Who gets the KITN?

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I gotta go with Fizz and Bull on this one. A specific amount was bet and called. That's that. One player incorrectly saying "that puts me all in" doesn't count as an automatic one-sided can-only-lose bet of anything he has left. It sucks, and it may be an angle, and if it happens ever again someone should invite him to play somewhere else for a year. But it could be an honest error. I don't see how else to handle it.

Maybe the dealer shoulda verified the statement. Not sure that's REALLY up to the dealer to one-sidedly take on, though. In high limit games, a dealer sticking his nose in to verify the statement that his call put him all in would result in things being thrown at the dealer. It's pretty much up to the other player to initiate a river bet... just say the words "all-in" and force the other guy to say call, or ask for a verification of stack sizes, or whatever.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I gotta go with Fizz and Bull on this one. A specific amount was bet and called. That's that. One player incorrectly saying "that puts me all in" doesn't count as an automatic one-sided can-only-lose bet of anything he has left. It sucks, and it may be an angle, and if it happens ever again someone should invite him to play somewhere else for a year. But it could be an honest error. I don't see how else to handle it.

Maybe the dealer shoulda verified the statement. Not sure that's REALLY up to the dealer to one-sidedly take on, though. In high limit games, a dealer sticking his nose in to verify the statement that his call put him all in would result in things being thrown at the dealer. It's pretty much up to the other player to initiate a river bet... just say the words "all-in" and force the other guy to say call, or ask for a verification of stack sizes, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Giving Player A the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not he knew he wasn't truly all-in, I think I give the KITN to the procedures of the room on this one or the dealer if he/she didn't follow them. At least where I play, it is standard practice for the players to have to move their chips forward "for the cameras" before the remaining cards are dealt out. The dealer doesn't necessarily count them down and hold up the game, but that extra 5 seconds gets spent to make it clear beyond argument both Player A and Player B intend to wager all the money in front of them. At this point it should be fairly obvious Player A has more than stated. I've seen it prevent/shorten several arguments that probably save much more time in the long run than this extra few seconds, not to mention it makes the game seem more "fair". I think the most detrimental effect of table arguments is on the new players who are turned off to the game when they feel like someone got screwed, whether the rules were applied correctly or not.

[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.

[PantsOnFire]

Nobody gets a KITN. Player B made a $41 mistake. He should have either asked dealer to count out Player A or asked Player A to move all his chips over the line and count later. Or even better,

As well, Player B should know at what point Player A is going to commit to the pot and raise all-in instead of some number close to Player A's stack.

Player B should kick himself in the nuts. That's a KHITN.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

It is NOT standard practice in the industry to make players put chips over the line for the cameras. Even in rooms that have had major incidents because of not following this procedures, the procedure is rarely used. I very much want to see chips over the line for all bets become SOP, but I doubt it will happen.

High limit players are usually complete jerks who don't want to lose their many opportunities to shoot angles and cheat each other. Thus if a dealer tries to verify a bet, they have a fit. Verifying bets is sandard at small games, and the high limit games should not be allowed to write their own rulebooks, as is pretty much standard practice from what I've witnessed. Screw them all, rich and nasty tempered players should follow the same rules as everyone else. And no cash on the table ether, that's just another dozen angle shots they can pull.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
It is NOT standard practice in the industry to make players put chips over the line for the cameras.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, ok... In this particular case, because the players weren't actually all in, the dealer did in fact screw up procedures. He's supposed to get the chips in before he continues the deal when players are not all-in. Least ways, that's the case everyplace I've ever played.

So we have the catch22 that basically says the dealer has a rock and a hard place to choose between. If he doesn't verify the all-in is accurate and it turns out it isn't, he has violated procedures by not bringing in the turn bets. If he does verify the all-in, he's annoying the players for "pointlessly slowing down the game--just deal the cards and keep your hands off my chips". Poor dealer.