The flop has been laid. Pot is ~$70-$75.

Seat 2 bets $45.

Seat 5 verbalizes "Pot" and slides two stacks of red forward. He asks, "How much is it?"

Seat 2 verbalizes "Pot" and asks how much? He spreads his chips out -- he's got 3 blacks, a couple of greens and a few reds -- a little less that $400.

The dealer reaches over, looks at his chips and says, "It's got you covered, you all-in" to seat 2.

Seat 2 then states, "All in."

Seat 5 calls.

Both players agree to run it twice. Seat 2 wins both boards.

Dealer counts down seat 2 and says something like $400.

Seat 5 says, No. You said I had him covered. I don't have to put any more money in.

Bedlam ensues. Floors are summoned. What's the ruling?

He owes the full amount. If he refuses he gets banned. Actually, in Vegas, he may get arrested.

Seat 2 said all-in which constituted a legal wager and seat 5 verbalized a call?

Unless seat 2 had hidden chips or something else weird was going on, I don’t see why that could be anything but a very standard ruling in a well run card room like Aria. Just because the dealer isn’t able to count stacks doesn’t mean a player is off the hook.

Of course he owes the full amount.
FWIW, Seat 2 was allin the moment he said "Pot".
I just added some underlinings for emphasis, and the actual bets above, (for those who don't play PL).
I really don't see Seat 5's argument at all??

Sadly, I looked this up once, gambling debts between private parties are generally not enforceable (see: Tsoukernik, Leon), but in Nevada non-payment of a marker is a criminal offense . So, in my understanding, if the player didn't want to pay his stack in front of him he could take a ban from MGM properties until he payed the shorted player back. I think where he could be arrested was if the dealer made the pot right before running the board out and then the losing player tried to take the chips from the pot.

Player 2 owes $235 more.

But yet another case of a lazy dealer not making the pot right before continuing, "to save time".

How much time was wasted on the argument and decision?

Angus- agree totally, I get in the habit of having the dealers count the chips down if I think it is anywhere close, especially ppl who stack not in 5,10,20, (e.g.15,25) or barberpole blacks in their greens... you do have to be persistent some times as they will say "he has you covered or just look at the chips and look at you, but if you just keep politely repeating "count, please" they eventually give in

also full amount owed unless their are hidden chips, IMO

I had a similar situation happen at my table at Parx Azn rec bet/jams all in (say for 2.8k) and reg who raised him on the turn to 2.5k and who still needed to call the 300 never says call but instead gets into a big debate with Azn guy about how many times they want to run it, they eventually decide on 3 times the boards run out and Azn scoops and reg tries to not pay the extra 300, due to the fact that he never said call. The floor ruled that his call was implied when he started negotiating how many times they wanted to run it as multiple boards can only be run in all-in situations. He protested but the floor was quick with the banhammer threat and he quickly paid the remainder.

My $.02

This is an excellent summary with all the salient points covered. It was interesting watching the floor deal with it. It seemed impossible to get the full story with all players screaming at once. It's amazing how excited people get.

Floor made the correct decision, seat 5 paid off and cashed out. They were still arguing a good while later.

Contention shifted to whether dealer said "it's" got you covered or " he's " got you covered. I don't think it made much difference, and I don't think anyone was angling--just a bunch of poker players getting worked up.

It's not just about saving time. If it even looks like I'm about to make the pot right before running out the board I get players screaming at me. I get yelled at MUCH less if I just run it out and figure it out later and I make an extra few bucks a day.

It's only an interesting trainwreck if the floor is an idiot and doesn't tell everyone to shut up because the only person who should be talking to the floor initially is the dealer.

Hm? What do you think Seat 5 was doing?

I think he was a rec player who was confused.

I don't think the dealer was lazy and I don't think she was trying to save time. She put the all-in plaques out on the table. Dealers work for the people who pay them and the people who pay them are the players. The players are usually action junkies, or emotionally fragile to the point where they can't accept any kind of delayed gratification. They want the board spread without delay.

I always insisted that the pot be made right before the advent of plaques, but now I tend to let it slide when they are in use. Judging from some of the comments, this may be a mistake. Does a player still have the option of being barred and keeping his money?

It's not like the room offers it as an option, but they do not have the authority to reach into his rack and take his chips from him, so from a practical perspective, yes.

If you want to maximally protect yourself, insist that the pot is made right first before completing the deal or showing your hand.

In most games against most opponents and with most typical unambiguous betting action, many of us would probably let it slide and allow for making the pot right afterwards. But if there is any chance of misunderstanding or ambiguity, make it right first. This will highlight any issues in advance of the board running out or hands being shown down, which will mitigate any angle shooting that might otherwise occur.

The player obviously owes the entire amount
Ban him if he doesn't play
Aria should pay the amount owed in the event the guy takes the ban

It's also absurd they allow running it twice in 1/2 plo which is a pot rake game there

What am I missing here ??? (I've had my coffee.)

Pot = $70
Seat 2 bets $45 ...
Seat 5 bets 'pot' ... The bet is now $205 ... ($45 + $160) or (45x3 plus 70)
Seat 2 re-pots ... The bet is now $685 ... ($205 + $480) or (205x3 plus 70)

Dealer estimates Seat 2 has less than $685 and indicates Seat 2 is all-in 'for less'
Seat 2 has already bet 'pot', can't say a binding 'all-in' anyway - wasted breathe
Seat 5 calls $685, owes up to and maybe less than $685

If Seat 5 really thought that his initial 'pot' had Seat 2 covered then why would he need to say 'call' when the Dealer indicated Seat 2 was 'all-in and covered' and Seat 2 verbalized what really was OOT action of 'all-in'.


No matter how much I'm missing the boat here Seat 5 needs to give Seat 2 a full double up here based on the description of Seat 2's stack by OP. GL

As far as spreading 1/2 PLO ... Low limit PLO has been a huge hit in our area since our newest casino opened, having spread at least 4-5 hours minimum of the game (if not 12-15 hours) every day since it opened.

A large reason for it's 'success' has been the RIT option since it allows lots of folks who really aren't bankrolled for the game to keep splitting pots during their sessions when someone should be getting crushed. Thus the rake keeps rolling in. GL

The floor did, and then the shift manager did. What effect saying "shut up" to a table of poker players is supposed to have is beyond me, but management was true to form and said their prescribe shut-ups.

(I provide this comment as a public service to those who have never been married, or who have never visited The Great American Schoolyard, as to the futility of telling somebody to shut up.)

It’s only futile if there are no consequences for disobedience. I’ve seen a floor kick a player out of the game for his unwillingness to let the dealer explain his side of the story. Floor then made the player stand a couple feet away from the table while he made his ruling and then told him to come back and pick up additional chips because he had ruled in his favor.

I love that story. Poker players often act like children and sometimes need to be treated as such. Being a parent seems like good experience if you want to deal poker.

What was the effect?

Confused about what exactly? I might be missing something, but I don't see what is confusing about this even to a rec, let alone that is more likely than a blatant attempt at angling or cheating.

It seems perfectly believable (and reasonable, if incorrect) to me that a player would think they don't owe the pot any more once a dealer (appears to) tell them they have the other player's all-in bet covered. The thinking would go along the lines of "but I might not have called if I had known I owed more!"

There could be some confusion over which pot bet 'It's got you covered' is referred to by the Dealer, yes.

But in order for Seat 5's story to wash he should've ignored Seat 2's 'extra' all-in statement and certainly wouldn't have needed to 'call' his own pot bet, which essentially is what he's doing if he thinks he's got enough out there already.

I usually like to give people plenty of leeway, but with the visual layout of the chips (3 blacks plus) by Seat 2 and Seat 5's 'call' of the Dealer's statement doesn't lend me to see things in his favor here.

We can do the proverbial 'What if Seat 5 had won both Boards' routine as well. Gotta assume that he would want all of Seat 2's chips when he 'calls' an all-in statement. GL