The ol' hidden high denomination chip trick

[bav]

I've seen it twice in two weeks... In a Wynn tournament a week ago someone very carefully stuck his lone high denomination chip in the middle, near the bottom, of his stack of small chips of similar color before going all-in. Then tonight in a NL cash game someone announces "all-in" and shoves two stacks in... 8 red chips and 4 blue chips for $44... only wait, no, that's not 4 blue chips, it's three blues with a lone black carefully hidden on the bottom for $143. When I saw the guy shove it in I thought "he's hiding the black so he must have the nuts" and yes, he had exactly that--that's gotta be THE most surefire tell of them all. The poor guy who called that all-in tried to convince the floor he should only be liable for $44 but the floor would have none of that. And of course the guy who profited from this was offended--OFFENDED, I tell you--that the other guy accused him of intentionally hiding the black. The ass can't even admit "yeah, I hid it and you fell for it, sucker".

Seems wrong to let folks profit from such angles. It's sooo obvious to the rest of us watching what's happening, but these guys are praying on the n00bs and the inattentive. I sat quietly tonight and let this one happen. I'm not at all sure of etiquette here, but me sticking my nose in the middle and saying "hey, look out, he's hiding a black under there" doesn't seem quite right, either. And of course the dealer isn't supposed to announce the bet size unless asked. So it pretty much seems to fall to the buyer to beware.

Not sure my point. Actually one point might be that I wish NL games would prohibit unusually high denomination chips from being in play... Nobody expects a $100 chip at NL1/2 with a $200 buyin cap, and nobody expects a $500 chip at NL2/5 with a $500 buyin cap. Just be careful out there.

[Bishop22]

The rule is if the player grossly underestimated the size of a call due to hidden chips then the call can be returned. It is every player's responsibility to keep their big chips visible or else they can lose a call this way. This just happened to me last week at Borgata when a guy had 75 in green behind and I moved in on him, when the dealer realized this he gave me my action back. At the very least when someone pushes a stack of different denominations the dealer should cut them off to clarify the bet size.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
The rule is if the player grossly underestimated the size of a call due to hidden chips then the call can be returned. It is every player's responsibility to keep their big chips visible or else they can lose a call this way. This just happened to me last week at Borgata when a guy had 75 in green behind and I moved in on him, when the dealer realized this he gave me my action back. At the very least when someone pushes a stack of different denominations the dealer should cut them off to clarify the bet size.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct except the dealer should not touch the bet unless asked to count it.

As a bettor at no limit poker you have an obligation to protect your hand until it is clear your opponant understands the size of your wager. In the example given above if he actual bet is $144, but the opponant says "call" and puts out $44 it is clear he does not understand the amount of the bet. If the first player shows his hand at teh first mention of "call" he runs the risk of the player misunderstanding the amount of the bet. Also chips that are intentional hidden can be ruled to not be in play. There are people that beleive no chip larger than the min buy-in should be permitted on the table, but I believe that not allowing players to hide their chips is enough.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
As a bettor at no limit poker you have an obligation to protect your hand until it is clear your opponant understands the size of your wager. In the example given above if he actual bet is $144, but the opponant says "call" and puts out $44 it is clear he does not understand the amount of the bet. If the first player shows his hand at teh first mention of "call" he runs the risk of the player misunderstanding the amount of the bet. Also chips that are intentional hidden can be ruled to not be in play. There are people that beleive no chip larger than the min buy-in should be permitted on the table, but I believe that not allowing players to hide their chips is enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alas, the caller pushed no chips. Angle shooter said "all-in" and set out two nice, neat stacks. Other guy pondered just a moment and said "I call" and then both flipped over their cards to show 2-pair vs straight. Dealer spreads out the 8 chips and says "$143" and the caller says "WHAT??? No way, man" and spends eons arguing with the dealer who repeats "too bad, you said call--you should have asked if you weren't sure". Finally the poor victim asks for the floor. I was surprised the floor didn't ask more questions. Dealer explained what happened, but with no emphasis at all on the nearly invisible black chip neatly tucked away at the bottom of the blue stack (which may have something to do with the victim being a tourist and the angle shooter being a known-by-name-by-all-the-employees regular). But he did lay the chips out showing the stack of red and the stack of blue/black, and the victim did say the black was hidden at the bottom. Floor then instantly ruled "you said call, you owe him $143" and walked off.

The problem with "not allowing players to hide their chips" is there seems to rarely be a penalty for doing so. I see similar misunderstandings where the intent of the bettor isn't so obviously devious pretty regularly. I've never seen one where the victim didn't end up paying the full price. The only thing that made the last two incidents I've witnessed odd is that it was blatantly intentional.

[traz]

wtf, putting a high-denomination chip at the bottom of your tower isn't some sneaky trick...anyone who calls and then says WTF I HAVE TO PAY SO MUCH?? is a complete moron

[elvirto]

blacks don't play in the 1-2nl games around Vancouver..I like the rule

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
wtf, putting a high-denomination chip at the bottom of your tower isn't some sneaky trick...anyone who calls and then says WTF I HAVE TO PAY SO MUCH?? is a complete moron

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf -- yes it is. most rooms require you to keep your highest denomination chips clearly visible. Now, if a guy only has eight chips and one of them is black -- you should see that. But shoving a few blacks in the middle of a few stacks of red -- that's not kosher.

[traz]

at the bottom of a stack is cleary visible in my mind. The OP didn't say anythin about the chip being in the middle, it was at the bottom

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody expects a $100 chip at NL1/2 with a $200 buyin cap, and nobody expects a $500 chip at NL2/5 with a $500 buyin cap. Just be careful out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems a bit of an overreaction. I color up pretty regularly in the Foxwoods $1-2 (usually after selling stacks of red to opponents to keep the game going). I prefer using fewer chips because it increases the number of hands we get for the time charge. Black chips are not outrageously uncommon for other players in that game.

The real solution is enforcement of the rules as explained here, and the problem is poor floor decisions. If the bettor pushes for $145 but makes it look like $50 by not maintaining his chip stack, and gets a call without further clarification, then the call should be for $50 all-in, period. Intent matters, but the floor doesn't need to accuse the angle shooter of angle shooting. Intentionally or unintentionally, the chip stack got into that state, and in such a state it's the bettor's responsibility to clarify the size of his bet. Period. Whether intentional or unintentional, bettor's push of a concealed chip costs him action on that chip. Better luck maintaining your chip stack next time.

Of course if it's clear that it's the caller shooting angles, not the bettor who innocently lost track of his high-denom chip, then the floor can rule in favor of the bettor.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
at the bottom of a stack is cleary visible in my mind. The OP didn't say anythin about the chip being in the middle, it was at the bottom

[/ QUOTE ]

Bottom of a stack of four may be visible -- bottom of a stack of twenty, it becomes difficult to distinguish. The shadows on the felt, etc. Regardless, if you are doing this for the purpose of hiding the true value of the chip (or chips), it should not be tolerated.