A floor call and table stakes

[redfisher]

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.

[RR]

[ 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.

[Ghazban]

[ 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?

[Jauron]

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

[bav]

[ 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.

[Ghazban]

[ 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.

[mikech]

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.

[mikech]

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.

[bav]

[ 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?

[redfisher]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

A good rule, but not universal.