I get the point to the extent that the OP comes across as whiny. I could have posed the same questions without any hand details by stopping after describing when and why I was not allowed to bet from the new stacks. However, while the overall context of what happened is perhaps interesting only to me, I never wrote or implied that the rule is bad because I lost the hand.

After reading the PA gaming regulations as posted by Dinesh, I had the same interpretation of them as suggested by AngusThermopyle. The points of the gaming rules appear to be (a) to make sure that players don't try to add to their stacks in the middle of a hand; and (b) to keep the games moving. The former did not happen here, and the latter was not implicated.

Although I did not recount it, preventing delay was the same explanation that I got from the floor when I spoke privately with him after the hand. In addition to saying (apparently incorrectly) that PA gaming regulations prohibited me from using chips from the new stack, he explained that the rule was intended to prevent delays at the table.

While preventing delay is certainly a legitimate objective, there was no delay here. A football defender cannot touch a receiver while the ball is in the air, but passing interference is not called if the pass is uncatchable. Here, if a rule is meant to prevent delay, there is no point to enforcing it if the chips are present and on the table when the action occurs.

One of the reasons that I asked about the actual gaming regulations is because I wanted to know if the floor was correct that the casino's hands were tied. If not, it seems like there could be a more sensible policy that allows players to have and use the chips they need to play the game regardless of whether the plays that they might make with them would ultimately redound to their benefit.

I have not looked at the regulations other than the section posted here and I would say that nothing in that section suggests to me that you can play behind. The language about chips being converted by the dealer suggests to me that the rule is a player can start the hand with currency as pat of his stack but if he bets that currency it must be converted into chips.

Nothing in that section really seems to address the issue of chips in transit. Perhaps it is not addressed in the regulations at all and that leads some people to conclude it is not permitted and some people to conclude that it is not prohibited.

In PA, dealers cannot change currency into chips from their racks, at least that's my understanding. Harrahs used to allow players to rebuy from dealers at the tables, with the dealers taking and holding in their racks the currency exchanged for chips. Harrahs abruptly stopped this practice and started using chip runners, explaining that it was being required to do so by the PA Gaming Commission.

I guess my point is that, for the gaming regulations to have any meaning at all, the reference to dealers being able to expeditiously convert currency into chips must include the use of chip runners. Otherwise, the regulation grants a right to use currency at the table that could not actually be implemented because of other gaming restrictions.

While I understand that the floor may have said something about preventing delay. Clearly that is not the reason for the rule. If the rule is that chips in transit do not play it is not to prevent delay ... in fact it would cause delay.

Reading only the section of the regulations here doesn't address the issue. The section deals with table stakes but doesn't address chips in transit. It may well be that the casino says the regulations don't specify that chips in transit can be part of the stake and that is why they don;t allow it play. The point of this rule is not about delay but about table stakes.

The idea that your situation is no harm no foul is mistaken though. The table stakes rule can;t be that the chips in transit don;t play unless they get back to the table during the hand. Because players in the hand would not know what your stake was at the time they are acting. Now in your case they came back early, but there was already action. At least one player (and arguably two if you include the decision to straddle) acted while your stake was $14. Now in fact it is unlikely that it would have made any difference in your case to the straddler and the SB who folded .... but that is irrelevant.... would you want a rule that said the casino staff should make judgments about what players likely would have thought and done if things had been different? And if their interpretation of the gaming regulations is correct .... then it is irrelvant whether you think i is a no harn no foul situation because they are bound to follow the law as it is written not as you would prefer it.

More troubling of course is the claim that they don;t always follow this policy.

As I have said i haven;t looked at the regulations except what was posted. From what is posted it is clear that dealers are not prohibited from changing currency for chips (if what is posted is accurate).

One thing you need to understand is that the lawyers and compliance people don;t work in a poker room. So when a guy in a poker room says "The regulations require this." what he is really saying is the legal and comliance people have told me that we must do this to comply .....

For example ... The people in Las Vegas poker rooms are quick to say that the reason that almost every room has gone to cash doesn't play is becuse of IRS or GAMING regulations. Ths would lead you to believe that is against IRS rules and/or Gaming regulations for cash to play. But in reality that is not the case. Rather federal regulations require certain tracking and reporting by casinos. This tracking and reporting requirement is easier to comply with if cash doesn't play. Therefore the legal/compliance people have told the poker people that cash can't play .... not because it is illegal for cash to play but because it makes it easier to comply with tracking and reporting requirements this way. The guy in legal isn;t going to call a staff meeting with every employee to explain the nuances .... it just comes down as in order to comply with regulations cash doesn't play.

Sometimes its complete bull****. I used t play at Turning Stone in Verona NY. Its an Indian casino. They charge(d) a $2 per day fee that you had to pay to play poker. They explained that since New York allowed poker in private clubs this made it legal for the Indian Casino to run poker as long as they made it a private club and by charging $2 it was a private club. This was complete bull**** on many levels. first NY did not allow poker in private clubs, second whether poker was legal or not for them would be governed by their gambling compact with the state, and charging a daily admission fee does not turn you into a private club. But that was the story they liked to tell. I do not know if they still charge the fee or if they still tell the story.

I think the issue is what the word expeditiously means. A chip runner might take minutes to get back to the table, and I don't think that counts. A chip cart is right there and is making the transaction right there. A dealer is obviously doing the same.

I do not believe that playing behind is acceptable in PA, according to the PGCB.

I don't think that letting the dealer sell chips out of the well is forbidden in PA, though I am glad that my room does not do so. I am not sure what the floor person you mentioned was talking about if they said it wasn't permitted. Are you sure they didn't mean playing behind? Or letting cash play?

+1.

If you are playing a different amount of money than what is in front of you, the dealer has to announce that before the first player acts.

You obv. can't say that money only plays if it arrives before the conclusion of the hand. Otherwise you or another player can just stall and wait for the chips to get there during the hand.

I'm pretty sure everyone who plays at casinos that allow for players to play with money behind, has seen hands where the chip runner arrives with a rack and gets told all of those chips belong to another player already.

Too much trouble can occur from letting players play with chips that aren't visible. And not just from muddled chip stacks, but chips that aren't even in sight of the table. It's just asking for players to call bets and raises and then get angry that more suddenly appear, or maybe even people angling by announcing all-ins and then pretending they only have what's at the table and such.

Far easier for all concerned is to say the money needs to be on the table.

a) keep extra high denomination chips in your pocket to quickly re-buy/top-off

b) you saved money. Pocket ten's isn't folding an 8 high flop.

A couple of weeks at Parx in p.a. i lost a large hand, pulled money out and asked if it played. Was told no, and dealer couldnt sell chips. I called for a runner he was a couple of tables away. I announced 200 behind, and was told i cant do that. Others tried arguing on my behalf, that i am entitled to reload. Did not work. One player came to my rescue selling me chips from their bag.

Lol p.a. rules.

I play at the stone. They brought in a new room manager named Frankie and one of the many positive changes he made was getting rid of that players card.

They allow you to play behind at harrahs chester but they do not at sands,sugarhouse or parx.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

UK casinos I've played let you just stick the cash down on the table until someone can bring chips to you.

They do at Sands Bethlehem. Only first buy-in has to be at cage

I've played in this room. I have had this rule enforced on me as well. I was told they do it that way because it causes less problems long run. But like you have seen it not enforced, dealers can be inconsistent which is annoying.

Assuming the rule is the rule, at least where I play where dealers are sometimes canned for not following seemingly trivial rules, I would say yes, dealers will follow the rule because they like their jobs.

its a good rule. if i dont know someone chips must be in the pot for them to play. too easy for someone to lose and get up and take the chips from the runner and not pay off. or have a dispute. if someone else at the table is willing to put them in they can play.

and in most places it has to be declared that they play loud and clear to all players if allowed. and of course any player can say he doesnt accept them if he is in the pot. as he probably should.
it never used to be a problem as people were allowed to stick bills in the pot.

I've never heard of the possibility to not accept for another player to play behind.

What happens if you say you want to wait until the chips are there? do you have to give up your hand or can you make the table wait for a couple minutes until the chip runner arrives?

Would assume he sits out until he gets chips. Dealing him in when he has no chips doesn't make any sense.

In my room once the chip runner has the money it is in play. You don;t get an option to declare that other people can't play. If you don;t like that he doesn;t have chips in front of him you have the option to sit out ... you always have the option to sit out we will never force you to play against yur will.

then who pays you off if he doesnt put the money in when the runner comes back. since the house has said you have to accept it.
the casino cannot and will not force someone to give up money they havent put in the pot. they may ask him to leave though.
in a small game no big deal. but where its a large amount it is to me anyway. and ive seen it happen more than once and they never got paid.

That money goes straight to the person who won it.

We have the money so even if what you claim is true it's in our possession already.

The rule at the casino in the OP appears to be an outlier. I'm sure that there are forum members who have played at many more casinos than I have, but I have played in over three dozen around the country. This was the first time I had encountered a rule that prohibited a player from using chips that he had purchased before the start of the hand and which were in transit when the hand began.

At all the others, the procedures were fairly simple and relatively uniform. The player that wishes to buy chips announces the amount of his purchase and gives his money to the dealer or the chip runner. The dealer announces how much money is behind, and sometimes, the chip runner places markers by the buyer reflecting how many chips are in play. The hand proceeds, and if the buyer enters the pot, the dealer keeps track of his bets (often by taking chips from the well and keeping them off to the side of the pot). When the chips arrive, the dealer takes the chips that have already been bet and adds them to the pot or returns them to the well. The buyer gets the balance.

While I've never discussed why it's done this way, my assumption has been that the casino, the buyer, and the other players all have the same desire: to keep as many players and as many chips in the game as possible because doing so makes the games more interesting.

I don't know what else to tell you. I'm sure the rooms in PA would prefer to allow chips in transit to play as well (most likely, anyway). But the PA law prevents that. So they do what they can that is within the law.

Again, I understand that Harrah's Philly allows it. They have a long history of making questionable choices. Maybe someone there decided the law was vague enough that they could get away with it. Or maybe they don't even realize they are violating the PGCB rulings. Other rooms have looked into it, and set their room rules accordingly.