Playing in a 1/3 with 500 cap. New player sits with 800 all in red. His very first hand he gets involved in a 3 bet pot. Heads up on the flop new player leads for 130ish. Other player covers.

At this point, before 2nd guy has a chance to act dealer asks new guy if he came from another table. New guy says no. Dealer calls the floor, explains the situation and floor makes new guy take 300 off the table in the middle of the hand!

I was spectator so kept my mouth shut. If I was in the hand I would have argued that all chips on the table at the start of the hand must remain until at least hand is completed.

What do others think? Is it ever acceptable to remove chips during a hand?



Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

This seems like a time where it would be acceptable, yes. If there is a cap, then there is a cap and you can't buy in for more than that cap. So yeah, pull the extra $300 off and $500 plays...

I'm not saying what I think should happen yet, but since you brought up the fact that you think the chips should play at least until the hand is over I will ask you this. What if he doubles up to $1600 in this hand? Are we making him take some chips off the table now? If so, how much? $300? $600?

What happens if he doubles up and the other player says that's not fair, I should only have had to risk $500 since that is the max buy in and now the floor is called over? Let's say the floor wasn't called prior to the end of the hand.

If it's $500 cap, he could've slapped 10 blacks down and went all-in blind the first hand and only 5 of those chips would be in play, as far as I'm concerned.

Brought that up because I don't have fully formed opinion yet and am interested in hearing from others.

Right now I'm leaning towards, once money has been in play it should remain.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

Imo, significant action took place already. Current hand plays out with all 800 in play, then win or lose, the following hand he has to make sure he's not over 500.

There’s only one reason why I think it might be a good idea to let the whole $800 play: because the player might have moved from another table, it’s reasonable to expect from other players to check his stacksize when he sits down.

If a move from another table wasn’t a possibility, other players would have every right to assume the new player didn’t buy in above the max. In that case, I am 100% for removing those chips from play.

What you are saying: if the guy gets it all-in 3 way for a $2400 pot and wins, he is allowed to pocket $1900 after the hand and starts the next hand with $500. You don’t see a problem with that?

Guy sits down with a rack and 3/5s when a rack is the cap.

Dealer waits until action on the Flop to ask him if he table changed?

At that point, why even ask?

I think we can agree the dealer messed up by not checking for that when the player sat down.

But by doing it on the flop, he at least makes sure that a floor ruling is made and there won’t be a situation where another player might refuse to pay up after the hand.

Exactly what I would have done. Me and dealer will be having a convo asap.

You would have made the guy remove the money in the middle of a hand??

Stack size is a fundamental variable for every poker decision. If I was in the hand, the preflop decisions I made would have been significantly impacted by how deep my opponent was.

Example scenario;
- I have 6,6
- I'm sure villain has A,A and will never fold
- villian makes it $100 preflop
- villain has $1,500 in front of him and I cover
- I call because this is a +ev spot
- if floor makes villain take $1,000 of the table after the flop, floor has turned my previous decision from +ev to -ev

Taking money off (or adding) after significant action is wrong.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

Yes, it is wrong. Letting him start with more than the table max is also wrong. Sometimes you have to do the least wrong thing. Deciding which is which can be the hard part, and is why we have these discussions here.

Agree deciding between least bad out of range of only bad options is hard, which makes for good discussions.

In this instance, I think taking money off after significant decisions have been made is most wrong.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

Yes I would. At that point in the hand I would. Taking money off is wrong but so is starting with more than the max. Any player that has your mental aptitude for making decisions based on stack size would also have noticed that this player just sat down and this is their first hand, so you would also notice that he was over the max and say something. If you didn't say anything I would assume you were trying to take advantage of it.

From the OP, it seems that sitting down with more than the max is perfectly legal, if not required (ie you must bring your whole stack), if you are changing tables.

So, if I notice and don't say anything, it is because I assume that the Dealer is doing his/her job and that it is okay.

Interesting, I didn't expect this response. Appreciate hearing it though.

In this room, people are required to take their entire stack with them when changing tables. If it was me, I definitely would have noticed how much he had. However since it is permissible to sit with much more than cap when changing tables, assuming I was trying to take advantage is not a fair assumption.

Someone sits with double the max, dealer lets him start a hand that way, it is reasonable for me to assume buddy just table changed.


Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

In this room, it is required.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

I'm fine with knocking the stack down to the most he could have legally bought in for. Sucks that it's like this, but the mistake has already been made. Let's make it as right as we can.

You might also not say something because you assumed the player came from another game and is required to play the whole stack he brought over from there.

I believe at the Hollywood in Toledo, OH you are required to drop down to the 'table' max when changing tables. That discussion is probably for another thread, but ...

Although I agree that a player involved might've been 'counting on' those chips being available I would advocate that they be taken off the table during the hand ... UNLESS those chips are already facing action, which is not the case in this OP.

If they are left on the table and the player wins the hand, then taking the chips off the table at that time seems a bit trivial. GL

I assumed this already, but the fact still remains that this player was not changing tables. The dealer should always ask anytime a player sits with more than the max so this dealer screwed up. At the point in the hand where it was brought up I feel like it would be the best decision to take the extra out of play. If someone had gone all in or something we have an entirely different situation.

As a player it seems making the guy chip down to the maximum he is supposed to have is the most equitable solution. I certainly wouldn’t feel aggrieved if I was that player...those are the rules, it’s not unreasonable.

If I was opponent and new guy chips were removed post flop and therefore changed my equity, I would want to the opportunity to change my preflop decisions.

Taking those chips off post flop penalizes new guy's apponent.

New guy is offering game of X with odds of Y to win prize of Z. Then after game starts, floor says sorry game is still X, odds are still Y but prize is 37.5% less than when you agreed to the game. And more sorry, but you have no choice but to see hand through to the end.

In my view, this is worst option of all.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

I don't like the angle possibilities of asking this player after he sees the flop and has acted. What if his answer depended on the texture of the flop and how much he wants to risk?

It would be the same as asking the player if they want to risk $500 or $800 after seeing the flop and seeing the reaction of the other player to his bet.

I don't see many options here. Still a question of least bad answer. Just wanted to point out that without verifying if he did table change, you open up that angle.

I agree with this. Where I play most often, the rule is that a player coming from a must-move game must bring his entire stack, but a completely new player or a voluntary transfer is bound by the table min-max.
This often creates some confusion, as it is not always clear if a player joining with a big stack came from a must-move or not. Alert dealers and players will usually catch this, but sometimes not, and I see this type of situation fairly often.
In general, I often see floors try to use best judgement here: this whole thing is rife with angling opportunities (in both directions.) Sometimes the mistake was accidental, but we also have some players who try to overbuy frequently, and I think at least some floors try to consider this.
If the overstack is caught before showdown, the most common way I have seen this handled (but not always), is that the player must remove the excess and the hand is played out. This sometimes benefits him, but it's still usually the least bad solution, IMO.
More interesting is when the overstack is discovered at showdown, usually when a losing player suddenly realizes that he's being asked to donate more than the max buyin on the new guy's first hand played. In that case, I have often (but not always) seen the floor rule against the rulebreaker, limiting him to winning the amount he could have won with a correct buyin. I agree with this, but I have also seen the opposite ruling (chips play and stay in play).