Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Playing at a £0.50/£1 home game last night, a certain hand became the source of much controversy. Of course, it didn't help that it was between two highly competetive brothers.6-handed, it's folded to the cut-off (henceforth known as Magnus) who raised to 3.50. Button (George) called, as did the Big Blind (Andy). Flop came 5c6hJs: Andy checked, Magnus checked and George bet 8; Andy folds and Magnus calls.Turn came 8s. Magnus checked, George bet 25 and Magnus, who had George covered, put George all-in. George says call. They turn over and the river is dealt; Magnus' pair of 8s and an open ender doesn't improve, and George's AJ wins. But as George was counting up the precise amount he had, he placec on the felt five £10 chips that he was holding during the hand, in his right hand. Magnus complains that those chips had been concealed during the hand, and that when he had bet all-in he had been betting based on the chips he could see.Thus, the question: should Magnus pay the £60 he could see to George or should he pay the full £110?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Magnus say "I'm putting you all-in", or "I'm all-in"? If the former then he's an idiot and should pay the full amount in any case.Otherwise I'd say it is only questionable if George hid the chips intentionally - table stakes say, that all the chips play and it is Magnus' responsibility to know how much his opponent has in front of him. He could have asked for a count before making the move.I don't know what the ruling would be in a Casino, but in my opinion, Magnus has to pay the full amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt pay if I was Magnus. This is a dirty move by George, and he should not be paid off. Who is to say that he won these chips anyways? If it's a homegame, could he not have just pocketed these chips? In a casino, you would not be able to take the chips off the table, and if you happened to smuggle them away, you would definately not be able to put them back on the table midway through the hand when you push all in. He should take the pot, and that is all IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where home games get their shady reputation. I mean if the chips had been concealed the entire hand, then I think that Magnus is not responsible for paying the full amount. What is on the table is what plays. How are we to know that those chips hadn't been in George's pocket when he called and just had hidden them until he knew he had won. Frankly I wouldn't play with these retards again. Find some new friends who aren't completely foolish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Angle shooting is cheating but the chips still play. The cash should be paid by Magnus (who names their children Magnus?), but everyone should participate in the beating of the offender.Seriously, George needs to find a new game, he cheated the WHOLE TABLE, not just his brother and is NOT to be trusted. If it was my house he'd be gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Angle shooting is cheating but the chips still play. The cash should be paid by Magnus (who names their children Magnus?), but everyone should participate in the beating of the offender.Seriously, George needs to find a new game, he cheated the WHOLE TABLE, not just his brother and is NOT to be trusted. If it was my house he'd be gone.
It isn't clear whether George was actually cheating from Young Turk's story - he may have been only playing around with the chips without Magnus noticing that. It wasn't necessarily George's fault that Magnus didn't see the additional chips.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Did Magnus say "I'm putting you all-in", or "I'm all-in"?
In a heads-up situation, WTF is the difference???"I'm putting you all in" is not a wager; you cannot bet someone else's chips. You can bet your own; you can be "All In".But really.. when it is heads-up, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE DIFFERENCE?!?!?!?
Link to post
Share on other sites
In a heads-up situation, WTF is the difference???"I'm putting you all in" is not a wager; you cannot bet someone else's chips. You can bet your own; you can be "All In".But really.. when it is heads-up, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE DIFFERENCE?!?!?!?
The difference is that one is stupid and the other one isn't - and with that question I was mainly trying to determine if Magnus is one of the idiots who says that. And if Magnus said "I'm putting you all in", he might have meant it that way (even though there is no difference) and thus be more upset about not having seen the chips in George's hand than he should have been objectively. Maybe I'm exagerrating there, but that is pet peeve of mine - I can't stand someone doing that in a live game. :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was my home game, I would have ruled that the chips in George's hand DO NOT PLAY. It's a clear angle shot and I dont' care if it was intentional or not. For example, if the all-in guy takes a look at G's stack, he does a mental count. How the eff can he count chips that arenn't there? Eff George. Don't pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand you guys who are saying "pay the full amount". The guy had them hidden in his hand aka "going south", a clear contravention of the rules. Additionally, it was a cash game, not a tourney. This is similar to pulling the extra 60 out of his pocket and saying the money plays, as it's on the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of a "you had to be there" situation.If George had picked up the chips and was playing with them in his hand the whole time then you pay him since the other dude is an idiot for going all-in without knowing his opponents chip count.If Magnus looked over at George's stack - did a rough count and bet slightly more it would settle things - looks like you have 20-something left I bet 25. If he had asked for a count it settles things too.How big is this home game? In my home game I have a pretty good idea how much everyone has because we're generally playing short handed and I know roughly how much money is on the table due to the number of buy-ins. It'd be pretty much impossible to sneak chip in this game because we'd be pretty aware that the count was off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote he definitely shouldn't have to pay the extra amount if the chips were totally concealed. I would have a different thought process if I knew someone has $60 as opposed to $110. It makes a big difference when it comes to implied odds and the liklihood he calls an all in depending on how much he has invested. I would rule he only pays what he could see because his brother was angle shooting. Also, if either of my brothers pulled that on me, there would be a fight going down sometime within the next 2 minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Casino ruling is he pays the full amount. Their is like 10 arguments over this a day at my casinos poker room.Basiclly everyone has a few chips in their hand at all times because most can do some chip tricks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Casino ruling is he pays the full amount. Their is like 10 arguments over this a day at my casinos poker room.Basiclly everyone has a few chips in their hand at all times because most can do some chip tricks.
He's holding his highest denomination chips, which is a lot different than shuffling some white.What's the appropriate penalty if any? I don't know. I'm leaning toward ruling that the chips were not in play, but I'd feel much more comfortable saying that if I had watched the way the chips were manipulated.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was George's hand with the chips?If it was clearly in view of the table, perhaps riffling the chips in some way, then the chips are in play, and Magnus should pay.If it was not clearly in view of the table, then the chips are out of play, and Magnus should not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was alone in supporting Magnus' stance that he shouldn't have to pay up; I saw Magnus look at George's stack, size it up, then say 'all-in'. Because Magnus and I were outnumbered - and the 'house' was a player agreeing with George - Magnus had to pay up. I probably would have refused in Magnus' place and been thrown out of the game...In response to some comments about whether George was looking to shoot an angle or not, George picked up his chips preflop and was playing with them above the table, not on it (Magnus wasn't paying attention to him), but any visibility or sound of chips stopped after he saw the flop - so Magnus was unaware of their presence. I think it was a chip trick, stopped by flopping a strong hand, rather than anything more sinister, but I'm basing my judgement on what I've seen of him, which is no other behaviour that would cause me to distrust him. I'll pay more attention to his conduct at the table in the future, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this occasion as he's proven himself a man of his word in the past. We did make it a point that chips should remain on the table and visible in future, but home games are always lax on such fronts. If it weren't for the softness of that game (2 beautiful fish; one a weak player, the other a degenerate gambling maniac who has lost £1k in 3 nights, at a game with a max buy-in of £100) I would avoid it, but it's easier pickings than my casino table.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to have your highest denomination chips in plain view. I rule that he doesn't have to pay the full amount. Was his hand off the table? Because if he was holding his chips in his hand off of the table, then they aren't in play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Casino ruling is he pays the full amount. Their is like 10 arguments over this a day at my casinos poker room.Basiclly everyone has a few chips in their hand at all times because most can do some chip tricks.
WTF is wrong with people playing with their chips like that? Honestly, it's a stupid habit. Chips should remein on the felt and/or in clear view, whether or not you play with them or whatever. Higher denominations ESPECIALLY should ALWAYS be in plain view.This chip shuffling crap is ridiculous. Personally, I hate it. And it's not only because I can't shuffle lol. So you can shuffle chips, but can you play poker?
Link to post
Share on other sites
WTF is wrong with people playing with their chips like that? Honestly, it's a stupid habit. Chips should remein on the felt and/or in clear view, whether or not you play with them or whatever. Higher denominations ESPECIALLY should ALWAYS be in plain view.This chip shuffling crap is ridiculous. Personally, I hate it. And it's not only because I can't shuffle lol. So you can shuffle chips, but can you play poker?
Hehe, a standard chip shuffle really is easy - anyone who has one fully functional hand can learn how to do that in five minutes. ;)But the chips should always remain on the table and visible, I strongly agree with that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
WTF is wrong with people playing with their chips like that? Honestly, it's a stupid habit. Chips should remein on the felt and/or in clear view, whether or not you play with them or whatever. Higher denominations ESPECIALLY should ALWAYS be in plain view.This chip shuffling crap is ridiculous. Personally, I hate it. And it's not only because I can't shuffle lol. So you can shuffle chips, but can you play poker?
A wise man once told me that a good player is in WAY too many pots to learn how to shuffle chips.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...