Ruling - How many chips in play?

[ATrebek]

$1/3 NL game. Player's A, B, and C to the flop. Player B's stack is 100, player C's stack is 150. Player A checks, player B goes all, player C goes all in over the top.

Meanwhile, player A has been racking his chips to move to another game and has mixed his chips in with more chips that aren't in play (about $500 total), but decides he wants to call. No one is sure how many chips player A had on the table when the hand started, but it was "probably around $100" according to player A.

How much does it cost player A to call?

Floor ruled on this hand, but I want to hear other's opinions before I say what they ruled.

Player A gets a KITN, obv.

[Dromar]

I'd say he's got $100.

[Hielko]

I'd say his hand is dead.

[Taso]

I'd make him put in $150...I have no idea if this is correct or not.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
$1/3 NL game. Player's A, B, and C to the flop. Player B's stack is 100, player C's stack is 150. Player A checks, player B goes all, player C goes all in over the top.

Meanwhile, player A has been racking his chips to move to another game and has mixed his chips in with more chips that aren't in play (about $500 total), but decides he wants to call. No one is sure how many chips player A had on the table when the hand started, but it was "probably around $100" according to player A.

How much does it cost player A to call?

Floor ruled on this hand, but I want to hear other's opinions before I say what they ruled.

Player A gets a KITN, obv.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once a table is under control often the most difficult part of a floor decision is fact finding. If "nobody is sure" how many chips Player A had (BTW, I interpret this to mean the other players didn't initially state a strong opinion; they could still have a rough idea and be willing to elaborate later) and Player A says "probably around $100" the floor should look at the players most affected by this; i.e., Player's B and C. If they accept this then let Player A play for $100.

Problem comes when they don't accept Player A's statement and there is wild disagreement between Player B and C. Amounts up to $100 impact both B and C, amounts between $100 and $150 impact just Player C. In this case credibility, believability and so on matter. So essentially you need a floor with the judgement of Solomon.

~ Rick

[redfisher]

Is A trying to be straight here? As long as he claims to cover B, I'd let C decide how much action he wants. If C wants the $150 in, I'd make A put it in. If C wants $100, I'm fine with that too.

I assume that A did this while the dealer was looking the other way? The dealer should be making an effort to prevent this kind of thing. I'd add him to the KITN list, except he's probably going to get to go sit in the no toke penalty box for several minutes while this gets worked out.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The dealer should be making an effort to prevent this kind of thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

What should he do? Drop the deck, get up, abandon his tray of chips, run around the table, and tackle the offending player?

I'll lay 10-to-1 that Player A knew that he shouldn't be doing what he's doing while he's in a hand, yet he did it. It staggers me that someone could think the dealer was even partly culpable in this one.

We got Player B moving all-in. We got a player to B's left also pushing in. Meanwhile, A is sitting to B's right, possibly at the far end of the table, away from the current action. You can't understand how the dealer's attention might be diverted away from Player A for the moment?

Just another example of the impossibly unrealistic expectations that most B&M posters have of dealers.

[ATrebek]

I don't think the player was trying to pull an angle, I think he was actually oblivious to what he was doing.

I don't feel like the dealer is culpable in this at all - no one, including player A realized what player A was doing. (No I wasn't player A).

My feeling was he said he wants to call - $100 is committed right there no matter what. Player C then gets to decide if he wants action on the other $50 or not - if not, all action is over and the hand is run out.

This is not what happened though.

[redfisher]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume that A did this while the dealer was looking the other way? The dealer should be making an effort to prevent this kind of thing. I'd add him to the KITN list, except he's probably going to get to go sit in the no toke penalty box for several minutes while this gets worked out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I might show the entire relevant paragraph of my post that you responded to.


[ QUOTE ]
What should he do? Drop the deck, get up, abandon his tray of chips, run around the table, and tackle the offending player?

I'll lay 10-to-1 that Player A knew that he shouldn't be doing what he's doing while he's in a hand, yet he did it. It staggers me that someone could think the dealer was even partly culpable in this one.

We got Player B moving all-in. We got a player to B's left also pushing in. Meanwhile, A is sitting to B's right, possibly at the far end of the table, away from the current action. You can't understand how the dealer's attention might be diverted away from Player A for the moment?

Just another example of the impossibly unrealistic expectations that most B&M posters have of dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's unrealistic to expect the dealer in all situations to prevent A from farking up the hand. It's obviously his job to try to prevent it if he sees it happening.

Do you agree that this is going to be a PITA for all involved that will stop the game for some amount of time, cost the dealer tips, and make the entire situation less enjoyable for everyone involved?

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you agree that this is going to be a PITA for all involved that will stop the game for some amount of time, cost the dealer tips, and make the entire situation less enjoyable for everyone involved?

[/ QUOTE ]

No objection, Your Honor. The defense will stipulate to that.