Who gets the KITN?

[pvn]

Horseshoe Tunica, 1/3 NL.

Heads up on the turn. Player A bets out $65. Player B announces "raise" and says "265". Player A says "I call, that puts me all in." Player B has laid out the $65 to call, and two stacks of red chips. Player A only has the $65 out.

Dealer throws the river, both players flip up their cards. Player B's hand is good.

Now, it turns out that player A had $241 behind, so the $200 more did NOT put him all in. He ships two stacks of red into the middle, but hangs on to the $41. Player B wants the $41.

Floor is called.

What's your ruling?

[Bossman9]

Not sure, but I would have to say that the "I call" part is binding....regardless of whether he can count his chips correctly or not....Player B IMHO is out of luck, if it was that close he should have raised hin All in...

[Poshua]

I think the $41 should go in. Player A denied Player B his opportunity to bet on the river by miscalling his chip stack.

I tentatively think dealer should get KITN for not counting down Player A's chip stack before dealing the river, since it's clear the determination of who covered whom was marginal.

[GTL]

dealer gets a KITN. Player A gets a semi KITN because he may or may not have been angling. B isn't going to get the 41 extra bones. He kind of got screwed. Protect ya Neck. Just move it in next time. AWWW in.

[pfapfap]

The dealer gets a KITN. 20% is a trivially easy to notice.

What it boils down to is Player A was dishonest about the size of his bet. In these situations, I'm in favor of rulings that give the offending player the short end of any result. In this case, Player A doesn't get $41 extra if he wins, but Player B gets the $41 if he wins.

There's no way to know how either would have reacted had the full bet size been known. Since the best person to know Player A's stack is Player A, he's the most at fault, so he gets to eat it.

[onadraw]

[ QUOTE ]
The dealer gets a KITN. 20% is a trivially easy to notice.

What it boils down to is Player A was dishonest about the size of his bet. In these situations, I'm in favor of rulings that give the offending player the short end of any result. In this case, Player A doesn't get $41 extra if he wins, but Player B gets the $41 if he wins.

There's no way to know how either would have reacted had the full bet size been known. Since the best person to know Player A's stack is Player A, he's the most at fault, so he gets to eat it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the way I see it also. Player A's comment about being all-in prevented action on the river. To avoid possible angle shooting, Player A cannot benefit from his mistake at showdown. Player A loses it all if he loses or wins only the amount of the called bet if he wins.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The dealer gets a KITN. 20% is a trivially easy to notice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, another wrinkle I forgot to mention. Player A's stack was messy, and the $241 wasn't just red and white, there was a single green chip mixed in with it. It's very, very plausible that A thought he really was all in.

FWIW, floor ruled that Player A kept the $41.

[Chipr777]

Just curious, who was the floor and how did they rule?

[MrFizzbin]

Player A keeps the money,
1) Player B stated an amount 265, not All-in, which player A called. Just because A made a mistake, or lied about having money left over doesn't exempt B from verifying. Trust but verify.

2) The dealer should have stated that A still has money, but probably either didn't hear the "That puts me all in" or it didn't register.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
Player A keeps the money,
1) Player B stated an amount 265, not All-in, which player A called. Just because A made a mistake, or lied about having money left over doesn't exempt B from verifying. Trust but verify.

[/ QUOTE ]