NLHE - Requesting a Chip Count

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
and i'm supposed to be able to eyeball it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is why only $100 bills play. If you were actually entitled to stop the game and get a count there would be no reason to not allow twenties and fifties to play.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were actually entitled to stop the game

[/ QUOTE ]
when big, potentially all-in pots are in contention, games are regularly "stopped," for stacks to be counted, for difficult decisions to be mulled over, etc.

why should your objection to "stopping the game" take priority over an accurate count when thousands of dollars could be at stake? bigger games pay time charges anyway, so it's not costing the house any money, and the players pretty much all give each other some courtesy (in terms of a hand taking a very long time to play out) in large pots, since they would like to receive similar courtesy when they're in those spots as well.

[youtalkfunny]

You know why you can't make somebody count down their entire stack for you? Because if you could, somebody would make this request every hand, and we'd get out about five hands per hour.

Keep all the chips neatly stacked; keep the big chips visible; count out the bills upon request, or give an estimate if you have thousands on the table ("About 2500" is fine, as long as that's within a few hundred--"About 300" is not acceptable, as being off by a single bill can mean you're off by 33% or even 50%).

I don't know where anybody got the idea that they are "entitled" to an exact count of an opponent's stack. If the conditions I listed above are met, then your opponent has done his due diligence.

Can you imagine if we gave players the power to demand countdowns upon request? Player A would certainly make Player B count down every penny for no other reason than A is mad at B for invoking IWTSTH. And A might do it to him ten hands in a row. Then B catches on, and returns the favor a few times. Yeah, that's good for the game.

[Ghazban]

In practice, yes things almost always go smoothly. I've never had anybody refuse to give me an estimate of how much they have either with bills or chips (or a combination). I only brought up the bit about bills because I didn't know quite what my opponent was obliged to do. Since it appears the strict letter of the law doesn't require anybody to give me a count, I guess I ought to get better at estimating wads of bills just in case somebody wants to be a prick about it.

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
They are required to display the $100 chips. If they are hidden they don't play.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common rule? First off, anybody hiding chips deserves a kick in the nuts. That being said however, having the above as a rule would open Kramer's famed "Endora's box".

Hero calls Villain's (apparant--this doesn't count the "hidden chips") $600 all in on the turn. Villain has 5 black chips buried at the bottom of a stack of red chips in the back middle of his pile. These black chips are totally hidden.

Scenario #1 Hero is ahead at the river. Villain claims the chips were hidden and therefore shouldn't play. Does hero have to maintain he saw those chips or at least knew they were there when he called the bet?

Scenario #2 Villain is ahead at the river. Is it the dealer's job to bring up that the blacks were hidden? Must the hero make an affirmative declaration of the rule and the facts as they apply to this case?

Now let's assume that the blacks are "partially hidden" (whatever that may encompass). Let's say that 1/3-1/2 the table can see the "hidden" black chips.

Scenario #3 Hero is ahead at the river.

Scenario #4 Villain is ahead at the river.


I think if the chips are on the table, the chips play. Anybody who conceals chips is an evil doer. Anyone who goes to the mat for significant $$$ without due dilligince is a fool. To protect the fool via the rules in this case is unwise in my opinion.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
Because if you could, somebody would make this request every hand, and we'd get out about five hands per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]
slippery-slope fallacy. if it's unnecessary or just a form of harassment, the person requesting the count can simply be refused (and laughed at). however, when a potential all-in scenario actually arises in a hand, there's no reason that a player should not be informed how much money is at stake.

here's how a "count" scenario might play out: 25-50 game, i raise pf to 200, villain reraises to 700. i ask him, "how much are you playing, about?" he says, "30-ish. maybe a little more." i nod, and call.

on the flop i check, he bets 1k, i make it 3k, he calls. on turn i lead for 7k, he calls. river comes--and at this point the earlier approximate number's not good enough anymore. i also started the hand with about 30k, i'm not even sure who covers. he's got a thick stash of loose bills in front of him, so i ask, "how much do you have behind, exactly?"

now, i'm possibly about to make a wager upwards of 20k here, with a potential 60k+ pot hanging in the balance, and you're saying i have no right to a count? uh huh.

exact counts are necessary for fairness' sake, for the integrity of the game, and indeed for significant sums of $$$--what are the arguments against, that it slows down the game? that it'll lead to nuisance count-requests when that doesn't happen anyway and can be refused if they did? gimme a break.

echoing ghazban, in practice i have ALWAYS seen an exact count given when the situation required it. players themselves don't have a problem with it, but it's almost scary to think some rooms wouldn't enforce it.

[mikech]

oh, by the way,

[ QUOTE ]
Can you imagine if we gave players the power to demand countdowns upon request?

[/ QUOTE ]
before this thread it had always been my understanding that players DO have this right, and in fact in my experience it has always been enforced by the rooms i've played in. but guess what? i've never seen players in my games make frivolous or retaliatory requests for counts. why not? according to you wouldn't those be the consequences of such a rule?

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
You know why you can't make somebody count down their entire stack for you? Because if you could, somebody would make this request every hand, and we'd get out about five hands per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly. The idea that allowing a player to request a countdown of a stack requires that you allow the abuse of the rule just is not logical. A player who is constantly asking for exact stack counts as can be dealt with.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know where anybody got the idea that they are "entitled" to an exact count of an opponent's stack.

[/ QUOTE ] from the simple fact that unlike a limit game an opponents stack size represents the effective limit, or the effective amount oif jeopardy that a player is facing and it just plain makes sense for a player to be entitled to this information (even you agree a player is entitled to know this information as evidenced by your insistence that chips be neatly stacked and visible, if you felt this information should be secret you would allow the chips to be hidden)

[ QUOTE ]
Player A would certainly make Player B count down every penny

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good reason not to allow loose coins to play. all coins should be in rolls. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
from the simple fact that unlike a limit game an opponents stack size represents the effective limit, or the effective amount oif jeopardy that a player is facing and it just plain makes sense for a player to be entitled to this information

[/ QUOTE ]
thank you. you managed to state the essence of the matter in a single sentence, and did so better than i was able to in several long posts--great job.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen or been offered an arguement that showed me why cash on the table is in any way good.

[/ QUOTE ]
in bigger games it's a pain to buy (and later cash out) tens of thousands of dollars worth of chips.

edit: RR beat me to it. i was only thinking from the player's perspective, hadn't considered that it's a hassle for the cardroom too, but it makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you meant by your edit, but the first part is perhaps the stupidest reason ever for letting cash play. It's a pain in the butt to use chips? Well it's an even bigger pain in the butt to watch these jerkoffs try to stiff each other over and over (yes, it's quite common), and of course it's a royal pain in the butt to ask for counts of loose bills when you know you'll often be misled, and of course the game will be delayed further. Chips simply don't delay the game and can't be miscounted easily (otherwise tournaments simply wouldn't work). Cash equals assinine, period.