WWYD? Another home game SNAFU...

[Pac1982]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems reasonable... What if the BB won? Would the SB be compelled to pay a higher amount than originally "agreed" when the cards were turned over?

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems reasonable... What if the BB won? Would the SB be compelled to pay a higher amount than originally "agreed" when the cards were turned over?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. SB went all-in. He expected all of his chips to be at risk.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems reasonable... What if the BB won? Would the SB be compelled to pay a higher amount than originally "agreed" when the cards were turned over?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if the miscount was on the part of the BB. It was BB's mistake, BB should bear the burden of the mistake. Now, if SB has 3000 and pushes in BB has 4,500 but claims he 2,500 when he calls and BB wins BB gets all the chips because SB isn't hurt by the mistake SB risked all his chips. IF SB has 4,500 bets 3000 and BB claims to be all-in for less and actually has 4,500 SB only should lose the 3,000 he had bet not the 4,500 that BB because first we don't know that BB intended to raise and not call second even if we somehow know that BB intened to raise and not call SB was denied the opportunity to fold by BB's mistake. If it was SB's mistake that would be different.

[jjigglers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems reasonable... What if the BB won? Would the SB be compelled to pay a higher amount than originally "agreed" when the cards were turned over?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if the miscount was on the part of the BB. It was BB's mistake, BB should bear the burden of the mistake. Now, if SB has 3000 and pushes in BB has 4,500 but claims he 2,500 when he calls and BB wins BB gets all the chips because SB isn't hurt by the mistake SB risked all his chips. IF SB has 4,500 bets 3000 and BB claims to be all-in for less and actually has 4,500 SB only should lose the 3,000 he had bet not the 4,500 that BB because first we don't know that BB intended to raise and not call second even if we somehow know that BB intened to raise and not call SB was denied the opportunity to fold by BB's mistake. If it was SB's mistake that would be different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if BB wins, SB is out. If SB cared how many chips BB had, he should have asked. He went all-in and all of his chips were at risk if another player (knowingly or unknowingly) covers.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]

I think if BB wins, SB is out. If SB cared how many chips BB had, he should have asked. He went all-in and all of his chips were at risk if another player (knowingly or unknowingly) covers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Go back to the original post. That post never says SB went all in. SB made a bet of double the Big Blind. Nothing in the post says that was all-in. BB claimed to be all-in for less than what had been bet.

[DavidNB]

Thats an interesting one. The SB bet 2BB and the BB said
call, I'm all in for less.

The BB called, thats all. Have him pay the bet and he keeps the rest of the chips.

[DiggerDog]

The black chip/purple chip contrast problem was the reason I decided to use a yellow chip to represent the 500 denomination. It just makes it easier to see the difference.

[Bulldog]

If SB had 5,000 and BB had 7,000, the way this hand played out, I'd start the next hand with the guy who was the SB now holding 10,000 and the guy who was the BB holding 2,000. There is just no way the BB can be out when he had more chips than anyone else in the hand, even if he thought he was all in.

[Khabbi]

[ QUOTE ]
If SB had 5,000 and BB had 7,000, the way this hand played out, I'd start the next hand with the guy who was the SB now holding 10,000 and the guy who was the BB holding 2,000. There is just no way the BB can be out when he had more chips than anyone else in the hand, even if he thought he was all in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have ruled the same. I can't believe that I read so far before finding someone else who would have ruled like I would.

[rmgustaf]

The SB can only win an amount of chips equal to his own stack - period. It is impossible for the small blind, by calling with his xxx stack, to win more than xxx chips.

If the SB had the all-in covered - even after the mistake was discovered - than the SB should get all the chips.