Re: Is player all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
EP Goes AI for $10, 2 callers behind, friend raises to $30 and it gets back around to one of the callers who asks my friend how much he has left. My friend stacks his chips out front (not near his raise but in clear view) and shows he has $58 left. He then turns his heads and talks to someone who came up to him off the table. When he turns around his chips in are in the middle of the side pot, there is a flop and he asks what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your friend has a responsibility to pay attention to the game. When the dealer:

--announces opponent's raise;
--pulls in all chips;
--taps the table;
--spreads a flop...

...and your friend has all his chips out in front of his cards, and he does nothing to stop ANY of this, how can people think anything but "he's all-in"?

The answer to your question is no, they should not be reversing decisions three hands later.

But let's drop all this conspiracy nonsense. Your friend could have avoided the whole mess with a MINIMUM of consideration on his part, so I can't feel too bad for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paying attention is fair but does the dealer normally consider anyone not paying attention all-in? In this case unless Dealer suffered from time loss they clearly knew he stacked his chips in response to a question asked. If the dealer doesn't want to wait for a player to finally pay attention the smart money is on fold them not consider them all-in.

Re: Is player all-in?
 

Everybody screwed up. However, at the end of the day, your friend can control his own actions easier than he can anybody else. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, but you can be mindful of how you handle it in the first place.

Re: Is player all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
We can certainly see the difference between this guy and one that refuses to pay an all-in, but if the casino has the power to take the chips from a guy that says "all-in" and doesn't put them in then it would have the power to take them from this guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

The issue is whether the casino can go back in time or not. When a player refuses to put his money in after he goes all-in, he can be compelled to do so as long as the next hand hasn't begun nor a ruling from the floor compelling him to do so has been made.

I'm not prepared to get into the w h o l e "right of the casino/floor to compel a player to give up chips" in this thread but, I think the argument here is a non sequiter.

I think everybody would agree that once a rulling has been made that a player shall keep his chips and the next hand has begun, the casino/floor loses whatever rights it had to compell a player to give up chips.

It doesn't necessarily follow that granting that a casino might have the authority to force an all-in player to put chips into the pot in order to resolve a hand (prior to the next hand starting) means that the casino has the authority to do the same, retroactively, after a ruling to the contrary has already been made.

Re: Is player all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think everybody would agree that once a rulling has been made that a player shall keep his chips and the next hand has begun, the casino/floor loses whatever rights it had to compell a player to give up chips.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is fine, but if the casino has the power to take the chips what if the poker floor call security and says "this guy owes $58 and refuses to pay it." If the casino can shake the money out of him will they magically only take the money when it is "right." Under a system where the casino can take someone's money away what would you suggest the player here do?

Re: Is player all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the casino can shake the money out of him will they magically only take the money when it is "right."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some clarifications are in order.

In every card room I've ever been in "The decision of the floor is final."

Case #1 Player A acts out of turn. The floor is called over. The floor determines that player A has broken a rule and deserves punishment. He is to be taken to the front of the card room and shot in the head as an example to others.

Clearly here the power of the floor to make a decision is limited by the general laws of the jurisdiction.

Case #2 (and i'm not quite positive this is the case, but i believe it is) Player A and Player B get to a showdown. Player A has the best hand, Player B the 2nd best. Player B declares that the 2nd best hand should be awarded the pot. The floor is called. The floor rules that yes, the 2nd best hand should be awarded the pot. Here, the laws of the gaming authority would override the "rule" that the decision of the floor is final.

The point is, that the power of a card room is limited by things beyond the card room (in the examples, the general laws of a jurisdiction or the specific laws of a gaming authority).

The issue as to whether a card room can require a player to put chips into a pot after he is all in I think could be governed similar to case #2. I think it is a widely enough held belief that once a decision has been made and the next hand started with acceptance of a decision, then any corrective action on the previous hand is impossible.

If a gaming commission held this as a rule (like they do with other "basic" rules of the game. . .e.g. ranking of the hands, order of play, etc.) then the trap you speak of could be avoided.

A floor telling a player (backed up by the use of force) to give up money from a hand that has already been completed and ruled upon (in that player's favour) would be protected. Granted, I'm not sure what the practical effect would be. There's a saying that the law is whatever the official will do. But that cuts both ways. If a floor is headstrong enough to have its way, it really doesn't matter what the "law/rules" are at the moment of choice.

All I'm sayin' is that I think it is possible to have a regime where a casino can compel a player to put his chips into the pot after a showdown when he is all in without exposing players to gross negligence on the part of the casino.

Sorry for the contribution to the hijack.

Re: Is player all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm sayin' is that I think it is possible to have a regime where a casino can compel a player to put his chips into the pot after a showdown when he is all in without exposing players to gross negligence on the part of the casino.

[/ QUOTE ]
But under what legal authority can the casino seize money? Let's say we're playing NL2/5 and I have 30 $100's in front of me and a stack of reds and we go all-in for a $6000 pot. Cards are dealt and I just take my $3000 in cash and say "I never said 'all-in'" and try to walk. Casino can using gaming regs to stop me from walking (they're allowed to detain people until the real cops arrive). But they have no authority to reach into my pocket and take my property. The real cops can grab the chips and money and hold it as evidence pending the outcome of a trial, but I don't see the casino being able to just take the money and hand it to another player.

In a perfect world the floor would always rule correctly and would be legally allowed to compel compliance. In the real world, it's a bit messier.

Re: Is player all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All I'm sayin' is that I think it is possible to have a regime where a casino can compel a player to put his chips into the pot after a showdown when he is all in without exposing players to gross negligence on the part of the casino.

[/ QUOTE ]
But under what legal authority can the casino seize money? Let's say we're playing NL2/5 and I have 30 $100's in front of me and a stack of reds and we go all-in for a $6000 pot. Cards are dealt and I just take my $3000 in cash and say "I never said 'all-in'" and try to walk. Casino can using gaming regs to stop me from walking (they're allowed to detain people until the real cops arrive). But they have no authority to reach into my pocket and take my property. The real cops can grab the chips and money and hold it as evidence pending the outcome of a trial, but I don't see the casino being able to just take the money and hand it to another player.

In a perfect world the floor would always rule correctly and would be legally allowed to compel compliance. In the real world, it's a bit messier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post as usual Bav. This old thread is sort of related and might help generate even more confusion.

~ Rick