A floor call and table stakes
 

I get called to a 2-5 spread limit game. The pot is half way pushed and it is explained to me that the winner only had $5 left on the turn so he got out another $20. On the river he bet $5 and the other player raised to $10 and he called. How should this call go? Long time readers of this forum will know how I rule in this spot, but I thought this might create an interesting discussion.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

He got out another $20 as in reached into his pocket?

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
He got out another $20 as in reached into his pocket?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

Unless I'm missing something pull $5 back from each person and push the pot to the winner? Obviously you can't allow the pot to include money pulled in the middle of the hand although I don't know if a beating is included. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

Action was offered and accepted; push the whole pot to the winner. If the other guy didn't want the pocket money to play, he should've spoken up when the bets/calls/raises were being made with that money.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Long time readers of this forum will know how I rule in this spot,

[/ QUOTE ]

Action offered and accepted. Reverse Ratholer gets to keep the extra.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

I have a feeling this is wrong according to table stakes rules but if the dealer and the other player did not object to the $20 when it was pulled out it plays.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

Pretty sure that since the other player accepted the action, the money plays and winner gets full pot.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Action offered and accepted

[/ QUOTE ]
then why have a table-stakes rule in the first place?

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

Hmm was not aware that action could be accepted, interesting.

What if the player who raised the river was not aware he pulled the money out of his pocket?

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

If the other player involved in the pot accepts the additional action I think it's fine. I realize this violates table stakes, but if both players understand what's going on and freely agree to the cash added I'm fine with it.

If the eventual loser wants to pull money off the table that he chose to bet/call, he gets a KITN.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm was not aware that action could be accepted, interesting.

What if the player who raised the river was not aware he pulled the money out of his pocket?

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally players are responsible for paying attention; however, given the small stake invovled I asked the player if he saw the money come onto the tabel and he verified he did. In this case it was a player not involved in the hand that now wants to speak up after the action is over.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Action offered and accepted

[/ QUOTE ]
then why have a table-stakes rule in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

So people who don't want the extra money to play don't have to accept it?

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

I've logged a decent # of hours at Casino's and have never seen this come up. Learn something new everyday.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Action offered and accepted

[/ QUOTE ]
then why have a table-stakes rule in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]
So people who don't want the extra money to play don't have to accept it?

[/ QUOTE ]
If someone at the table complains about buy-in caps or table stakes, and the excess money would exceed one of these, I would simply request the winner pocket the excess booty. Basically treat that extra $20 as a side bet done off the table.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Action offered and accepted

[/ QUOTE ]
then why have a table-stakes rule in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]
So people who don't want the extra money to play don't have to accept it?

[/ QUOTE ]
If someone at the table complains about buy-in caps or table stakes, and the excess money would exceed one of these, I would simply request the winner pocket the excess booty. Basically treat that extra $20 as a side bet done off the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

A reasonable solution but not all places will allow that. The floor at Foxwoods made me stop betting flop colors with the guy next to me at a 1/2 NL game a couple years ago. I assumed at the time they were against any gambling they didn't get a cut of.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

so players can negotiate among themselves whether money not on the table at the start of a hand can play later in the hand? seems like this policy would open up a ridiculous can of worms.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

also, i thought only $100 bills played. throw that rule out the window too?

edit: i guess it wasn't specified in the post and he could've taken out $20 in chips from his pocket and not a bill. on first read my impression was he took out a bill.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]

also, i thought only $100 bills played. throw that rule out the window too?

[/ QUOTE ]
That isn't universal.

Guess I'm confused as to why this annoys you so much. Two folks are wagering and they apparently are agreeing what the wagers were. You really want a 3rd person uninvolved in the hand to be able to throw a fit and prevent them from completing their transaction?

Now, if there IS controversy as to whether the cash was playing, seems fair to come down on the side of the rules. If player A says "he brought the cash out in the middle of the hand, of course it wasn't in play" and there's no evidence to the contrary, then it doesn't play. But if A and B both say "yeah, the $20 was in play"... let it.

Are you going to try to prevent the loser from just taking the $5 out of his pocket and handing it to the winner?

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]

also, i thought only $100 bills played. throw that rule out the window too?

[/ QUOTE ]

A good rule, but not universal.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

I don't really understand the problem in a 2-5 spread game, but I suppose in a NL game that Player C (uninvolved player) might have some beef from an implied odds perspective if he's the last folder. If he thinks the pot is protected by the AI player, he might not be willing to continue headsup in a sidepot. If after he folds the pot becomes contested on later streets, he may feel he's been screwed.

I don't see how this could arise in a limit pot, but maybe it could.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Two folks are wagering and they apparently are agreeing what the wagers were. You really want a 3rd person uninvolved in the hand to be able to throw a fit and prevent them from completing their transaction?

[/ QUOTE ]
i just want the cardroom to enforce its rules--it's the dealer's job to run the game, so when player A put more money on the table during the hand, he should've been told he can't.

or how about in a limit game, 2 players are headsup and want to go all-in. i've been told that they have to actually go thru the process of raising and re-raising. why can't they just go all-in as long as they agree to it?

i mean, you really think it's a good idea to let players negotiate among themselves whether to ditch the table-stakes rule? if that's the policy, then whenever i have the nuts at the river i should always ask my opponent if he minds me putting more money on the table. it can't hurt, right? if he says no, then fine, but if he EVER says yes, even once out of a thousand times, then YAHTZEE.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
i just want the cardroom to enforce its rules--it's the dealer's job to run the game, so when player A put more money on the table during the hand, he should've been told he can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ta trait of a nit. "I want rules enforced because they are rules. Period end of discussion."

Question for you.

Who was injured in this scenario?

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

Having reread RR's original post I'm thinking I'm less comfy with the ruling that the money plays. I'm not positive both players were informed and consenting.

Let us say we're playing NL2/5 with a $500 cap and I start the hand with $1000 and you start with $500. As the river is dealt you pull out $500 and set it on the table beside your remaining $50 in chips and announce "all-in". I'm gonna call assuming I'm calling the $50 in chips since we all know you can't add money during the hand, and I'm just figuring you're getting out the cash to prepare to rebuy (or more likely to make me think you're preparing to rebuy, or even more likely to make me think you're thinking that I'm thinking that you want me to think you're about to rebuy). It's just... not done--you don't add cash during the hand. UNLESS both players agree to it, in which case I'm in the camp of letting the adults play.

Not so sure RR's case isn't similar.

IF both players are informed and agree what the bet was, then yeah, I want the extra cash included in the wager. But if neither player was, or only one player thought the cash was playing, then no. And it's just not at all obvious here.

But I stand by the claim I ain't letting some squeeky 3rd person at the table influence this. Doesn't matter what the peanut gallery wants to happen, all I'm gonna care about is what these two players thought they were wagering. First we settle the wager, then we see if we can placate the audience as well.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i just want the cardroom to enforce its rules--it's the dealer's job to run the game, so when player A put more money on the table during the hand, he should've been told he can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ta trait of a nit. "I want rules enforced because they are rules. Period end of discussion."

Question for you.

Who was injured in this scenario?

[/ QUOTE ]
i've been injured. let me explain.

you are confused about my position on this issue. i don't care in the slightest about the rule itself, i just want to KNOW what the rule actually IS. if you're telling me the rule is that players can SUSPEND table-stakes as long as they agree to it, fantastic! then that's the rule i'll play by! it would essentially be infinitely +ev for me.

i've been injured insofar as i wasn't aware of the true nature of this rule until now. i'm also injured if you allow the players in THIS hand to do it, but DON'T allow me to do it (and by "it" i mean ask my opponent if he's willing to let me add money to my stack) when i'm holding the dead nuts on the river in an uncapped nl game.

so, just to make sure, you're saying that (in some casinos) the table-stakes rule can be suspended if the players in the hand all consent, correct?

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
IF both players are informed and agree what the bet was, then yeah, I want the extra cash included in the wager. But if neither player was, or only one player thought the cash was playing, then no. And it's just not at all obvious here.


[/ QUOTE ]

The key here is the other player (that did not add money) raised the river heads up because he liked his hand. Now the other player calls (he was unaware that he couldn't add money to his stack). He was in position to lose the extra bet on the end so he his entitled to collect it. You cannot create a situation where he can lose a bet but if he wins someone is going to speak up and say that isn't allowed. This pot was being pushed to him when someone spoke up and said he added money.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

Hmmm... Messy. I'll accept that line of reasoning. The wisdom of Solomon, again.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
so, just to make sure, you're saying that (in some casinos) the table-stakes rule can be suspended if the players in the hand all consent, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not really that the table stakes rule can be suspended, its that the players can agree to accept action which is essentially increasing the amount fo their stake.

The table stakes rule is much more significant then the rule that you can't add money during a hand.

I would not allow two players left in a hand to agree "To suspend the table stakes rule" because this would also allow a player to win the hand simply by betting an amount more then the other player had and thereby forcing a fold.


AND NO YOU HAVE NOT BEEN INJURED THE PLAYERS DOING THIS EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT COULD BE DONE.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

I'm gonna guess that you won't find many poker rooms that will regularly let folks add to their stack during a hand even if all impacted parties agree. RR is on the record in another thread saying he wouldn't allow it. I'm on the record saying I think it should be allowed if everybody in the hand agrees. He works in a casino and I program computers. He has the wisdom of the ages in knowing what works and doesn't work. Philosophically, I see no harm in it. In practice, it could get pretty unpleasant I imagine.

I doubt you can mosey up to the suits in Bellagio, Caesars, Mirage, Venetian, Wynn and get them to agree to this. But if y'all at the table agree to it and the hand proceeds, I would like to hope the floor people won't demand the money come back and will refuse to let the cash be passed under the table (or in the restroom).

I actually saw a 2/5 hand at Caesars where the dealer and a floor person watching allowed someone to retract a bet. Guy bet like $300 on the turn. Other player gave the usual "why so much... I'd call less" response. Only this time they both agreed to make the wager $100 and he'd call. Guy doing the "why so much" actually held the nuts. He lost the hand to like a 3-outter on the river. That's one of those classic "too smart for your own good, you dumbass" poker moments. Afterwards, a 2nd floor person who had walked up in the middle announces "THIS WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN AGAIN, GOT IT? ONCE A BET IS MADE, IT STAYS. NEVER AGAIN!!" But he didn't try to undo it. Action offer and accepted and all that.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
"THIS WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN AGAIN, GOT IT? ONCE A BET IS MADE, IT STAYS. NEVER AGAIN!!" But he didn't try to undo it. Action offer and accepted and all that.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of things happen that we would prefer not happen, but once they occur that is the situation you are in. This thing tonight, I would rather the dealer notice the money coming out and tell the player it would play next hand. The dealer didn't notice it and it was in play.

As far as NL players wanting to bet some extra money I would allow it as long as there wasn't a legal issue with it (there are some places that forbid side bets etc).

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

Here's a story I witnessed, which I hope might clear up the controversy:

$30-60 Limit. The flop gets capped, and two players see the turn. We'll call the players "Tourist" and "Known Scumbag".

They're heads-up, so there's no cap. They get about six bets in on the turn, and another seven bets in on the river. The hands are turned up, and Tourist has the best hand. Known Scumbag immediately tells me, "Don't push that pot, call the floor."

When the floor comes over, Known Scumbag explains that Tourist took money out of his pocket and added it to the stack after the flop got capped. Known Scumbag wants all his turn and river bets returned to him.

I hope this illustrates why RR ruled the way he did. As we say so often in this forum, "Sometimes the fair thing to do is to directly contradict a written rule." You can't let Known Scumbag take the shot that he did.

How can you sleep at night after you tell Tourist, "Sir, you just bet $780 on the turn and river. If you lose the hand, you lose that money. But if you win the hand, you have 'no action' on those bets."

How can Tourist walk away from that and NOT think that a team of con men just worked him over?

Again, this really happened. Floorman knew little about poker, Known Scumbag yelled the loudest (and was also a muscle-bound, intimidating specimen), so the decision went his way. Tourist racked up and left, no doubt to return home and warn all his friends to stay away from the XXXXX casino.

Mikech,

In my story, something happened on the flop that is not allowed (Tourist added to stack). If brought to the attention of the dealer or the floor, it can be corrected immediately, and the hand can play on. But it WASN'T brought to anyone's attention.

"Why didn't the dealer see it happen?" Because the dealer can't see both ends of the table at once. This was a massive pot, and I was pulling in bets from all directions.

The time to correct this was when it happened. If several bets are placed with this money, those bets have to stand. It's the fairest thing to do.

Bottom line, at no time should a player have a free shot at another player's money. If you decide to invoke a rule, you don't get to see if you win first before making that decision.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

youtalkfunny > you should have just ignored him and pushed the pot the tourist.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]

also, i thought only $100 bills played. throw that rule out the window too?

edit: i guess it wasn't specified in the post and he could've taken out $20 in chips from his pocket and not a bill. on first read my impression was he took out a bill.

[/ QUOTE ]
It could also be what happens anytime someone pulls out $20. The dealer takes the $20 and gives him $20 in chips.

-Tom

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
youtalkfunny > you should have just ignored him and pushed the pot the tourist.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a quick way to turn a messy situation into a disaster.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

The way I understand it is if it's heads up and the other player doesn't mind then it's a go.

I'd say even if the other player now said he does mind then it's too late because he allowed the action.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Action offered and accepted

[/ QUOTE ]
then why have a table-stakes rule in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]
So people who don't want the extra money to play don't have to accept it?

[/ QUOTE ]
If someone at the table complains about buy-in caps or table stakes, and the excess money would exceed one of these, I would simply request the winner pocket the excess booty. Basically treat that extra $20 as a side bet done off the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure this would violate Colorado gaming regs (side bets not allowed).

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Action offered and accepted

[/ QUOTE ]
then why have a table-stakes rule in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]
So people who don't want the extra money to play don't have to accept it?

[/ QUOTE ]
If someone at the table complains about buy-in caps or table stakes, and the excess money would exceed one of these, I would simply request the winner pocket the excess booty. Basically treat that extra $20 as a side bet done off the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure this would violate Colorado gaming regs (side bets not allowed).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are playing in Colorado you may not make a side bet. This hand could have taken place anywhere in the world.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm... Messy. I'll accept that line of reasoning. The wisdom of Solomon, again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bav,

If there was a way to search for and then compile every thread that you and Randy (RR) have participated in (along with a few others who post here) and somehow require every poker shift manager, floor and dealer in the world to read and comprehend the compilation the poker world would be a better place.

Maybe Google can invent some special search for at least the first part. The second part is unfortunately unlikely. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm... Messy. I'll accept that line of reasoning. The wisdom of Solomon, again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bav,

If there was a way to search for and then compile every thread that you and Randy (RR) have participated in (along with a few others who post here) and somehow require every poker shift manager, floor and dealer in the world to read and comprehend the compilation the poker world would be a better place.

Maybe Google can invent some special search for at least the first part. The second part is unfortunately unlikely. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]
Wacky notion. I know nothing that y'all haven't taught me. The sum total of my poker wisdom comes from reading RR and the many other wise and wonderful players, dealers, and floor people who hang out here. All's I do is collect and sift out the cruft and keep the nuggets ("action offered and accepted" being a fine example of "nugget").

But thank you. I agree the poker world would be a MUCH more just place if every poker room employee could read through a Best of B&M sorta summary. I can easily envision someone collecting a few dozen of these threads and highlighting the salient parts to turn into a new 2+2 book (sorting out copyright ownership issues is left as an exercise for the reader).