Author Topic: Hidden large denomination chip  (Read 5532 times)

eugeneshull

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Hidden large denomination chip
« on: May 22, 2010, 02:36:01 PM »
The case was that a player pushed All in against another and when called the player being called revealed a large denomination chip which had been concieled behind the outer stacks.  The player that pushed said he would not have pushed if he had seen that chip, he did not know he was risking that big a percentage of his stack. The floor was called and made the ruleing that the chip did NOT play.  I agree with this call but there was a lot of controversy over it.  What is the correct ruleing?

                                      Gene Shull


Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: Hidden large denomination chip
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2010, 02:51:31 PM »
under TDA rules I would rule the same way, I would rule the chip did not play during the hand and that action was frozen for the full all-in less the high dem. chip, I cite rule 37, Chips on the table: Players must keep their higher denomination chips visible and identifiable at all times, Either party could object to the high dem. chip being included and even if they didn't object I probably would still rule it not in play for the hand.

Regards
Stuart

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3195
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Hidden large denomination chip
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2010, 02:54:46 PM »
Gene,

 If I understand your question; you said that the player pushed his stack forward and after he was called by another player he was allowed to retract his hidden chip? If I have explained the situation the way it happened, then it was a bad call. There is no way that a player, whether they say all-in or push all-in can retract any chips unless he has more than the player that called him. When you go all-in, you'd better win the hand or you're gone. Period. Unless, of course, there is a rebuy.

I hope I understood the question. If not, explain it again and we'll get it right.
Nick C

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Hidden large denomination chip
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2010, 05:28:58 PM »
Nick:

The large denomination chip was hidden behind something and DID NOT get pushed forward or if it was pushed forward it was hidden behind a stack or two of smaller denomination chips, in either event it was not visible. 

Everyone:

There are two errors here, one by the all-in player, but not having his large chip visible and two by the caller, in not asking for verification of the amount of the all-in. 

We have had similar discussions on this forum, mostly dealing with errors in counting the amount of an all-in stack,  and it was generally agreed that if the amount 'concealed' was 10% or less than the 'disclosed' or unhidden amount there isn't any reason not to require the all-in player to place that chip in play and to require the calling player to put that additional amount into the pot.  I would think that a similar concept might be applied to this situation.  For example, if the original all-in was declared to be 50,000 chips and the hidden chip was 5,000, I find it hard to believe that the calling player would not call that additional amount.  Now if the all-in was alleged to be 30,000 and the hidden chip was 25,000, I can certainly understand why the calling player might not want to call the additional amount. 

There are a lot of other factors that need to be considered before I would be willing to make a recommendation, some of them being:

1.  Do these players know each other?
2.  Is there ANY possibility of collusion, ie., chip dumping?
3.  What is the experience level of the players involved?
4.  Was the large chip hidden by mistake or purposefully, etc., etc., etc. 

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3195
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Hidden large denomination chip
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2010, 06:21:38 PM »
Chet and Stuart,

  What if the player said all-in first, and then pushed, and then realized the oversized chip?

I'm not as versed as you when it comes to tournaments, especially lately, but I don't like that call. I'd hate to be eliminated by that player in a later hand because he was allowed to retract his chip!

I'm all ears on this one.

Nick C


chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Hidden large denomination chip
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2010, 06:48:58 PM »
Nick: 

Remember, the player said "All-In", did not state any amount and apparently the calling player did not ask, before the all-in players stacks were pushed forward.  Only after the bet was called (remember no amount has been declared) was the hidden chip displayed and at the time the amount of the bet changed (we don't know any amounts) and I think the amount of the discrepancy is important. 

If it was insignificant I would make the 'all-in' player put it in the pot and I would make the calling player call the additional amount.  If the amount was significant (remember we have a 10% suggestion from another thread) I may rule differently.  I still believe there are two errors here, if not three as the amount was not stated, nobody asked about the amount and the dealer didn't clarify the amount of the bet (although I don't think the dealer should count the all-in bet unless asked to do so).

What would you do with the calling player?  If he doesn't want to call the additional amount (lets assume it was significant) does he just lose the amount of the initial call?  Is that fair? 

As I said, there are multiple errors here as I see it.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3195
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Hidden large denomination chip
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2010, 07:29:40 PM »
Chet,
 
 There was no mention of all-in. I rarely see players in that situation respond with how much? A player goes all-in and the other says call. I don't understand how any part of the initial bet can be taken back. One of the problems that I have with some of the questions is, there is no mention of the amount. If there are only two players left in the hand, then I might consider another solution. If the hidden chip were noticed before the hands were tabled, then maybe the action could be corrected to the amount (without the oversized chip) and I would consider allowing the calling player all options. He could retract his call, he could call, or he could even raise the all-in. Every player at the table needs to know how many chips a player has. I would like to know who won that hand.

Nick C

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Hidden large denomination chip
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2010, 09:12:31 PM »
Nick:  I think I missed the fact that it was the player that pushed that wanted to take his bet back.  Sorry for the confusion on my part.  That said, I am in agreement with you that I would NOT let him take ANY of his chips back and that since he made a verbal declaration, he was required to put all of his chips into the pot, including any hidden ones.

I must be needin' new glasses  ;)

Chet

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: Hidden large denomination chip
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2010, 02:43:34 AM »
just for the record guys i'm still not letting that chip play, as it was not in plain sight or easily identifyable, perhaps if not using TDA rules I would rule it 'in play' I came in memory of something like this from the Hendon Mob website:

Situation: a player sits down in a NLH cash game with a walkman, a Starbucks coffee and a packet of cigarettes. He puts his chips on the table and plays a few hands. The chips in front of him amount to about $1500. He passes for a few minutes until he gets involved in a big pot heads up. He bets $500 and his opponent raises $1000 announcing that he wants to set him in. The new player, who has the nuts by the way, now produces a $5000 chip that was behind his cigarette packet. His opponent objects. How do you rule?

Matt:
One of the reasons why I never allow all these walk mans, even napkins on the tables, you know or all these things, especially in a cash game. I would not allow that chip to play because it was out of vision of the players and again thatís another good rule weíve made in tournaments is that you must keep your largest chip, you know, visible so I would not allow that to play.

Thomas:
If the 5000 chip was behind the cigarette packet, I would not allow to play it in this hand. I would ask him to remove everything but the chips from the table.

Jack:
$5000 chip does not play. New player did not have chip in plain sight or announce its presence.

Liam:
I havenít been a poker room manager so I donít run cash games. If it was me just from a personal point of view the 5000 chips shouldnít play but I donít play cash games and donít rule on cash games.

Mel:
All chips must be at the front in view for other people to see how much they are playing. I would rule that as itís not in view the other person is all in and the $5000 chip is not in play.

Marty:
Itís a stroke from the player with the cigs, but the other guy should have checked with him first how many chips he had. This is a thing that happens regularly, itís a form of cheating from the guy with the 5K chip but if heíd been asked he would have had to declare it in play. I would allow the 5000 to play but the dealer be reminded to ensure players keep their chips in view. If heís announced ďIíll set you allĒ in he must set him all in Ė the verbal declaration is binding. Itís the dealerís job to make sure the chips are in view and this has been happening for years. This is negligence from the dealer I think.

The Mob Verdict

In tournament play tournament directors and floor men, as well as dealers and other players, are constantly asking for all big chips to be in clear view. In the WSOP 2006 it was a rule that the biggest denomination chips were actually placed on the top of the chip stack. In cash games this rule is not so often enforced but maybe it should be. All of our TDís agree here that the chip doesnít play, all of them that is except Marty.

Marty acknowledges that the player is pulling a Ďstrokeí but says that the chip plays because had he been asked he would have had to Ďdeclare it in playí. It is a little unfair to push the burden of one player making all his chips visible to everyone else having to ask if there are any more in play.

The most sensible rule is that the chip doesnít play and we would watch this player in the future as well as make sure that he doesnít clutter the table up with personal belongings.

There is even an argument that nothing, except for the chips and the cards, should be allowed on top of the poker table.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3195
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Hidden large denomination chip
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2010, 06:37:23 AM »
Stuart,
  I respect your opinion and I think that a lot can be learned from similar situations as described on the Hendon Mob site. However, rehashing some of these old games reminds me of some attorney going back in the archives looking for a solution to and old murder case. I did look for a ruling in Robert's Rules VERSION 11, and this is as close as I could get:

SECTION 15 -TOURNAMENTS

#20 A player who declares all in and loses the pot, then discovers that one or more chips were hidden, is not entitled to benefit from this. That player is eliminated from the tournament if the opponent had sufficient chips to cover the hidden ones (A rebuy is okay if allowable by the rules of that event). If another deal has not yet started, the director may rule the chips belong to the opponent who won that pot, if that obviously would have happened with the chips out in plain view. If the next deal has started, the discovered chips are removed from the tournament.

#26 Higher-denomination chips must be placed where they are easily visible to all other players.

Nick C

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Hidden large denomination chip
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2010, 03:58:09 PM »
Stuart:  Based on TDA Rule 29 how do you not require the player that pushed (all-in) and who later tries to reverse his verbal action because he found the large denomination chip to put that chip into the pot? 

I will grant you there is some confusion about who did what here.  I don't understand this sentence in particular (from the original post):  "The player that pushed said he would not have pushed if he had seen that chip, he did not know he was risking that big a percentage of his stack." 

As I re-read the original post, remember I must need new glasses  ;), was it was the player that initiated the all-in who wants to retract his action since he now finds that he has more chips or was it the calling player who wants to retract his call (or not call the additional amount)>

Gene:  Can you please clarify?

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: Hidden large denomination chip
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2010, 07:02:18 AM »
Hi Chet & Nick, thanks for the feedback,

From my reading of the original post I made the following assumptions:
Pre-flop
Pre-showdown
The Aggressor wishes to gain a ruling as he has a messy stack with a high dem mixed in it
The aggressor dis not realise he had that chip in his stack and wishes a ruling as he thought he was pushing in for considerably less
There is no mention of what the caller wishes to do regarding the rogue chip

I fully understand your argument for making the chip stay in the pot, however for me there are a few items to consider:

If the player calling the bet did not know of the rogue chip he may of not been so comfortable to call off this larger amount, backing up the action for a corrective chip count may be an option as Nick states, however I would be uncomfortable doing that as it may not be in the best interests of the game as the player whom called the all-in bet would be able to retract his call and re-consider his actions, If the player making the call complained most of us would freeze the chip and the action during the hand, so for consistency IMO I see no reason to do anything other here (providing I beleive the story I'm being told by the rest of the table).

I think to protect the tournament I have to not allow that chip to play, if it was for example a $5,000 in a $500 stack I could make the total inclusive of a $500 chip rather than the $5000 to justify the inital count of stacks, but I think forcing the caller to put in the extra or backing up the action would damage the tournament and open up a can of worms where players were aware of that ruling.

With regards to the RROP rule 15-20 I don't see it applying to this case as from what I've read it would appear to be a pre-flop situation where the showdown has not commenced, however that is not certain, again as per Chet we could of done with more information, so if it is pre-flop pre-showdown we need to make a decision in the best interests of the tournament, it would obviously be differrent if this was post-river and the caller has won the pot and then the player complains, I would then go with Nicks rule from RROP and eliminate the player anyway, but rule 15-20 is predominately designed for players who find chips under the bumper, in their pockets etc after they have been eliminated.

Hope this all makes sense and I'm not just blowing air!

Stuart
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 07:07:22 AM by Stuart Murray »

Martin L. Waller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
Re: Hidden large denomination chip
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2010, 07:00:35 PM »
OK, fellows letís see.
The first player pushed all-in. Did he declare?
The second player called what he saw.
Then the first player finds a big chip from somewhere.
If it was on the table with the chips he pushed then it should have been visible and in play.
If it was behind this beer and not pushed in then it wasnít in play but he can use it to bet later.
With the info we have I would say the big chip doesnít play.
Gene, get back to use with some details other wise Iíll go with the Floors decision.
Good luck,
Martin