POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: mateuslp on September 22, 2017, 12:39:41 PM

Title: All-in with chip(s) hidden by player's hand
Post by: mateuslp on September 22, 2017, 12:39:41 PM
Turn, Player B bets 6.9k. Dealer announces all-in and throw all in button. Player A thinks for a while, asks dealer "how much is his all in. Dealer restates: 6900. Player A then calls and proceed to table his cards. Player B then goes: wait, I still have more chips ( he has been hiding them with his hands the whole time ).

What decisioun would you guys make? In our poker club, all TD's have agreed that the decision taken at the time was the correct one: take the hand to the river, do not allow any bets and showdown. Winning hand takes the pot. Apply a 1 round penalty to player B.
Title: All-in with chip(s) hidden by player's hand
Post by: MikeB on September 22, 2017, 02:05:18 PM
Hi Mate:
A great case to apply Rule 62: All-In with Chips Found Behind Later:

If A bets all-in and a hidden chip is found behind after a player calls, the TD will determine if the chip behind is part of accepted action (Rule 52). If not part of the action, A is not paid off for the chip(s) if he or she wins. If A loses, he or she is not saved by the chip(s) and the TD may award the chip(s) to the winning caller.

So, using the above rule, do you think the chip(s) B found was reasonably part of the all-in action A accepted? If so, A is obligated to match that amount also.

OTOH, if you think the chip was "hidden behind and found later", then 1) A isn't obligated to pay B off for the chip(s), and 2) the chip(s) won't save B if he loses. This rule was adopted at the 2013 TDA Summit at the Venetian. Interestingly, the ticklish part of the rule is the last part where "the TD may award the chip to the winning caller", effectively meaning in your case that A could win the chip but wouldn't have to pay B off if A loses. This is left to TDs discretion and sensibilities.

Bottom line, as I read your post the picture I get is that the chip was truly hidden and A can't reasonably be said to have accepted it considering: 1) it was hidden and 2) it wasn't brought to anyone's attention until after A had called and tabled. But you were there, how would you have applied Rule 62 to this case?

Thanks for the very interesting example!
Title: Re: All-in with chip(s) hidden by player's hand
Post by: mateuslp on September 22, 2017, 06:49:50 PM
Thanks for the answer, Mike.
On this case, this happened on the turn. So I think that would not fit as "all in with chips found behind later", since the player made a 6.9k bet. He did not announced all in, but the dealer did. Do you think  player A accepte the fact that he was all in when he did not interrupt after a) dealer throwing all in button and b)player B asking the dealer "how much is his all in" and c) a lot of time has pased by.
Since it happened on the turn, the han must procceed, and in case you think player A bet was not faced as all in ( which it was not ), would you allow further bets on the river? Player B, who called the "all in" and exposed his cards will play with them face up?

IMO, that would be an angle for player A shooting at. Hide his chips, and wait for the player B "call - showdown", and THEN say he has chips left behind. Again in my opinion, player A was trying to angle shoot in every scenario and should not be able to bet in further streets in this case.

Sorry if my english is not clear, and thanks for your time.
Title: Re: All-in with chip(s) hidden by player's hand
Post by: MikeB on September 22, 2017, 11:59:30 PM

In reading the case, the most important fact for me is that the dealer announced B's bet as "all-in", then tossed out the all-in marker, then A inquires about the "all-in". Because B made no effort to protest I think you do have to consider this the "end of betting", and under Rule 62 decide what to do with the hidden chips.

Then you have the issue of A exposing his hand after all the information from the house indicating an all-in. It's not dissimilar to the last stud card being dealt up by the house, you have to offer the player some protection. In stud we usually let the exposed player decide if he wants to declare all-in (no further betting), or continue to play with the handicap of exposed cards. In this case though with all the 3 indications of all-in I prefer your approach to just terminate the betting.

So that comes back to the hidden chip(s) under Rule 62... you always have to decide if hidden chips are part of the accepted action. Here it wasn't: it wasn't visible, wasn't noticed or announced until well after the bet and card tabling.

The quirk here is that B didn't technically declare or gesture all-in and thus really can't be held to an all-in because he passively allowed the dealer and A to treat it as all-in. SO, the hidden chip isn't part of the action, B isn't all-in, and there's no more betting because of A's handicap of card exposure through no fault of his. Exactly your solution.

The question of whether or not to penalize B (and how severely) depends on whether you consider this intentional or accidental.

Again, thanks for the great example, we haven't had a hidden chip case for awhile.