Author Topic: All in bet not declared  (Read 17116 times)


  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: All in bet not declared
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2013, 08:14:21 AM »
Hi Nick... As soon as the hands get tabled without any betting actions on the turn, I am treating this as all-in and called.  I agree that the board must stand -- no way the loser is getting a second chance to win this pot.
Ken, This is an interesting case. As previously posted I do 100% agree this is an all-in / called / accepted action scenario pursuant to TDA Rule 46. What makes it somewhat of a permutation in my mind is that we normally think of AA on the part of the caller... but here it can be seen as either A) the bettor who's accepting the action of his caller, sort of AA in reverse, yes? Or B) "mutual AA"... in that the scenario reads as though both players and the dealer accept that big stack has small stack covered; and tabling the cards is further confirmation of this. So I'm proposing in the new suggestions thread consideration of a modification to TDA 46 that would allow for this broader view of AA, see New Suggestions thread here:

Also, FWIW, the cards don't get tabled on the turn in the OP, which is a big part of the problem here... dealer should have required tabling prior to the river under 2013 TDA Rule 15, but didn't, adding to the confusion.

In some related threads, we discussed the possibility of removing chips from play. I would not be against that, but in my view, there is little precedent for that beyond removing chips when a player is disqualified.  In certain circumstances where one player may seem to be getting a significant undeserved windfall, there may be a more persuasive argument for removing chips from play completely, but I don't think we had that situation here.
This is part of the language of new 2013 TDA Rule 54. You raise the very important question of how to handle windfalls in these situations, as the odds of a "normal" poker bet are 1 to 1: you bet 100, I call with 100, I can win 100 or lose 100.  Where there are uncounted chips, you bet 120, I bet 100, I can lose 100 but win 120. This is the only such situation in the game of poker. Is there a point at which a windfall becomes excessive and should be prohibited? As you point out, hidden chips in transit are taken out of play, and that forms a precedent in some Associate's minds that is also what should happen to hidden chips on a bet that the house will not require a caller to pay off. Also starting a new suggestion thread on that important question here:
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 08:26:02 AM by MikeB »