I started a hand of Omaha with about $300. Across the table from me is a player who I have played with before, and he has huge chip stack swings. As I start the hand with him, he has approximately $85 left in front of him. I did not witness the last couple of hands he was in, so not sure how he became so short.

I have ace ten clubs plus xx (don't remember, not important).

Flop comes queen- king- jack 2 spades one red.

Approximately $30 in pot

He bets pot, I look at his stack, and say, okay I'll put you all in.

He says "great, I have $400 behind, I have the nut straight, and I have the redraw to the nut flush".

I ask the dealer what is this guy talking about, dealer says he has no idea. Player says he had bought chips prior to the hand, and they were on their way. Dealer says he was unaware, other players say they were unaware.

Chip runner confirms that he purchased $400 prior to hand. He says he announced the purchase, however, no players OR the dealer heard this announcment.

I call floor. I do not want the hand to continue until this is settled. I tell them I certainly would not have put $300 out with no redraw to anything. I said that I started the hand thinking that my entire risk was no more than $85. I tell the floor I contest the entire hand. They say that they need to see the video. Floor looks at video, confirms he bought the chips prior to hand, and says that it was my job to know what he had behind (even though their own dealer did not know he had chips coming).

Of course he hits the flush on the turn. They ship my $300 to him.

I am in shock. To my left is a professional dealer (did not know that at the time, never played with him before), who deals at another major casino. He is flabbergasted, and says that in the 20+ years he has been dealing, he has never seen such a bad call. He confirms that the dealer must declare that a player has chips coming. Since he did not know chips were coming, and he did not declare that, then how should I know this information. Other players at the table say they think the other player was totally angling, since at no point did he ever say he had chips behind.

What are your opinions out there? What recourse do you think I have or should take?

Venetian runs No Limit Omaha?

And, were you really gonna fold the nuts if you knew he had 400 behind, and you had bet and he shoved? If not, then it really doesn't make a difference about the ruling

Doesnt that go in the SSPLO forum??

Also, that's complete bullcrap. I have no clue what recourse you should take, but I know it is extremely hard to get a floor's call countered. Good luck with that

I used to kill it on full tilt fake money no limit omaha. lol (for the record i played normal stakes. I don't want some guy going back into my posts and calling me out for playing fake money)

Surely the chips cannot be in play if they are not at the table? - I am not sure of this ruling, can somebody correct me if I am wrong

They don't have to be on the table to be in play if you have bought them from a chip runner and they're on the way but in my experience the dealer has always announced to the table that so and so has "xxx" behind. Also in a lot of casinos they will leave you filler chips that are different to the regular ones and just plastic with like "100" written on them, totalling the amount you are playing behind.

Sounds like a really ****ty situation and another reason to hate live poker in casinos. I think you have very little recourse.

confirmed bs ruling, i would not let this ruling stand and would appeal to higher authorities before the turn and river ran out.

Utterly irrelevant, with no redraw and significant stacks behind op likely flats.

whatever... you huge badass, you...

anyway it's amazing the floor had the ruling via the videotape mid-hand... props to the V

Robert's Rules:

9. "Playing behind" is allowed only for the amount of purchased chips while awaiting their arrival. The amount in play must be announced to the table, or only the amount of the minimum buy-in plays.

Source: http://www.homepokertourney.com/robe...s-of-poker.htm

I think if the chip runner did actually announce '$400 behind' to the table then under the usual rules that would likely count as in play, even if the dealer didn't repeat it (or even hear him). However, the chip runner really should have ensured that the dealer was aware of the exact amount behind, so the blame lies with him.

Most unfortunate situation but I don't think you were actually 'ripped off'. Venetian do need to ensure better dealer/chip runner communication.

Agree with wazz that actual holdings/board cards irrelevant.

My opinion is the floor decision should be whatever it takes to protect the integrity of the game. Here we have two players both seemingly technically correct. Yes it is the players responsibility to know how much another player has in as much as it's the other players responsibility to keep the money in plain view.

In this case, the dealer didn't even know the player had money behind. That's the player with the money behind's fault and you could say the chip runner had a part in it too. All in all, I favor freezing the action and declaring both players all in.

Forgot to mention, a key reason why chip runner needs to confirm with dealer the exact amount behind is to protect himself. Otherwise, if he comes back with $400, player could say he gave chip runner $500 and no-one can prove otherwise.

Casinos are retarded. This weekend I asked for 5card on my button, mostly everyone on the table agrees and the dealer starts dealing it. There is some preflop action, one guy looks at his cards, and protests that this is a Omaha-table and we can't play 5 cards. Floor comes over and declares a misdeal. The table had been doing things like switching games and running it twice all night, even though they're technically not allowed.

tough break yeah pretty ludicrously bad ruling

What?

This was NLO?

If it was PLO then you dont put in $300. You can only pot it back to $120.

Actually the pot-limit structure can be ignored under the 'accepted action' rule - if it's clear that two guys have the intent to go all-in and treat the hand as such, they're all-in. This is clearly not one of those cases so that's another reason they shouldn't have to put stacks in.