How to handle "hidden" chips on all-in declarations

[MikeB]

This issue is a variant to the "grossly inaccurately counted bet" issue ( http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=152.msg935#msg935 ).

If a player declares all-in and is called, and then a significant-sized chip(s) is discovered (under his chip protector, say), how should this be handled? What if a player declares that he wants to bet enough to put another player all-in (effectively he puts himself all-in), only to discover the hidden chip after his declaration? There may be a potential contradiction in common application of TDA Rule 37 (larger denominations visible) and Roberts Rules Sec 15 Rule 20 (all-in player can't benefit or be saved by a hidden chip).

This issue is subject of a TDA Rules discussion thread here:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=157.0
This thread also includes a Hendon Mob survey of 6 TD's on aspects of this topic

Note that giviing the opposing player the "option" to call the undercounted / hidden chip(s) may be unfair in that important action may have occured between the time of the bets and the time of the discovery, so there are several permutations that would need to be addressed in a comprehensive ruling on these issues.

[Stuart Murray]

I think the TDA rule of keeping chips visible should be elaborated with RROP's statement on discovering chips after the all-in, this could also cover the messy stacks scenarios etc that we have discussed.

I would have real problems with anyone telling me in rules that the hidden/messy chips have to play as their total, there is a consensus amongst the TD's, including on the Hendon Mob Website that the chip would not play.  I think RROP covers the matter very well and it could easily be incorporated into the existing Visible chips rule.

Stuart

[Nick C]

Players and dealers have a responsibility to everyone at the table to make sure that the bets are correct and understood. If a player says he is all in, then all of his chips are included, even the hidden ones. I think if a mistake is made, then the mistake should be corrected and resume the betting for that round. If it was a gross error by the dealer that causes a player to bet the wrong amount, or the action was unclear, then the player that took action under those conditions should have every option open to him. That includes retracting a bet. The rules for poker were written to protect players from collusion and "trickery." The only way a player holding the best hand should not get the pot, is if he were bluffed out, not robbed by some technicality.

That's the way I see it.
Nick C

[chet]

If a player verbally states "all-in" that player should be held to that declaration period.  If any additional chips are later found, they need to be put in play and the pot(s) corrected appropriately.  The reason I say "pots(s) corrected appropriately is that there may have been one or more side pots created.

I totally agree with Nick on this one.  I cannot find any justification for allowing a player who has stated "all-in" to effectively retract that statement.  To do so, flies in the face of TDA Rule 29, in my opinion.

[Brian Vickers]

Worse case scenario 1:  Player A says "all-in".  Player B says "how much?"  The dealer counts it down as (example) T1,950.  Player B calls.  Player A wins the pot, then realizes he has another T1000 chip under his card protector.  Should A get the other T1000?

I run into this a lot:  Player A says nothing but slides in almost all his/her chips but leaves a chip as card protector, Player B says "call".  Dealer runs out full board as if that player is all-in and B wins the pot.  Dealer discovers that A was not all-in.  A never did say all-in, but they both turned up their hands and never bet another street as if he was. 

This game is a beautiful mess sometimes

[Nick C]

No. By asking the dealer to count down the pot, that would indicate that the amount of the bet might have made a difference if Player B would call or not. How can you say to a player that just lost a pot, "Oh, by the way you owe another 1000, we didn't see the chip covered by his cards." The example that you gave, with Player A winning the pot, is an easier call than Player B winning. We have discussed this on other threads and it always brings interesting responses. How do you rule if Player A says all-in and B calls and wins the pot and then it is discovered that Player A has another 1000?

[Goodpokerjody]

If a player declares all-in and is called by someone who hasn't asked for a count, that player should be obligated to pay off the entire stack.  If a count is requested and the dealer mis-counts, that should be up to the floor to decide if the extra amount not counted was significant enough to encourage the caller to make a different decision.
In reference to a card cap, I think we should add a rule that addresses this situation.  I feel that if a player has more than two chips remaining and pushes all of his/her chips into the pot except the one chip on top of their cards, that chip should be considered to have been bet.

[emc300]

The example that you gave, with Player A winning the pot, is an easier call than Player B winning. We have discussed this on other threads and it always brings interesting responses. How do you rule if Player A says all-in and B calls and wins the pot and then it is discovered that Player A has another 1000?

If Player B can cover the T1000 behind, Player A is out.  Otherwise, Player A now has less than 1000 because the remainder needs to be covered.