WWYD? Another home game SNAFU...

Pac1982 · #1 03-02-2006, 02:29 PM

I had an unusual issue in a league game, and I wasn't sure how to rule:

The tourney had progressed to one of the later rounds, blinds are very high, over 50% of the shortest stack and only 10% or so of the big-stacks. Big blind is shortstack, Small blind raises to double the big-blind, big-blind does a quick count of his stack and says "call, I'm all-in for less", as he had less than the raised amount of chips left. The cards are flipped, the board is dealt, the small blind wins the hand, big blind is eliminated.

As the chips are being handed over, however, the big-blind noticed he actually had more chips than he thought (purple chips buried in black chip stacks, but not "hidden", per-se, just a few chips that got mixed in). It turned out he had about 50% more chips left than the original call required, in fact the actual amount he had was more than the small blind had, so he wasn't actually even the short-stack at all.

We all agreed the big-blind was out of the game, no argument there (he thought he was all-in, and if he knew he had more chips, he would still have moved them all-in), but I had a hard time ruling what to do with the remaining "extra" chips (4 players left, top 3 paid, that many chips could make a potentially big difference to the outcome). Everyone said the winner of the hand should get them, but I wonder what would happen if the big blind won the hand instead of the small blind. For example if I thought someone was all-in with 4000 chips against me with about 6000 chips left and I lost the hand, only to find out my opponent actually had 6500 chips, I seriously doubt I would be happy about being eliminated when I only agreed to rish 2.3s of my stack. I was in for 4000 chips, and if I lose, I'm only gonna pay 4000 chips... By the same token, if I'm only risking 4000, should I then be allowed to win 6000 'cos the other guy didn't realize he had 50% more than he thought he did? That was my that was my argument, anyway.

So my solution was to remove the offending chips from the game completely, or at the very least, the 5 purples (T2500) should be swapped for 5 blacks (T500), as all-present believed they actually were. But everyone was against me on this one, especially the winner of the hand.

In the end, I stopped arguing and the chips stayed in play, all being awarded to the winner of the hand, who got a huge undeserved windfall on that hand IMO, and an unfair advantage over the remaining players...

Obviously this could/should have been avoided by a proper chip-count before the cards were turned over, we all know we screwed that up...

But What should we have done with those "unearned" chips?

gusmahler · #2 03-02-2006, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We all agreed the big-blind was out of the game,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
By the same token, if I'm only risking 4000, should I then be allowed to win 6000 'cos the other guy didn't realize he had 50% more than he thought he did? That was my that was my argument, anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe Robert's rules covers this situation. So you have to just try to do what's fair. To me, what's fair in this situation is that BB keeps playing.

To use your numbers:

SB bets 4000
BB says "all-in" because he thinks he has 4000. In actuality, BB had 6000.

What's fair would be for SB to win BB's bet that matched SB's bet (4000) and for BB to keep playing with 2000 left. I don't see why you'd eliminate BB. He wasn't the short stack.

The extra chips should go to BB.

Lottery Larry · #3 03-02-2006, 02:53 PM

If BB had declared all-in and said "I have twice what you have"... then won the hand... then you found out the SB had more chips...

Would you rule that the SB was out?

gusmahler is correct. My only quibble would be whether the "call" or "all-in" comment is the one that should be enforced.

psandman · #4 03-02-2006, 03:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For example if I thought someone was all-in with 4000 chips against me with about 6000 chips left and I lost the hand, only to find out my opponent actually had 6500 chips, I seriously doubt I would be happy about being eliminated when I only agreed to rish 2.3s of my stack. I was in for 4000 chips, and if I lose, I'm only gonna pay 4000 chips... By the same token, if I'm only risking 4000, should I then be allowed to win 6000 'cos the other guy didn't realize he had 50% more than he thought he did?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing, when a mistake is going to cause someone to suffer a loss, its best that the person who made the mistake be the one to suffer the loss.

So in the case at hand where a player announced that he was all in for 3,000 when in fact he had 4,500 he is the one who made the mistake so he should suffer the loss. Now if the other player had him completely covered then in fact that player woukld be suffering a loss if you do not give him the extra chips (because of the players mistake the other player was denied the right to bet further. That is why the other player in the hand gets the chips. A more interesting scenario might be where SB has 4000, bets 3000 and the BB announces that he is all-in for less but actually had 4,500. When SB wins the hand the question is now what happens with the extra 500 chips that the big blind had that weren't covered by the SB. My opinion is that BB keeps them because there was no scenario under which he could have lost them to SB even if he didn't make the mistake.

Now in a scenario where a player announces that he is all in and for 4,000 and you call his bet based on that count that player can not win more than 4,000 regardless of how much he actually had, his mistake, so its his loss.

Bulldog · #5 03-02-2006, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
in fact the actual amount he had was more than the small blind had, so he wasn't actually even the short-stack at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I'm lost. The SB beat the BB, and the BB had more chips, but the BB is out and the SB gets all his chips?

Pac1982 · #6 03-02-2006, 04:26 PM

Exactly... The SB benefited unproportionally and it just doesn't feel right as to the spirit of the game.

But this is, in my opinion, a detail. The SB risked X amount, and I believe that he should be eligible to win only X amount.

Leaving the BB in with the remainder doesn't seem quite right either, 'cos he gets rewarded for making a mistake that shouldn't have happened. Had he known his true count and raised, the SB might have folded. I know there was no angle-shooting here, but letting the BB stay in might set a precedent for defensive angle-shooting this way.

From now on, we're just gonna have to do a dealer-count every time, no exceptions.

Sprky · #7 03-02-2006, 04:43 PM

So I can understand the idea that verbal statements are binding such as saying "I am all in" means all the chips are at risk. But I don't see how his statement of "all in for less" although binding doesn't change the rules of how a hand is resolved. Is this normally the case that a verbal declaration overrides a rule?

Again even if the guy agrees that he is out, let him walk away and post the extra chips in his absent SB and play the pot like a tournament should play. The declaration shouldn't change the rules in my opinion.

psandman · #8 03-02-2006, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So I can understand the idea that verbal statements are binding such as saying "I am all in" means all the chips are at risk. But I don't see how his statement of "all in for less" although binding doesn't change the rules of how a hand is resolved. Is this normally the case that a verbal declaration overrides a rule?

Again even if the guy agrees that he is out, let him walk away and post the extra chips in his absent SB and play the pot like a tournament should play. The declaration shouldn't change the rules in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the player said he was all-in already affected the way the hand was determined. If had not climed to be all-in for less then the SB would have had the opportunity to bet agin after the flop (I assumed this all happened pre-flop but unless it was on the river the SB would have had another opportunity to bet).

Because of BB's declaration and the fact that no one notic4ed the error the SB was denied the chance to bet again. Imagine that SB had AA, BB had KK and the flop came AK7 no would you think it was fair that SB doesn't get all the chips?

gusmahler · #9 03-02-2006, 05:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine that SB had AA, BB had KK and the flop came AK7 no would you think it was fair that SB doesn't get all the chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it would be fair. BB had more chips than SB. It should have been impossible for SB to knock out BB, even if BB flopped quads and SB rivered a straight flush.

psandman · #10 03-02-2006, 06:20 PM

I missed that BB had more than SB, but is it fair that SB not get at least as much as if he had to bet because BB miscounted his chips?

In the case of BB having more than SB BB should not be eliminated from the tournament, but SB should get the benefit of winning as much as he possibly could.