All in bet not declared

[bill]

Situation in local card room - how should it be called

Late in game player Big Stack Player makes a big bet on turn.  A player with a much lower stack pushes all his chips in with no verbal indication.  After a slight pause the dealer turns the  river card.  Again no verbal from players or dealer,  the two players table their cards (high stack first) indicating the high stack player has the winning hand from the river card.  The high stack has a straight and low stack pocket As.  At that time another player at the table notes that the low stack player actually has more chips than the high stack in the pot.   The bet was about 14,000 in chips (multiple chips of 100, 500, 1000 and 5000, the call was even more diverse than the bet (lower denomination chips) but turns out there were about 600 more chips than the original bet.
Based on the action it was clear that both the dealer, and the high stack player thought the original bet was sufficient to cover the chips thrown in by the player (and both stated to theTD), the player making the all in did not comment whether he thought he was calling or raising.

There were multiple things that could have stopped this ambiguous situation:
1.  Player pushing all his chips in could have declared all-in to make (not required but could have cause a reconsideration in pot size)
2.  The dealer could have declared the all-in, pulled in the pots (which would have shown the extra chips) or could have stated that pot was good prior to flipping the card (giving the all-in player time to react if he thought he had more chips).
3.  The big stack could have asked if he had the other player covered.
4.  The TD could have asked the low stack player of what he thought his intentions were when pushed his stack in (though there are no guarantees the player would have told the truth).

But none of these things happened.

The TD decided to invoke the card dealt before action complete rule, stating that the players are responsible for keeping track of the action and no verbal is "required" from a player when going all in.  After much complaining (and blaming both the dealer and player for not letting him know he did not have the other one covered) he went ahead and put the additional 600 in and as would be expected in the re-deal the winning card did not reappear (low stack pair of 10s, high stack pocket As).  More talks between the high stack and TD only resulted in frustrated player and house being defensive as to how they were going to handle the situation with the dealer (ie it was no bodies business as to what the would say or do to the dealer to keep this action from happening in the future).

imho - I believe the TD could have also invoked the "best interest of the game" rule since  due to the diversity of the chips pushed in and low percentage of the overall implicit raise  (600 on a 28k + about another 10K pot) it would have been possible that the assumption that both the dealer and high stack player made on the chip stack was a reasonable assumption and if given the chance based on pot odds and not seeing the other players cards the high stack would have called the additional 600 bet prior to the river.  Based on this my call would have probably been to allow the small stack to keep the 600 and given the pot to the high stack based on the original cards dealt.

I don't think there is a correct answer here, but shows how declaring action and a dealer verbalizing the current situation could have possibly clarified things.  Any other thoughts on the situation?

[Nick C]

bill,

 I'm with you on this one. The proper river was dealt, and I see no reason to re-deal another. You indicate that: "Late in game Big Stack Player makes a big bet on turn." If the dealer were to stop and count the bet amounts, the extra 600 would have been returned to the calling player...correct? Therefore, I would have returned the 600 to the "assumed lower stack" caller, and awarded the pot to the initial bettor.

Good question, and I know there are many that will not agree. That's the way I would handle it. I find it hard to believe that the dealer would burn and turn without any clarification on the amounts wagered by either player?

[chet]

Nick:

You got it right!!

 

Chet

[MikeB]

Hi Bill: This is a non-standard situation obviously, here are the excerpts from your description that I find most important...

A player with a much lower stack pushes all his chips in with no verbal indication.  

To me that's an all-in bet right there. The dealer should have: a) determined that big stack had small stack covered, but didn't... b) the dealer should have turned both hands face up before dealer the river, but didn't... c) if the dealer had an all-in button he should have put it out

BUT, none of that detracts from the fact the player pushed all his chips out and at that point he's all-in IMO.

After a slight pause the dealer turns the  river card.  Again no verbal from players or dealer,  the two players table their cards (high stack first) indicating the high stack player has the winning hand from the river card.

So the big stack has the better hand at showdown, end of story. I'm going to award him the extra 600 here among other reasons because I would have made him pay off the 600 if he lost. This can be reached through several rules, IMO... Rule 46 Accepted Action and the new Rule 54 All-In with Chips Found Behind.  In this case the chips weren't behind, but the technically-uncovered amount was found later, so "the TD will determine if the chip(s) behind are part of accepted action or not"... Your statement below in red I think best summarizes the reality of this action and I think it's best interpreted that both players had a tacit acceptance that small stack was all-in.

Based on the action it was clear that both the dealer, and the high stack player thought the original bet was sufficient to cover the chips thrown in by the player (and both stated to theTD), the player making the all in did not comment whether he thought he was calling or raising.

That's how I read this whole thing too, and it's really key to the best ultimate ruling IMO.

The TD decided to invoke the card dealt before action complete rule, stating that the players are responsible for keeping track of the action and no verbal is "required" from a player when going all in.  

While players definitely should follow the action, that responsibility doesn't fall disproportionately on big stack here, and the house also has a duty to follow the action, so this issue sort of cancels itself out, IMO. Also the house had a duty to turn both cards up before the river and didn't AND a duty to confirm the bet amounts and didn't... I admire the TDs desire to get the bet amount right after the fact, but he has sufficient rules to give him the authority to proceed with the cards as dealt and the chips as pushed under current rules without re-dealing the river.

imho - I believe the TD could have also invoked the "best interest of the game" rule since  due to the diversity of the chips pushed in and low percentage of the overall implicit raise  (600 on a 28k + about another 10K pot) it would have been possible that the assumption that both the dealer and high stack player made on the chip stack was a reasonable assumption

Yes, a reasonable "acceptance" of the action... and definitely you can use Rule 1 here as well as Rules 46 and 54.  Whatever happens to the 600, small stack should definitely be out of the tournament here.

Thanks for the very interesting case.

[Nick C]

So there you have it. Chet, how did I know that we would be wrong again. That will teach you for agreeing with me!

Mike, I can agree with some of what you stated, however I will not agree with: "b) the dealer should have turned both hands face up before dealing the river, but didn't..."

 My thoughts: The dealer should have; a.) recognized that the calling player had more chips than the bettor...b.) the dealer should have announced that the caller was all-in...and c.) If the dealer thought that there was no more betting possible...he should have told the player's to "undress" before turning the river.

 In addition, I imagine the dealer was also unaware that the "assumed" small stack player was all-in...so I would have to say that even if the dealer possessed
an all-in button, I doubt he would have used it.

Mike, just for the sake of sorting this out...what do you rule if the calling player pushes his 14,600 in chips forward, but leaves a single 100 count chip in front of him? He would not be all-in...so, would you return his extra 600?   

[MikeB]

Mike, I can agree with some of what you stated, however I will not agree with: "b) the dealer should have turned both hands face up before dealing the river, but didn't..."

My recommendations in order, started with the dealer recognizing that the small stack's all-in exceeded the big stacks original bet. BUT, as the poster indicates, the dealer and at least the big stack assumed that the big stack had the small stack covered... SO, if that's what the dealer is assuming, he should have asked both players to turn over their cards before dealing the river (TDA Rule 15 "Face Up for All Ins").

In addition, I imagine the dealer was also unaware that the "assumed" small stack player was all-in...so I would have to say that even if the dealer possessed an all-in button, I doubt he would have used it.

How can he be unaware that the small stack is all-in?... the poster says "...A player with a much lower stack pushes all his chips in with no verbal indication...."  The poster further says that both the big stack and the dealer "...thought the original bet [by the big stack] was sufficient to cover the chips thrown in [by the small stack]..."

Mike, just for the sake of sorting this out...what do you rule if the calling player pushes his 14,600 in chips forward, but leaves a single 100 count chip in front of him? He would not be all-in...so, would you return his extra 600?  

A player makes such a move at his risk. TDA Rules repeat several times: "...it is player's responsibility to make his actions clear...", in no less than 3 rules: Rule 2, 3, and even underlined in Rule 40.

If a player shoves what looks like his entire stack, and he has a semi-visible straggling low-value chip behind, he's at great risk of being declared all-in if that's what his action looks like from the house's vantage point. Then how to handle the chip behind is the subject of new TDA Rule 54. On the other hand, let's say the player makes a real clear deliberate point of cutting out all but one single low-value chip, and leaves that chip clearly in front of him, preferably drawing attention to it, then I take that as a 14,600 bet... but "it's player's responsibility to make his actions clear"...  

BTW, another reason that's a risky move is that it is a known red-flag for chip dumping. Let's say I push ALL (14,700) chips out and I'm called by my co-conspirator, then we both have to table our hands. But if I push 14,600 out and he calls, I can fast-table my hand at showdown, he mucks face down, and dumps chips off to me... so it's suspicious on several levels.

[Tristan]

I would have treated it as accepted action as well.

[Nick C]

Mike,

 At least you agreed that the dealer should have ASKED the player's to turn over their hands...not having the dealer turn them as you originally stated.

 I also have an issue with this statement:  "If a player shoves what looks like his entire stack, and he has a semi-visible straggling low-value chip behind, he's at great risk of being declared all-in if that's what his action looks like from the house's vantage point." If you are expecting the house's representative (the brain dead dealer) to correct this screw-up, you're really stretching it.

 Mike, you also said: "How can he be unaware that the small stack is all-in?... the poster says "...A player with a much lower stack pushes all his chips in with no verbal indication...."  The poster further says that both the big stack and the dealer "...thought the original bet [by the big stack] was sufficient to cover the chips thrown in [by the small stack]..." There is still a chance that the dealer was unaware of the caller being all-in.

 There are too many discussions that we have that lead me to believe I will never be re-certified again. I'm having a tough time remembering when there was a definite straight answer to even the simplest question submitted on this forum.

 The only positive feed I got from this post is when you wrote: "BTW, another reason that's a risky move is that it is a known red-flag for chip dumping. Let's say I push ALL (14,700) chips out and I'm called by my co-conspirator, then we both have to table our hands. But if I push 14,600 out and he calls, I can fast-table my hand at showdown, he mucks face down, and dumps chips off to me... so it's suspicious on several levels." I'd like to submit this when I'm lobbying for all cards to be tabled at the showdown. Thanks for another great discussion.

[MikeB]

Mike,

 At least you agreed that the dealer should have ASKED the player's to turn over their hands...not having the dealer turn them as you originally stated.

Of course the players turn up their own cards, they are in their hands. The dealer "makes it happen" by asking the players to turn them up...

I also have an issue with this statement:  "If a player shoves what looks like his entire stack, and he has a semi-visible straggling low-value chip behind, he's at great risk of being declared all-in if that's what his action looks like from the house's vantage point." If you are expecting the house's representative (the brain dead dealer) to correct this screw-up, you're really stretching it.

I'm not stretching anything... this forum is about the TDA Rules. We really need to get this category of the forum focused on the TDA rules as they are, and as they apply in given situations. Rather than what we think is wrong with them, and how every rule needs to be changed in some way... ideas about what's wrong with the rules, or what's missing should be directed to the "Suggestions" threads here: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?board=36.0

...in no less than 3 places TDA Rules declare "it is players responsibility to make his intentions clear" (Rules 2, 3, and 40)... that means that if a player's actions appear to the house to be an all-in bet, that is what they are going to be declared to be... anytime someone pushes every chip save one straggler, if that straggler is not in plain view OR if the gesture itself looked for all the world like an all-in push, the player is at serious risk of being declared all in... and if that wasn't his intent, if he wanted to bet 14,600 instead of 14,700, well he didn't make his actions clear and it's on him, TDs aren't mind-readers.

It's the PLAYER who has to "correct the screw up" BEFORE it occurs, not the house's responsibility to unwind a mess that a player creates for himself. If, for example, I'm called to the table and the dealer says Player A made an "all-in push gesture", and shoved all his chips, and one low-denom chip remained behind, or was hidden, I'm going to support the decision that was an all-in bet, and I'm going to rely on 3 TDA rules to support that. Then I'm going to use TDA Rule 54 to figure out how to deal with the straggling chips. The player will be more careful next time. If on the other hand, as I previously answered, the player carefully cut out all but one low-denom chip, and he left it in plain view in front of him, and he made no sweeping "all-in gesture", then I'm calling that a bet of 14,600. But it's the PLAYER's responsibility to make that clear at the time of his action.

Mike, you also said: "How can he be unaware that the small stack is all-in?... the poster says "...A player with a much lower stack pushes all his chips in with no verbal indication...."  The poster further says that both the big stack and the dealer "...thought the original bet [by the big stack] was sufficient to cover the chips thrown in [by the small stack]..." There is still a chance that the dealer was unaware of the caller being all-in.

It looks like no chance to me... I see the guy push every chip and I assume he's all-in and covered by the big player. There's no chance I don't think he's all-in. Did he make some mistakes, yes, but the post clearly indicates that's what the dealer and big stack were assuming, I'm just going by the poster's statements. Once players have made their actions appear to be an accepted all-in, then all the rest of it follows from there. One player is all-in and a player who has him well-covered has accepted the action...

 There are too many discussions that we have that lead me to believe I will never be re-certified again. I'm having a tough time remembering when there was a definite straight answer to even the simplest question submitted on this forum.

People get certified everyday... how many in September and October already? To get certified all someone has to do is thoroughly study the TDA Rules, preferably use them in practice, and then go to the certification page here: http://www.pokertda.com/get-poker-tda-certified/

As for not getting any answers on this forum? ... not getting answers to "even the simplest question"? That's out of bounds.... You've received dozens if not a hundred or more detailed replies to post after post.... maybe you don't like the answers, but you certainly get them. There are plenty of people on this forum who understand the TDA Rules very well and are very conversant with how to apply them. We will be taking steps to assure that the majority of dialogue in this category is focused exactly on the subscript of the category: "Questions about interpreting TDA Rules, and how to apply the rules in specific situations". A comment about "never getting an answer to even a simple question" just doesn't fit, sorry. If you truly don't think you've gotten even an answer to a simple question in 3 years, then this probably isn't the venue for you.

The only positive feed I got from this post is when you wrote: "BTW, another reason that's a risky move is that it is a known red-flag for chip dumping. Let's say I push ALL (14,700) chips out and I'm called by my co-conspirator, then we both have to table our hands. But if I push 14,600 out and he calls, I can fast-table my hand at showdown, he mucks face down, and dumps chips off to me... so it's suspicious on several levels." I'd like to submit this when I'm lobbying for all cards to be tabled at the showdown. Thanks for another great discussion.

 Feel free to lobby for it. As has been discussed numerous times, there are at least 3 schools of thought on this one.... 2 classic (must show every winner, need not show if nobody else tables), and a new one (every hand at showdown must be tabled everytime)...  given that each of these is deeply rooted in a particular "poker philosophy", they may never be reconciled beyond what's provided for in TDA 16. In the meantime, are you requiring all hands to be tabled at showdown at your tournaments currently? Even if a player insta-rolls the nuts? If so, that's your house prerogative under the last sentence of TDA Rule 16.... Question then, how are your players responding to it?

[Nick C]

Mike,

 If I didn't ask questions on this forum, there would be very few discussions. When I am involved in tournaments, I allow any player at the table to see a called hand if requested by an active player. I would very much like to use the TDA Rules for all tournament events but, it's very difficult when I don't understand how they should apply.  I can't believe the silent majority, that sits back and waits for us to get into asking and answering the questions, they apparently are afraid to ask.

  Are you serious about asking me to refrain from posting on this forum?

 My interest in this forum is to keep my students current with all rules for poker. I teach dealers and no longer work in a casino. There is no way to properly train a student dealer if the instructor doesn't understand the rules of the game.

 When the TDA changes a rule, it also involves changes in proper dealer procedures. It's not that easy to make some of the changes that the TDA suggests. There are many unanswered questions about the most recent TDA rule; First card off. It goes beyond telling the late arriving player that he can't participate in this hand. There are too many unanswered questions that I have regarding raises in no-limit games...I have a tough time trying to explain to a student dealer that; controlling the game and taking charge of the action might be frowned upon in some venues, because TD's are reluctant to have the dealers do anything other than pitch cards.

 When I joined the TDA over three years ago, I was excited about the chance to make a positive impact on rules for poker. That is why I attended the 2011 Summit. I returned from that Summit and went on a national radio podcast (Ante-up podcast). I also wrote an article about that Summit. I had nothing but praise for the hard work that was put into the two day event.

 I remember a brief conversation on one of our posts, when one member said it's not about procedures...I don't agree with that, either. It's all about procedures and execution of the proper procedures. A competent dealer would resolve almost all of the problems we face every day in our poker rooms.

 My interest in the TDA is to try and understand every rule so my student dealers can complete their course, and deal anywhere.

 Sorry my rant falls on you...what can you expect? You're the only one that responds.

 

[K-Lo]

I agree that short stack is all-in and out, accepted action.   I would rely on the PLO ruling last year (wsop, I think) as precedent, which I think was a sound decision. 

[Nick C]

Ken,

 I could go along with declaring the "overcall" out, but the board remains...do you agree? Would you have removed the extra from play, or award it to the winner?

 I guess we can go back and quote the last line from the original post from bill: "I don't think there is a correct answer here, but shows how declaring action and a dealer verbalizing the current situation could have possibly clarified things.  Any other thoughts on the situation?"

 I don't agree with changing the river card. Beyond that, I guess there are differing options (within our rules) that could apply.

[K-Lo]

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.

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.

I agree with you that an on-the-ball dealer would have prevented a lot of these issues. But some players sure do not make it easy... Especially players who like to shuffle their short stacks and push it forward as a rainbow, rather than being sorted by denomination.

[Tristan]

Yeah, I would not have changed the board.  I would not take the chips from play either.  Both players flipped over their hands at the end.  If they thought there was further action to take place, they would have not done that.  One or the other would have protested when the river card came out or for sure before flipping their cards if they thought the bet wasn't covered.

[Nick C]

The more I look at this post...the more I believe this could be the perfect model example of; why we need to come up with "solid" rules....

[Admin edit: Since this post is 100% focused on a suggestion for a new rule, it has been moved to the appropriate New Suggestions category in a new thread here:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=941.msg8387#msg8387 ]