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.

[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.

[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.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

As soon as player A said "I call," that's a call. The fact he incorrectly stated that put him all-in is irrelevant at that point. For good measure I'd go ahead and kick both players in the nuts, player A for stating a supposed fact that was in fact bull-pucky, and player B for trying to nit an extra $41 out of an opponent that B is not entitled to. If the dealer knew that A was $241 behind then a KITN for him too.


Al


EDIT: I believe I misread the OP to be on the river. Things are more dicey if this happened on the turn. "I call" still stands as the turn action. The dealer gets a KITN for not knowing or not stating the truthful amount of how far behind A was. The problem is that no river betting actually happened, even tho it was as a result of bogus info and a slacking dealer. However, it is reasonable to assume that with all that went into the pot before, that the last $41 would have been bet on the river.


This is a difficult situation for the floor. Forcing someone to put money in the pot that was not actually bet is difficult to justify, even if it was due to dealer error and bogus info given by player A. However it does quite clearly seem the right ruling in the interest of maintaining the fairness and integrity of the game. Prevention of angle shots should also be top priority, again backing the idea of forcing the $41 to be paid to B. I'm quite interested to see other responses from experienced floors, and what actually happened.

[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 ]