match the 1750 that he did have and remove the extra 1000 from play. All of his chips should be easily visible by other players at the table and if he himself can't find all of his chips then they clearly weren't visible. It's too bad he didn't have his chips visible but it's his own fault and he should be warned about making sure his chips are always easily seen at all times. Wouldn't it be interesting to know what would have happened if he lost the hand. Perhaps those "missing" chips end up in his pocket and come back for another tournament. Who knows?

[Wedge Rock]

That's alot of assumptions, Martini.

I think you have to make a call on the spot.  If the ruling was that his AI was +1000 if he lost, I think it has to be the same amount if he won.  Your decision cannot be based on the outcome of the hand, but must be consistent.  I regularly call all in and forget my chip that I was using as a card cap.  I add that to the stack, or someone at the table will point it out.

Now, if the guy was a snake and you suspect that he might do something like Martini suggests, then sure, a different course of action might be appropriate.  You can't let a player benefit from an angle shoot, but we just don't have those facts here.

There is also a rule that says if a person acts with an incorrect assumption of the bet he is facing, he can change his action.  2750 is 50% more than 1750.  That might be enough to invoke the rule, although doing so after the hand is played would be a bad move.

[Martini]

First of all, if he announces all in then that includes the card cap so that's not the same issue. Since the cards should also be in clear view of everyone at the table the player making the call would have been able to verify for himself that all of the chips were accounted for.

As for the OP's question, sure, I guess I'm making some assumptions and it would all depend on the context but I'm having a hard time picturing any scenario where a person could justifiably have a chip worth 40% of their stack not visible. And the fact that it was fortunately found *after* they had won the pot is a quite the coincidence.

I don't mind deviating from the RRoP for this.
* If the AI had won the hand I'd match the 1750 and remove the extra 1K that was found later.
* If the AI had lost the hand I'd award 1750 to the winner and remove the 1K that was found later. Since both players thought that 1750 was the wager I don't see how that's cheating either player.

[Wedge Rock]

Based on past discussions, I think you and I are pretty close to agreeing on this, and I can see where you are coming from.  But that extra 1000 chips didn't just find its way on to the table... it was somebody's chips.  If everybody agrees that it was the AI player, I don't think you pull them off the table.

What if it was a T100k and we are talking about 2 T500's, the lowest chip in play (and 1% of a starting stack), and they were inadvertently knocked off the top of a stack and rolled behind a drink cup on the table un-noticed?  Or they were standing on edge along the rail un-noticed?  That seems further from an angle shoot and I don't think the chips should come off the table in either scenario.

Assuming there was no angle-shoot and there were no nefarious intentions, if AI player said "All in," then all of his chips were at risk...  all 2,750.  Whether AI was aware he had 2,750  or thought he had 1,750.  If he wins the hand, the other player should match the extra 1000 chips.  If AI loses the hand, the other player should get all 2,750.

I, too, would like more details on how these chips were "lost" and "found"...

[Dr. Neau]

Where did the OP state that chips weren't visible?

Player A asked Player B for a count and Player B counted wrong.

[72]

yeah, where exactly did those chips come from? I could only assume that they would be one of the largest denoms in the tourney... therefore they should be clearly visible to all players, not hiding anywhere they have to be "found"...

I could see them being removed in a scenario where he lost, but not if he won. noway.

But... not declaring the correct total, and being 50% more than what was declared, definitely could open it up to him not getting paid the extra 1000. that gross miscalculation could've changed the caller's decision to call.

definitely sketchy. what the heck was the dealer doing letting it all happen like this?

i've never heard of something like this happening in such a silly manner. personally, i'd say tough noogies to the all-in who hid his high denom chips. missed out on 1000 extra in your stacks. lol.

[R-Ho]

"20. A player who declares all in and loses the pot, then discovers that one or more chips were hidden, is not entitled to benefit from this. That player is eliminated from the tournament…etc.

Absolutely nothing in that rule pertains to the OP.

R-Ho

[Martini]

@R-Ho
Thank you for pointing that out. I mis-interpreted what was written. I stand corrected.

I think we all agree that more detail would be helpful in determining what the best remedy would be for this. Despite being a ~50% increase in bet amount, if the shover were the short stack with blinds at 1K/2K then that's a vastly different situation than if the blinds are at 50/100.

[nutN2Lewz]

WSOP Rules 2011

91.
Accepted Action: Poker is a game of observation. It's the player’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy of another player's bet and/or all-in wager regardless of what is stated by the dealer and/or other players at the table. If a player requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or another player at the table, then places said amount into the pot, it is assumed he/she is accepting the action and will be subject to the correct wager and/or all-in amount.

-----

The WSOP rule is very clear on this issue. The verbal declaration of the amount of the all-in bet is meaningless. The all-in bet is 2750 and that is what must be called.

But you are playing a friendly home game, not the WSOP. I would disregard the WSOP rule and allow the player to call 1750. So there you go ... I gave you the exact rule and then advised you to do the opposite. Aren't poker rules wonderful?

To make matters worse, if the discrepency was not substantial, I would advise you to do the opposite of the opposite. If the player verbally stated 1750 and then you discovered that the payer actually had 1850 ... I would force the player to call the 1850.

But I cheated. I looked up this circumstance in the PokerTda Forum. There are mixed opinions even amongst the professional TD's.

Good luck, nutn

[bobbyeis]

Thanks for all the comments on this issue.  A little more bakcground:

This is a friendly 10 person home game with a $25 buy-in (not huge but big enough that people care).  Blinds were approx. 100-200 and after the flop the guy that went all in did push his stack (no chips were hiding).  Another player asked for a count and the all-in said 1750.  I am not really sure how he mis-counted by 1000 but after the hand was won, he said, "oh, I have 2750".  I think a 1000 black chip was mixed in the 100 blue chips.

The guy who lost offered to give 500 as a "meet in the middle" which is most definitely the incorrect thing to technically do but it worked for the 2 guys in the hand together.

There was 0% chance the guy was angling at all.

[Dr. Neau]

friendly

Careful...

[Martini]

@bobbyeis
Having that additional information in the OP would have made it easier to comment on your particular situation. If all chips were clearly visible to the person calling I would say that he's on the hook for the full amount of the all in.

I also jumped to conclusions on what the situation was based on incomplete information. At least I got to go through the exercise of considering what to do if that happened in my game. I'm going to have to digest it some more but I think I'm going to end up with a house rule that chips which are separated from a player's stack and removed from view will be taken out of play.

I'd also be curious what chips were being used to see how similar the two colors are to each other. This is also why chip sets usually have such distinct colors from each other especially among chips which are likely to be in play with each other at the same time. The WSOP did a terrible job at this a few years ago when they had two denominations close in value and color (like a peach color and orange color IIRC).

[blindman]

Has happened at our games before, we tell the player to pay the 1750 that was declaired, and then tease the livin crap out of the "All In"  who CAN'T COUNT!!!!    Always good fun at our games!!!

[bigstu]

I have been on the loosing side of this and had to pay the full amount.  I have also miscounted my chips usually corrected by the dealer but once the chips pass the line caller responsible for what has passed ... can fold for the difference but that is different from the op

[Nerre]

I really think the suggested ruling is bad.

I am not allowed to count the chips myself (because I am not allowed to touch the pot), I must rely on the other player or the dealer, and if they count wrong I still have to call the correct amount once it is revealed?

Then I must ask, how many counts can I ask for? If I think both the player and the dealer made a wrong count, can I call the TD over to get a correct count? What if the TD also counts wrong? Will I still have to call the full amount after losing the hand?

Also, isn't there a rule of keping higher denomination chips clearly visible? If a black chip is mixed with the blue chips, I think that rule is violated.

[Martini]

@Nerre
I completely agree. I hadn't noticed that WSOP rule before but, as you say, what can a player do to protect himself in that situation if he can't count the chips himself? I think a count provided by a dealer should be binding. The WSOP rationale of poker being a "game of observation" is ludicrous if that's supposed to imply that every player has a running tally of every other player's chips at the table. And what if a player just sat down at the table? How's anyone supposed to have observed how many chips he has? By enforcing a rule like that you are basically begging for players to hide high denominations in the middle of their stacks and cover them up with low denoms. Then when they shove they are going to get called light if it doesn't look like they have many chips but will get all of their hidden chips called if they win?

[Poker Jack]

Here are my 2 cents on this:

Rules and interpretations aside, to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, I'd suggest you make sure that:

- (if possible) there is nothing placed on the table apart from chips, cards, button and card caps
- (if possible) drinks and snacks are placed on a small table within reach, and not on the poker table itself
- (if possible) you don't allow ipods, iphones, or anything of that nature be placed on the table. Headphone cables, electronic gadgets, snack bags, and the like, are predestined to cover up chips (especially after a stack has fallen over).
- (if possible) players who are all-in actually stand up. This eliminates the chance that an arm, or shadow covers up any chips

Just suggestions, of course. You have to decide for yourself how much "professionalism" (if you want to call it that) you want in your home game. There's of course a chance to overdo it, but if your buddies are willing to contribute to the quality of the game, I'm sure they will appreciate that kind of suggestions.

[blindman]

I'm with Poker Jack on this one, I always have asked players to not put any food, or drinks etc on the poker table. Drinks and snacks get in the way of chips,  get knocked over on the table etc. Just cards, caps, and  poker chips on the table in my games as well.  When a guy pays a pile of money for poker chips, cards, table etc, you really don't want food and drink on there anyways! Keep all extra's off the table, and life is good!

[Nerre]

None of those suggestions will handle a black chip mixed with blue chips, as in the described situation.

Even if the dealer would stack the chips during the count a black chip might be hard to see if it's in the middle of a 5 chip stack.

And this doesn't even have to be about an all in situation, a player might bet half his stack and have a black chip mixed with blues.

Of course, using chips with distinct colors and edge patterns will help minimizing the risk.

[Martini]

@Nerre
Good point. First of all I can't think of any time that this has been an issue in any game that I've been involved in and that's quite a few hours of play. The worst offense would be someone going all in and having tall stacks (21 chips instead of 20) so the count would be off a few bucks and less than a 5% error, not enough to have swayed anyone's decision. But the whole issue has got me thinking about how a the situation should be handled.

Having had time to mull it over some more I'm thinking that, as you pointed out, it is not fair to the person calling a bet that he cannot touch the chips to inspect the actual amount and *must* rely on the accuracy of his opponent and/or the dealer. And in the case of Hal Lubarsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Lubarsky), the blind player, he is fully reliant on what he is told the chip count is. Now, often times the dealer will count out the chips in an orderly manner ensuring the stacks are all the right height with no foreign denominations in them so there isn't usually an error or at least not a substantial error. Additionally, when the dealer counts out the chips the person calling can visually inspect the process to double check his work. That said, there should be a rule for when someone significantly misrepresents their stack size.

In my opinion, again, since the player calling cannot independently verify the chip count, I feel that a player announcing their chip count which is significantly less than their actual chip count should be bound to that amount in the same way that they would if the player verbalized their wager. I believe that an explicit amount should override an "all in" declaration. Furthermore, since the person calling is basing his call on that amount then that should be the amount played for *if* the caller asked for a chip count and accepted that amount. The remaining chips should be removed from play assuming that it was an all in situation. If the caller just called an all in without asking for a chip count then all chips should be in play as long as the chip stack fairly represented the actual amount, in other words, no hidden high denomination chips. That scenario is a whole different ball of wax.

If the player significantly *overstates* the value of his stack and is called then there's not much you can do about that but I also don't think that would be very likely to happen since it would be difficult to represent chips that aren't there. Nonetheless, that case should be covered as well and I think that all you can do is just have the player forfeit all their chips even though it is less than the amount he said it was. Bringing on chips to fill the balance is out of the question.

I'm still thinking this one though but that's what I feel would be the fairest decision in my mind. I know I also need to wordsmith it out so that it is easier to understand.

[Nerre]

There are two rules that are a bit contradicting here....

8. If there is a discrepancy between a player's verbal statement and the amount put into the pot, the bet will be corrected to the verbal statement.

9. If a call is short due to a counting error, the amount must be corrected, even if the bettor has shown down a superior hand.

So, if a player states "1750" and bets 2750, he should correct the bet to 1750 according to rule 8, but if the amount is not corrected the caller must call 2750...

Of course, one could argue that the verbal statement is "all in" and not "1750", but that does open up for angle shooting. You can announce a bet that is smaller than what the opponent would have called (at least in a tournament I can call an all in if I know I will have chips left even if I lose) to fool him into calling.


Online poker never has these problems because the amounts are always clearly shown...

[blindman]

Yes, but keep in mind we are not talking about internet poker here, we are talking a good ol' live game with friends where we can and do make mistakes.

[Martini]

There are two rules that are a bit contradicting here....

8. If there is a discrepancy between a player's verbal statement and the amount put into the pot, the bet will be corrected to the verbal statement.

9. If a call is short due to a counting error, the amount must be corrected, even if the bettor has shown down a superior hand.

So, if a player states "1750" and bets 2750, he should correct the bet to 1750 according to rule 8, but if the amount is not corrected the caller must call 2750...

Of course, one could argue that the verbal statement is "all in" and not "1750", but that does open up for angle shooting. You can announce a bet that is smaller than what the opponent would have called (at least in a tournament I can call an all in if I know I will have chips left even if I lose) to fool him into calling.


Online poker never has these problems because the amounts are always clearly shown...

I think that Rule 9 which you cited pertains to the caller's amount. So if Player A bet 10,000 and Player B calls but only puts in 9,000 then he owes the extra 1K. At least that's how I read it. The second part of that rule doesn't seem to make much sense when it states "even if the bettor has shown down a superior hand." Well of course the caller needs to correct the amount when he lost the hand. If anything that second part should state "even if the caller has shown down a superior hand" so that the pot is made right before awarding. That would ensure that the winner has enough to cover the loser.

[holdemholmes]

There are two rules that are a bit contradicting here....

8. If there is a discrepancy between a player's verbal statement and the amount put into the pot, the bet will be corrected to the verbal statement.

9. If a call is short due to a counting error, the amount must be corrected, even if the bettor has shown down a superior hand.

So, if a player states "1750" and bets 2750, he should correct the bet to 1750 according to rule 8, but if the amount is not corrected the caller must call 2750...

Of course, one could argue that the verbal statement is "all in" and not "1750", but that does open up for angle shooting. You can announce a bet that is smaller than what the opponent would have called (at least in a tournament I can call an all in if I know I will have chips left even if I lose) to fool him into calling.


Online poker never has these problems because the amounts are always clearly shown...

I'm with Nerre here on this one...there is quite a contradiction. If it was up to me, I think I would only require the caller to call 1750. I've always felt like it's your responsibility to correctly count your chips, and if you can't do so then it is your fault. This is something that could definitely go either way.

[Nerre]

Those rules are not clear on whose counting error they are talking about.

It makes sense to only force a player to his own counting mistakes, not other players or the dealers counting mistakes, doesn't it?

[Poker Jack]

after the flop the guy that went all in did push his stack (no chips were hiding).

No bet was announced. Player is all-in with his whole stack.

Another player asked for a count and the all-in said 1750. 

(1) The dealer - if present - did not count the chips.
(2) You should never trust another player. The player calling should have asked the dealer what the amount was.
(3) Also, the dealer - if present - should have stacked the chips in a way that makes it possible to count (stacks of 10, of 5, remaining chips spread out). That way, "dirty stacks" can be cleaned up by the dealer and an incorrect count is much more unlikely.

after the hand was won, he said, "oh, I have 2750". 

I think it's too late to correct the amount here. It doesn't make sense to punish the player calling. I would give a warning to the all-in player to keep his stacks clean and to not give false info about his bet amounts. I would, later, grab the dealer and tell him to make sure chips are stacked right and that he keeps a sharp eye on the count.

Now, if the calling player knew he was facing a larger amount he would have either:
called, in which case the hand would have played out as it did
folded, in which case the result (all-in player not busted) was still the same
So, the hand would have played out as it did in any case
Now, is the all-in player entitled to 2750 off the calling player? No, because he declared an incorrect amount and should not benefit from this, but receive a warning.

Suppose the all-in player got busted and then the incorrect amount was discovered. Then, you would have to check whether the player calling has him covered or not.
If the calling player has more than 2750 in his stack, the all-in player is bound to his "pushing whole stack forward" because that's what happened prior to declaring any amount.
If the calling player had less than 2750, say, 1500, he gets only 1500 from the all-in player who is still in the tourney (given a warning).

The whole issue here is
(1) all-in player making a mistake
(2) (lack of) transparancy and procedure due to the nature of the game (friendly home game, no dedicated dealer/no professional dealer, dirty stacks).

Since it is a friendly home game, the issue was handled fine.
In a more professional environment, the dealer (and staff) should provide for:
clean stacks
higher chips in front
double-checking the count
no foreign objects on the table

[Poker Jack]

8. If there is a discrepancy between a player's verbal statement and the amount put into the pot, the bet will be corrected to the verbal statement.

Doesn't apply, I think. The amount was declared way after the betting took place. There was no verbal statement at the time the chips were pushed forward.
Verbal statements are binding if they are made PRIOR to the betting.
You wouldn't say that a player who bets 1500 and THEN says: "6000!" has just made a bet of 6000. No, every dealer would say: "You announced your bet too late. The bet stands as 1500".

If a call is short due to a counting error, the amount must be corrected, even if the bettor has shown down a superior hand.

Doesn't apply, I think. We are talking about a short bet, not a short call. The rule is supposed to govern situations where an incorrect call is discovered.
Example:
Player A says: "1500" and bets 1500
Player B calls 1400. Dealer says: "You are 100 short, sir."
Player B must give Player A 100 because the bet was correctly made in every respect.

[Gobbs]

This is easy...I can't believe it went on for this long.  Buyer beware.  He trusted his opponent to count correctly.  That's plain stupid and nutN cited the correct rule a ton of posts ago.  Why on Earth would you trust your opponent?  Pay the full amount and learn your lesson.  The player said all-in - you called.  It's that simple.  Everything else is just window dressing.

To prevent this from happening, again...count the chips yourself.  If they are not stacked to where this can be easily done, ask the dealer to count the chips.  When the dealer counts them, he'll put them in easily countable stacks...so, count them again when the dealer is done.  If, by some miracle, after all the stacking and counting, nobody notices that there is a dirty stack, still, tough noogies...you should have noticed.

KC

[Nerre]

The problem with that ruling is that it opens up for players to hide chips so others will be fooled into calling because they think the bet is smaller than it is.

The all in player does not have any motive at all to state a correct amount, so you are encouraging players to state incorrect amounts. He will not get punished in any way for stating an incorrect amount.

[Gobbs]

The problem with that ruling is that it opens up for players to hide chips so others will be fooled into calling because they think the bet is smaller than it is.

The all in player does not have any motive at all to state a correct amount, so you are encouraging players to state incorrect amounts. He will not get punished in any way for stating an incorrect amount.

Nor should he be punished for stating an incorrect amount.  He doesn't have to answer at all.  He can just spout out numbers randomly if he chooses.  (I'm not saying that would be very sportsmanlike, but he can say it's 20,000,000 when it's obviously less than 1,000 if he wants.)  It's not up to him to count his chips for you and, for some players, I would recommend they don't.  It's up to the dealer to count the chips and stack them correctly and it's up to you to count them, too.  The player's only obligation is to stack the chips so you can see them with high denominations clearly visible.  After that, take responsibilities for your actions.  If you call an all-in before you are sure of the amount, you screwed up.

KC

[nutN2Lewz]

The problem with that ruling is that it opens up for players to hide chips so others will be fooled into calling because they think the bet is smaller than it is.

That is against the rules ...

http://www.homepokertourney.com/poker-rules-tda.htm#Chip_Stacks_Kept_Visible_Countable
21.   Chip Stacks Kept Visible & Countable
Players are entitled to a reasonable estimation of an opponent's chip count; thus chips should be kept in countable stacks. The TDA recommends clean stacks in multiples of 20 as a standard. Players must keep their higher denomination chips visible and identifiable at all times. Tournament directors will control the number & denomination of chips in play and may color up at their discretion. Discretionary color ups are to be announced.

Good luck, nutn

[Martini]

The problem with that ruling is that it opens up for players to hide chips so others will be fooled into calling because they think the bet is smaller than it is.

That is against the rules ...

http://www.homepokertourney.com/poker-rules-tda.htm#Chip_Stacks_Kept_Visible_Countable
21.   Chip Stacks Kept Visible & Countable
Players are entitled to a reasonable estimation of an opponent's chip count; thus chips should be kept in countable stacks. The TDA recommends clean stacks in multiples of 20 as a standard. Players must keep their higher denomination chips visible and identifiable at all times. Tournament directors will control the number & denomination of chips in play and may color up at their discretion. Discretionary color ups are to be announced.

Good luck, nutn

It may be against the rules but if a player who calls a different amount than stated has to call the full amount including hidden high denomination chips then it's a pretty toothless rule. So even if Player A is deliberately hiding chips and intentionally misrepresenting his total the worst he's guilty of is hiding chips? And Player B who has no reason to question the amount based on what appears to be neatly stacked chips of what look like the same denomination is on the hook for the full amount? That scenario to me has all the necessary ingredients for a classic angle shoot. Player A can plausibly deny knowledge of dirty stacks yet Player B has no recourse for calling more than he wanted to.

Furthermore, there are more complications brought on by grey area wagering. Consider:
* Player A announces "20,500 all in" despite having 30,000 in his stack. If a player calls and loses can he say that he's only calling the 20,500 since that was announced first?
* Player A announces "I'm all in for 20,500" despite having 30,000 in his stack. Would a player who called need to call the full amount since "all in" was said first?
* How about a player who audibly counts up his stack in front of him tapping the top of each column of chips (some of which are dirty but not visible) and says "20,500" then moves his whole stack into the middle of the table. Is he "announcing" 20,500?

I'm not saying that a player who calls has no responsibility. If someone shoves and makes no announcement then I think that it is the caller's responsibility to know how much he's calling. But when there is no reason to suspect that a player is wagering anything other than what his stack can be reasonably assumed to contain then I think there needs to be protection against someone who significantly misrepresents the amount in their stack. If there is no protection then that would be giving players every incentive disguise the true value of their stack and to always imply that they have fewer chips than they actually have if they want a call.

[Poker Jack]

Well, I think, most of the time these things happen so fast that it is up to a floorman to decide afterwards what's right and wrong.

* Player A announces "20,500 all in" despite having 30,000 in his stack. If a player calls and loses can he say that he's only calling the 20,500 since that was announced first?

Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Player A announced 20,500. Player B called 20,500.
Since it's not allowed to say "I see your 2,000 AND raise" because you FIRST declared to call, it should be the same ruling with the case mentioned above.

* Player A announces "I'm all in for 20,500" despite having 30,000 in his stack. Would a player who called need to call the full amount since "all in" was said first?

"I'm all in" is declared first. So, Player A is all in for 30,000. Player B would have to call the full amount of 30.000. It may be brutal for Player B who received an incorrect info, but it's his responsibility really providid the incorrect info was not given bythe dealer. If a card dealer gave incorrect info it would be different.

* How about a player who audibly counts up his stack in front of him tapping the top of each column of chips (some of which are dirty but not visible) and says "20,500" then moves his whole stack into the middle of the table. Is he "announcing" 20,500?

I'd say so. 20,500 is the bet. The dealer (if present) should interfere and warn Player B that the bet stands as 20,500, not as the full amount.

Note: I have never experienced a situation like that. If the card dealer is doing a god job, he will make sure that players receive correct info. If a player gave incorrect info, a good dealer would interfere and correct the mistake.

[Nerre]

What if then player states "20500" at the same time as he moves his chips forward?

The rules doesn't say that only verbal declarations occuring before the physical action is binding. This should mean a verbal declaration after your action is binding too?

[nutN2Lewz]

What if then player states "20500" at the same time as he moves his chips forward?

The rules doesn't say that only verbal declarations occuring before the physical action is binding. This should mean a verbal declaration after your action is binding too?

If both occur at the same time it is a is a verbal declaration of a 20,500 bet. If the physical action happens first, it is a bet in the amount of the physical action.

Good luck, nutn

[Nerre]

According to what rule?

The rules is:
9.  A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over a differing physical action.

It does not mention that the verbal statement must be before the physical action to be binding.

[Martini]

According to what rule?

The rules is:
9.  A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over a differing physical action.

It does not mention that the verbal statement must be before the physical action to be binding.

I'd say that rule implies the simultaneous action since either a physical bet or verbalization by itself would be binding regardless of a subsequent action.

[William]

It's also common sense.

If I say we'll meet next Thursday, and I siimultaneous point to Wednesday on a calendar you understand that I do still mean Thursday.

Same thing with pushing chips forward. If I say 20,000 and I push forward 21,000 in 1,000 chips at the same time I obviously miscounted the chips. My intention is clear since I verbalized it.

[Poker Jack]

According to what rule?

The rules is:
9.  A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over a differing physical action.

It does not mention that the verbal statement must be before the physical action to be binding.

Well, maybe the wording is not well chosen here. In any (house) rule book, you can easily insert "before" in that paragraph to make it clear.

RRoP, WSOP, and TDA are sometimes not exact enough when it comes to such specific situations. These rules are not frequently updated, unfortunatly.

[Gobbs]

The problem with that ruling is that it opens up for players to hide chips so others will be fooled into calling because they think the bet is smaller than it is.

That is against the rules ...

http://www.homepokertourney.com/poker-rules-tda.htm#Chip_Stacks_Kept_Visible_Countable
21.   Chip Stacks Kept Visible & Countable
Players are entitled to a reasonable estimation of an opponent's chip count; thus chips should be kept in countable stacks. The TDA recommends clean stacks in multiples of 20 as a standard. Players must keep their higher denomination chips visible and identifiable at all times. Tournament directors will control the number & denomination of chips in play and may color up at their discretion. Discretionary color ups are to be announced.

Good luck, nutn

It may be against the rules but if a player who calls a different amount than stated has to call the full amount including hidden high denomination chips then it's a pretty toothless rule. So even if Player A is deliberately hiding chips and intentionally misrepresenting his total the worst he's guilty of is hiding chips? And Player B who has no reason to question the amount based on what appears to be neatly stacked chips of what look like the same denomination is on the hook for the full amount? That scenario to me has all the necessary ingredients for a classic angle shoot. Player A can plausibly deny knowledge of dirty stacks yet Player B has no recourse for calling more than he wanted to.

Furthermore, there are more complications brought on by grey area wagering. Consider:
* Player A announces "20,500 all in" despite having 30,000 in his stack. If a player calls and loses can he say that he's only calling the 20,500 since that was announced first?
* Player A announces "I'm all in for 20,500" despite having 30,000 in his stack. Would a player who called need to call the full amount since "all in" was said first?
* How about a player who audibly counts up his stack in front of him tapping the top of each column of chips (some of which are dirty but not visible) and says "20,500" then moves his whole stack into the middle of the table. Is he "announcing" 20,500?

I'm not saying that a player who calls has no responsibility. If someone shoves and makes no announcement then I think that it is the caller's responsibility to know how much he's calling. But when there is no reason to suspect that a player is wagering anything other than what his stack can be reasonably assumed to contain then I think there needs to be protection against someone who significantly misrepresents the amount in their stack. If there is no protection then that would be giving players every incentive disguise the true value of their stack and to always imply that they have fewer chips than they actually have if they want a call.

Simple solution - ask dealer for a chip count.  Problem solved.

KC

[Martini]

The problem with that ruling is that it opens up for players to hide chips so others will be fooled into calling because they think the bet is smaller than it is.

That is against the rules ...

http://www.homepokertourney.com/poker-rules-tda.htm#Chip_Stacks_Kept_Visible_Countable
21.   Chip Stacks Kept Visible & Countable
Players are entitled to a reasonable estimation of an opponent's chip count; thus chips should be kept in countable stacks. The TDA recommends clean stacks in multiples of 20 as a standard. Players must keep their higher denomination chips visible and identifiable at all times. Tournament directors will control the number & denomination of chips in play and may color up at their discretion. Discretionary color ups are to be announced.

Good luck, nutn

It may be against the rules but if a player who calls a different amount than stated has to call the full amount including hidden high denomination chips then it's a pretty toothless rule. So even if Player A is deliberately hiding chips and intentionally misrepresenting his total the worst he's guilty of is hiding chips? And Player B who has no reason to question the amount based on what appears to be neatly stacked chips of what look like the same denomination is on the hook for the full amount? That scenario to me has all the necessary ingredients for a classic angle shoot. Player A can plausibly deny knowledge of dirty stacks yet Player B has no recourse for calling more than he wanted to.

Furthermore, there are more complications brought on by grey area wagering. Consider:
* Player A announces "20,500 all in" despite having 30,000 in his stack. If a player calls and loses can he say that he's only calling the 20,500 since that was announced first?
* Player A announces "I'm all in for 20,500" despite having 30,000 in his stack. Would a player who called need to call the full amount since "all in" was said first?
* How about a player who audibly counts up his stack in front of him tapping the top of each column of chips (some of which are dirty but not visible) and says "20,500" then moves his whole stack into the middle of the table. Is he "announcing" 20,500?

I'm not saying that a player who calls has no responsibility. If someone shoves and makes no announcement then I think that it is the caller's responsibility to know how much he's calling. But when there is no reason to suspect that a player is wagering anything other than what his stack can be reasonably assumed to contain then I think there needs to be protection against someone who significantly misrepresents the amount in their stack. If there is no protection then that would be giving players every incentive disguise the true value of their stack and to always imply that they have fewer chips than they actually have if they want a call.

Simple solution - ask dealer for a chip count.  Problem solved.

KC

Are you saying that you ask for a chip count every single time you call a bet? I doubt that you do that.

[Gobbs]

The problem with that ruling is that it opens up for players to hide chips so others will be fooled into calling because they think the bet is smaller than it is.

That is against the rules ...

http://www.homepokertourney.com/poker-rules-tda.htm#Chip_Stacks_Kept_Visible_Countable
21.   Chip Stacks Kept Visible & Countable
Players are entitled to a reasonable estimation of an opponent's chip count; thus chips should be kept in countable stacks. The TDA recommends clean stacks in multiples of 20 as a standard. Players must keep their higher denomination chips visible and identifiable at all times. Tournament directors will control the number & denomination of chips in play and may color up at their discretion. Discretionary color ups are to be announced.

Good luck, nutn

It may be against the rules but if a player who calls a different amount than stated has to call the full amount including hidden high denomination chips then it's a pretty toothless rule. So even if Player A is deliberately hiding chips and intentionally misrepresenting his total the worst he's guilty of is hiding chips? And Player B who has no reason to question the amount based on what appears to be neatly stacked chips of what look like the same denomination is on the hook for the full amount? That scenario to me has all the necessary ingredients for a classic angle shoot. Player A can plausibly deny knowledge of dirty stacks yet Player B has no recourse for calling more than he wanted to.

Furthermore, there are more complications brought on by grey area wagering. Consider:
* Player A announces "20,500 all in" despite having 30,000 in his stack. If a player calls and loses can he say that he's only calling the 20,500 since that was announced first?
* Player A announces "I'm all in for 20,500" despite having 30,000 in his stack. Would a player who called need to call the full amount since "all in" was said first?
* How about a player who audibly counts up his stack in front of him tapping the top of each column of chips (some of which are dirty but not visible) and says "20,500" then moves his whole stack into the middle of the table. Is he "announcing" 20,500?

I'm not saying that a player who calls has no responsibility. If someone shoves and makes no announcement then I think that it is the caller's responsibility to know how much he's calling. But when there is no reason to suspect that a player is wagering anything other than what his stack can be reasonably assumed to contain then I think there needs to be protection against someone who significantly misrepresents the amount in their stack. If there is no protection then that would be giving players every incentive disguise the true value of their stack and to always imply that they have fewer chips than they actually have if they want a call.

Simple solution - ask dealer for a chip count.  Problem solved.

KC

Are you saying that you ask for a chip count every single time you call a bet? I doubt that you do that.

Usually, I don't have to.  Good dealers usually announce the all-in bet and the amount without having to ask.

However, let's say that 50% of the time, they don't.  Of that 50%, let's say I'm obviously covered (or close to it so that it doesn't matter) half the time.  That leaves 25% of the time.  Of that 25%, let's say that, half the time, I'm calling no matter what because I have the nuts or a great hand.  That leaves 12.5% of the time.  Of that 12.5% of the time, lets say that, half the time, I have such a huge chip lead on the player that a couple hidden chips doesn't matter.  That leaves 6.25%.  Of that 6.25% of the time, let's say that, half the time, the player's chip stack is of so few chips that there is no danger of hidden chips and I can easily count it without risk.  That leaves 3.125%

So, to answer your question.  In those 3.125% of all-in instances in which I need a chip count, I always ask for one.

KC

[Nerre]

Well, maybe the wording is not well chosen here. In any (house) rule book, you can easily insert "before" in that paragraph to make it clear.

In that case, why does the rule not just say that "what comes first of a verbal statement and a physical action is binding"?

Or "a verbal statement is binding only if it is made before the physical action"?

Or "verbal statements after a different physical action are not binding"?

[Dr. Neau]

According to what rule?

The rules is:
9.  A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over a differing physical action.

It does not mention that the verbal statement must be before the physical action to be binding.

So, Nerre,

Can I come to your home game and when the action is on me push all of my chips in and say "Check!".  Is that okay?

[Nerre]

In that case we get problems with the "forward motion" rule... But as the rule is written, yes.

I know that most people interpret it different, but as it is written it says that "a verbal statement takes precedence over a different physical action". I'm not native English speaking, but I can not see anything in that sentence that implies that the verbal statement must be made before the physical action.

There are a lot of things in RR that should be rephrased to make things less ambiguous.

[Zombie]

Although the players involved settled the error incorrectly, they were both happy with the result, as I suspect everyone else at the table was.

Prevention is the best policy. Keep big chips in front. Don't use chips colors that can easily blend. When getting a count, break down stacks and let a 3rd party count them (a dealer if available, but another player will suffice if the dealer is one of the players involved.

Both the AI and the caller are likely to have their hearts racing. Andreneline plus math equals mistakes.

[Gobbs]

Well, maybe the wording is not well chosen here. In any (house) rule book, you can easily insert "before" in that paragraph to make it clear.

In that case, why does the rule not just say that "what comes first of a verbal statement and a physical action is binding"?

Or "a verbal statement is binding only if it is made before the physical action"?

Or "verbal statements after a different physical action are not binding"?

Essentially, it does.  The rule states "A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over a differing physical action."  So, once you make a physical poker action, it is no longer your turn and a subsequent verbal statement is not binding.  Similarly, if you make a verbal statement - that is your turn.  Any subsequent physical poker action is not binding because it is not your turn.  The only way this rule can apply is if both actions take place at the same time.  Then, as the rule states, the verbal statement is the binding action.

I think it is fairly obvious that, if string betting is not allowed, stacking differing poker actions on top of each other is not allowed and your first action is the binding one.

KC