Author Topic: Dealer miscount  (Read 3884 times)

Desi

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • The Fortune Rooms
Dealer miscount
« on: March 20, 2010, 07:24:34 PM »
Player A moves all-in and dealer counts his stack and announces '' All-in for 4025'' Player B announces call, dealer then realises it is actually 4050. What are Player B's options? He was adamant he could take all his chips back as the information the dealer gave him was incorrect. He was made to call the extra 25 in this case, but for future reference what is the ruling if the amount was wrong by more than just 25??

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Dealer miscount
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2010, 08:02:12 PM »
Two thoughts:

1.  The dealer should NOT be counting the all in stack UNLESS asked to do so by a player on whom action is pending.  A player has a responsibility (in my opinion) to be paying attention to the dealer count and if he/she thinks it is "off" to ask the dealer to verify.

2.  There is NO TDA Rule or rule in Robert's Rules of Poker (at least that I am aware of) that pertains to dealer error while counting an all-in stack.  Personally, unless the error is substantial (I am leaning towards at a 10% error as being substantial) and the player has a good, valid reason for not verifying the dealer count, I would require the player who said call to make the call and put in the additional chip(s).

If this player is going to call 4025, there is no valid reason for him/her not to call 4050 (in my opinion).

Hope this helps.

Dave Lamb

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 65
Re: Dealer miscount
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2010, 09:52:39 PM »
Chet has it right. Unless the miscounted amount of player's chips is a substantial amount more than is stated (10% is a good measurement), we can reasonably determine that the action should stand.

If the dealer says, "All-in for 47,500" and it turns out to be 72,500 because a 25K chip was not counted until after the river card is dealt, I would only hold the player calling the bet liable for 47,500. 25K is a substantial amount more than what was stated.

On the other hand, if the player calling the all-in has a large stack, 250K for example, and shows down two kings, a reasonable man may easily decide that the overlooked 25K chip did not affect the action. The winning kings should get the full 72,500.   

This decision is about fair and reasonable evaluation of the circumstances.

 

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3172
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Dealer miscount
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2010, 02:32:46 PM »
Dave

 This presents an interesting situation. What if a player says "I'm all-in for $47,500 but pushes in $72,000 because he didn't notice the $25,00 chip in his stack? Would he be liable for his announcement of all-in, or the dollar amount that he quoted? If the opposing player said "call" would he be able to retract his wager? I'm curious what your response would be.

Thanks
Nick C

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Dealer miscount
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2010, 08:11:39 PM »
Nick, Dave and all:

TDA Rule 29, in part says, "Verbal declarations in turn are binding..."  There are two parts to Nick's verbal declaration example, a) "I'm all-in" and b) "for $47,500".  So the real question is which part is binding "a" or "b".  I am of the opinion that we need to look at the intent of the player and I believe that once you utter the words "all-in", you have committed your entire stack, regardless of the amount.

Looking forward to the discussion.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3172
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Dealer miscount
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2010, 01:16:29 PM »
Chet,

  I agree that the player should probably be all-in as you stated. Would player B have the option to withdraw his call after the difference was realized? I think that would be covered by rule #29 as action changing to pllayer B, thus allowing him any option. What do you think?
Nick C

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Dealer miscount
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2010, 04:06:08 PM »
Interesting question!  In your example, I didn't see any reference to player "B", so I am going to assume this is a "follow-up" (Something like the White House Press Corps  ;D).

Assuming there is a player B:

1.  I would think the thought line from earlier (substantially different being 10% or more) would apply.  I like the thoughts from Dave Lamb
Chet has it right. Unless the miscounted amount of player's chips is a substantial amount more than is stated (10% is a good measurement), we can reasonably determine that the action should stand.

If the dealer says, "All-in for 47,500" and it turns out to be 72,500 because a 25K chip was not counted until after the river card is dealt, I would only hold the player calling the bet liable for 47,500. 25K is a substantial amount more than what was stated.

On the other hand, if the player calling the all-in has a large stack, 250K for example, and shows down two kings, a reasonable man may easily decide that the overlooked 25K chip did not affect the action. The winning kings should get the full 72,500.   

This decision is about fair and reasonable evaluation of the circumstances.

1.  I don't see how Rule #29 applies since it is applies to 'action out of turn'.  Maybe I am being too strict, but that's how I see it. 

This would be a good topic for discussion at the next TDA Summit.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3172
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Dealer miscount
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2010, 12:59:50 PM »
I think everyone got a little confused on this one (myself included). It started out as a $25 difference and then escalated to a similar, but different situation. I know I got them mixed-up. I would still like to take a closer look at rule #29; it addresses verbal action and action in turn and out of turn.

Nick C