Multi huge pot at final table

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

Just a question about your methods:

You rule and comment via a microphone the final table of a tournament with spectators and medias.
Preflop in a hand, two players are all-in with a third one calling and covering them. Players did table their hands.
We know and see the chip leader and the short stack inside the three pots. Let's say A > B > C
Those three pots are huge and contain numerous and various chips.
 
1) Do you count exactly the pots BEFORE turning the board (thus risking to loose many time if the chipleader A or even the middle pot B wins)?
2) Or do you turn the board FIRST then count the exact amounts only if B or mostly C wins?

Here many organisers, medias and bloggers ask us not to count the pots when HUGE + MULTIPLE + OBVIOUS ORDER + COMMENTS + MEDIAS + SPECTATORS

Your experience?

    

[Tristan]

In general, I prefer the dealers to do it ahead of time and not 'gamble' that the large stack is going to win.  I have had too many situations happen in which the dealer got lost halfway through and things are co-mingled.

I could understand not doing it on a final table that is broadcast though.  That table should be supervised closely anyway and the TD could step in if they see an error being made.

[Stuart Murray]

Accepted action now makes it easier to get away with not counting stacks, when there are multiple players are all-in, and I do market that dealers should not count stacks unless specifically requested to do so, with the pot being sorted out at the end of the hand, it usually saves a considerable amount of time.

Stu

[Nick C]

In the original situation, where two players are all-in and a third player calls, it would be easier to deal the cards and complete the hand afterwards, as Stu suggests. Each situation could be different especially when amounts are similar. Consider the winner with an overwhelming chip lead, why waste time counting?

[Tristan]

Stuart, I agree with you about not counting stacks unless asked to...but when all the action is complete and running out an all-in, I feel that it should be counted first.

Here is why:

I see dealers make mistakes more often in these situations.  They say "he has you covered" and proceed to push the stack.  I have noticed and corrected errors many times when this happens.

All of the players involved in the hand are watching before the board gets dealt.  There are simply more interested eyes watching the pots being set up.  More eyes = less errors.  If you wait til the end of the hand, many of the players are simply not interested anymore as they lost the hand.

Perhaps the biggest reason is player's peace of mind.  Players who bust out in these situations deserve the peace of mind of knowing that everything was done correctly.  I have had players come up, after the fact, and tell me that when replaying the events in their head, they really think they should have had some chips left.  It makes me sick to my stomach when I hear that.  Players deserve to have everything broken down to show them that it was all done correctly.

That is my opinion.  I know that it takes more time, but I feel that it is worth it.

[Stuart Murray]

I'm not saying your way of doing it is wrong Tristan, far be it if that's what suits you and yours so be it, but so many times you will see situations where there is multiple all-ins from short stacks and say the big stack at the table calls, and will quite often win the hand, eliminating say 3 players in one shot, where there could of in theory been the possibility of having to set-up 3 pots, which would then need to be awarded individually, this all IMHO wastes far too much time.  I have always found it faster and easier to sort out the pots at the end, so much time saved gives the players more hands per hour, I apply this to tournament and cash game poker.  I do get what you say about players no longer being interested, however I have usually found the opposite, players are interested to see if they have anything left or who knocked who out etc.

In relation to the 'knowing' how much each player has, yes we still do count down at least one stack unless it is blazingly obvious that the big stack has everytone covered by a considerable margin.

Stu

[Nick C]

I agree with Stuart. Much more practical unless the amounts are not clear, or equally close, as I stated earlier.