NL 1/3 late in the night, lots of drinking going on.
Player X has on 2 or 3 occasions bet everything but his last 1 or 2 bucks, saying something about lucky chips. He announced all-in and asked to keep those chips. Some boards were run twice, treating him as all-in, leaving him with those chips.

Now the hand in question: Three players, player X is on the button. On the flop he bets everything but 2 bucks and gets called by both players. Pot is around 200 bucks at this point. He doesnt announce all-in. He takes the two remaining chips off the table in his hand. Turn gets dealt, both other players check and the dealer immediately burns and turns over a river assuming player X is all-in (no chips on the table). Player 1 checks, player 2 turns over his hand which is K7 (top pair on the flop and the 7 made a straight on the river). Player 1 mucks. All of these actions went down in a matter of a few seconds.
Now player X says he isnt all-in, he should have been asked for his action on the turn, he wanted to bet his remaining 2 bucks. He demands to shuffle the river back in and have a new river dealt. He argues he was going to bet the 2 bucks and was hoping player 1 might bluff-raise, so that player 2 doesnt call.

What's the correct ruling?

My first response is to ask how anyone let him get away with it 2 or 3 times already. All-in means what it says. Not "$2 less than."

For the case at hand, did the dealer declare him all-in? Probably an important factor. But the fact that he hid his chips from the dealer and the other players would likely force me to rule against him getting new cards.

It's a pretty obvious angle-shoot. The ruling is that it's up to Player X to protect his own action. While he is last to act, it was indicated he also didn't act on the turn and that he had taken his last few chips off the table from sight. So, when he waited to protest until after both players had acted and turned over their hands should be treated as him checking but is still eligible for any money in the pot.


Oh, and the dealer probably needs to learn what "all-in" actually means since the fact he didn't enforce such a simple concept allowed this angle to be attempted.

In the totality of the context, I am ruling him all-in, hand stands, and if he argues I am throwing him out for the night or longer. Even if he doesn't, I am warning him not to try that angleshoot again or I will throw him out permanently.

Even if he argues that he shouldn't have been allowed to be all-in except for $2, he took that money off the table into his hand so it looked to everyone else like he was all in anyway, so I am still ruling him all-in for that amount.

As a matter of principle, at a low stakes game I am fine if the players want to agree to let a guy keep a couple bucks like this.

if he really tries to argue after taking the "lucky" chips off the table, the floor should kick him out. That's an 11 on the 1 - 10 ridiculous scale. Hand stands obviously.

if he wants to bet the two bucks, let him put it in, but there isn't enough behind for a premature river, imo. He's just trying to see another card and the floor should realize that.

I've seen dealers let a dollar or two stay behind in all-ins, and the players treat is as such. A good dealer will not let that happen to begin with.

The player is a total idiot but that's besides the point.

I would tell him to go **** himself.

Only if he can use his "lucky chips" to perform such an action.

This is the key phrase.

I'm not a fan of people keeping "lucky chips" but as long as it's clear how many and which are lucky, I'm willing to tolerate it. A courtesy has been extended.

I'm definitely not letting him keep lucky chips one hand and betting them another hand. They're either always out of play or always in play.

Asking for a new river is a douche move but the fact that it flies in the face of a really courteous thing we had let him do turns it from bad to terrible.

I would be tempted to send him home just for asking.

Well the dealer and the other players let him hold out his " lucky chips" earlier more than once. It was only a matter of time till something silly happened. The demand by the player is just goofy. Also another waste of time for the table to endure.

If a player wants "lucky chips," he can find a time in which he can pocket them [Cash game only of course] and now they are out of play. It is unreasonable to let a player determine if chips he has on the table aren't in play. If a new player sits down and gets into a winning all-in confrontation with this guy, is the new player just supposed to be fine with learning he didn't win all the chips from the player in question? Because I know a vast amount of players that won't be too happy with that.

Over two dollars?

At which point in a cash game are you allowed to take lucky chips out of play without racking up or replacing them with unlucky chips of the same value?

I don't mind if somebody pockets a lucky chip or asks to keep it if he's going all-in, but I don't think the rules make a difference between pocketing a blue, red, green or black chip.

Likely you know a couple and so do I, BUT certainly not most folks. The delay is the big issue for me.

Which is why I pointed out he can do so when he finds the time. Obviously I wasn't implying he should go south with them by pocketing them with no replacement of equal or greater value. However, it comes off as absurd to allow a guy to keep chips on the table that he can keep out of play. And seeing how he lost all his chips anyways, maybe he needs to find some new lucky chips. Or request his 6th deck wash or 4th set-up in the past 2 hours.

Check. Check. All in for less than a full bet. Neither Opponent can do anything except call the $2 or fold.

But dude, he's using his lucky chips. It will all work out in the end!

The issue here isn;t the $2. The issue is this player is a scumbag trying to use the $2 to alter the hand after the fact

Players are allowed to take a $1 chip off the table to tip the server for a drink. I don't really mind if a player wants to pocket $2 in lucky chips.

When the player wants to hold back lucky chips sometimes and then decides they didn't want to hold them back and therefor should get a new river the next time ..... well that player can be handed a rack and told to come back tomorrow if he's learned his lesson.

This sounds to me like he is angling. He does this several times and when he dislikes the river card he claims missed action. When he likes the card, he keeps quiet. Why the dealers are allowing this is my first question, but in the end the ruling should be that he is all in and those $2 do not play. If he pulls it again he will be 86'd.

Of course he is, no question about that, but the big issue is to me is all the delay he causes to the rest of the table while his DB move is being discussed and finally disallowed.

So... he bet not all-in....
Then what would be a premature river card comes and he says nothing.....
Then first to act checks and he still says nothing....
Then second to act checks behind and tables his hand AND THEN he speaks up?


Nooooope. Player has a responsibility to protect their action. I'm keeping the river card and telling this guy that if he does anything like this again, I'm handing him an empty rack. If he has a history of this behavior I'm just kicking him out then.

Also, KITN to any previous dealer who allowed this guy to ever be "all-in" but keep money behind.

If your remaining chips are less than a full minimum bet on the next street, I'm ruling you all in with the chips you've wagered.

This particular story involves two dollars but what exactly becomes the threshold for money a player can suddenly decide to not have in play when it doesn't suit them and then tries to change the community cards when he suddenly wants them in play? 5 dollars? 10 dollars? And yes, there are plenty of people who would be quite unhappy with a house that allows the guy to have $2 on the table but can decide he doesn't want them in play. That's still money they should have earned.

Everybody seems to be agreeing that he should be treated as all-in which is what happened.

Thanks, I didn't think of that. Here are the relevant passages from Roberts Rules of Poker for anybody interested: