Quote:
Originally Posted by dinesh
This is also another reason why you should never be able to put out a different amount of chips than your actual bet (i.e. "for the cameras" type stuff). It causes expectations for the bet amount to be ambiguous.
In this case, player 5 put out a "large stack" of chips, but clearly not all his chips. The dealer seems to believe he said all-in, and gave him the all-in plaque. If the dealer had also insisted that he put all his chips in at that time, the issue would have been resolved instantly, one way or another.
Instead, play is allowed to proceed with some (but not all) chips bet, but ambiguously an all-in marker in front of him. All later actors now have to try to divine what the bet amount was between those two options. When action gets back to the player he now has to argue about whether or not he has to commit chips to the pot that he didn't himself commit.
All caused by this dumb idea that you can make one bet verbally while putting in a different amount of chips. Stop allowing this idiocy.*
* A one-chip call of someone else's bet to close the action is about the only time that this behavior might be tolerated because it is usually, but not always, unambiguous, and can speed the game up if the caller is the winner of the hand.
Anyone who has dealt or played major poker tournaments will realize that would be a silly solution in the long run. I've had players in the middle to later stages of the tournaments that have had a good 12-15+ stacks of chips [Even with floors that will do partial color-ups during play]. Not too difficult to have several players with such chip stacks if they win a few hands during the 400 and 4000 ante stages of tournaments. I would never insist they would have to push out all of their chips in these spots.
The floor definitely should have ruled him all-in. He had ample time to correct the dealer and, with significant action then occurring, including the unveiling of a hand that obviously beat the player in question. It would become too easy to shoot angles if players were constantly allowed to correct a table's understanding and the dealer's announcement of their action after significant action. His justification for not stating the correction earlier is nonsensical. It's a player's job to protect their hand and to protect their action. I have little doubt, in most venues that organize major tournaments, he would not have gotten away with this as he did here.
