The following situation caused some debate last night in a NL game. Three players were contesting a hand: the SB, the BB, and Player A. Player A and the BB were deepstacked; the SB was shortstacked.

Player A opened the pot with a raise to $12. Everyone folded to the SB, who just called. The BB then re-raised to $42.

When the action returned to Player A, he wanted to know how many chips the SB had remaining behind. From just a visual inspection, it appeared that the SB had more than $50 remaining, but not entirely clear if he had enough chips such that, if he shoved behind a call, the betting would have been reopened when the action returned to the BB.

In response to the question, the SB just moved his hands so that his chips were in plain view. The dealer and Player A made visual estimates, and based on those, Player A elected to fold after concluding that a shove would have constituted a raise that reopened action for the BB.

After the hand, the dealer said that he was not sure whether he would have been allowed to do a manual count of unbet chips and that he would have called the floor if one had been requested. Another player at the table was adamant that no player has a right to know how many chips are in a player's stack beyond what can be discerned by observation.

What is the correct rule?

Room dependent, but in general you are permitted only a clear view of opponent's stacks, not an exact count. (You can of course get an exact count of any bet amount.)

I would go further and say that there would be more latitude given if the stacks were untidy, not in stacks of 10 or 20. In that case as a floor I would tell the player he either needs to put his stacks in tidy order, or I would have the dealer perform a count.

It also should go without saying, but all high denom chips must be visible, and ideally on top or in front.

This is another rule I would change if I were king - I would allow for an exact count of any player's remaining stack. In the modern game, there is no real gameplay reason to disallow that. I don't agree that this is a poker skill in the modern game.

The primary reason against is the logistics (it can take time and slow the game down), and also some risk mitigation (what if dealer miscounts?), as well as tradition. This probably means it will never change, but that's my preference. I would also only allow it at the discretion of the floor, this isn't something that should be done or required frequently. I would definitely not allow someone to abuse it to needle another player.

One of the first things I learnt when transitioning from online to live poker was that (at least in the majority of rooms) you don’t have the right to get an exact count of chips that haven’t been bet.

You’re entitled to a clear view of the stack with high denomination chips on top or in front of the stack.

What I’ve seen a couple of times that tilted half the table: Player asks for an exact count, opponent moves his hands without saying anything. Player stands up and slowly starts to count. First making sure there’s really 20 in a stack (one, two, three, …, nineteen, twenty) while pointing at every chip then adding the single chips.

This is another rule I would change if I were king - I would allow for an exact count of any player's remaining stack. In the modern game, there is no real gameplay reason to disallow that. I don't agree that this is a poker skill in the modern game.

Me Too

Thanks Mike

If that rule is implemented, it needs to be restricted to certain situations. I know some jerk would be asking for a count of everyone in a hand every time. I also feel like it would be used as an attempt to psych someone out when heads up.

By modern game you guys mean playing with dopes that are used to having a number always there to look at, right?



The fact is that there are very few situations (very few!!) where an exact count matters. Almost all of the time a rough estimate is good enough. And we already have real-life from online play to see how this would go. Everyone using all their time bank every hand online will manifest in live poker by players always asking "Can I get a count?"

If the rule is ‘no count only clear view’, then why is the dealer making any estimation? The dealer making the estimate is first a clear OPTAH violation and second opens the whole what if dealer is wrong issue.

Btw, this is a real pet peeve for me. Rooms where I know the rule is no count but someone asks and the dealers chirps up with an estimate. Anybody have suggestions? To me it isn’t the information. Any player who could make effective use of my stack size can very likely estimate such just fine. Usually it is my verbal answer they want to hea (but all I do is ensure they have a clear view). What bothers me is the dealer should know the d*** rules. This is not an obscure one. The ‘how much does he have’ question comes up regularly.

Dealer shouldn't make an estimate
You're entitled to s clear view and that's it

Dealer definitely shouldnt answer the question. But ime even if I wanted to, 2-3 table captains would be announcing their estimates before I could get a word out. Players just cant resist answering and compete to be first.

As to allowing a count, I think that's a bad idea just for slowing the game down. And "floor discretion" would make it worse. You've got to call a floor before counting? Likewise the "dont abuse it" wording is meaningless. RROP had that wording for asking to see a hand. It led to stupid nteractions like this:

Player1:IWTSTH
Player 2. Dealer can he do that ?
Dealer yes
P2: call the floor
Floor: yes he can do that. But P1 dont abuse it.
P1: what? Am i allowed to see them or not ?
Floor : yes you can see them. Just dont ask too many times
P1: how many is that?
Floor. Dont ask anymore
P1: so you can only ask once?
Floor: no but dont abuse it
P1: what does that even mean?
Floor: dont make me rack you up.

And on and on. So either a player can ask for a count or he cant. This dont abuse it is a meaningless and undefined parameter that confuses everybody.

An exact count should only ever be given in the exact scenario OP gave. Even then it doesn't need to exact, just a simple "If this guy shoves can that guy raise again, yes or no?"

Good god don’t give a full count unless you want to slow down the games for the nits who are gonna request the exact amount, and then probably eventually fold. People have eyes, the exact count isn’t that important.

I would like to see high denomination chips gone though, especially the not very bright purple $500 chips that seem to very common.

Strongly disagree.

I think player should be able to ask dealer for a rough count, because it is in the interest of speeding up the game.

Players may also have poor eyesight or poor relative position to other player that makes it more challenging to do themselves.

Dealer providing public information on stack size in no way violates OPTAH.

I'm also fine with dealer giving rough count. It may be bad for them if they mess up big but never seen it really.

Bad vision point seems reasonable as well. I think dealer is allowed to read the board.

Sometimes I just ask if they have any or how many black chips if that's the relevant question.

No, or at least not exactly. I mean the game since poker became basically public and legal, not mostly backroom games where all players had to protect themselves from other cheating players (CA and maybe NV and NJ being longer term exceptions, perhaps). When it became a game that reaches out to new players and encourages them to play, rather than a game where you have to watch out for cheating dealers. Sometime around 2000, just prior to the poker boom.

The rules now help to keep the game fair, but also make it publicly accessible for newcomers and housewives and businessmen at conferences. Stupid things that used to be "part of the game" are now not. I would add "being able to estimate your opponents stack visually" to the list of historical poker traditions that serve no legitimate purpose in the modern game, much like "reading your own and your opponents hand" and "open stakes" and forced showdowns.

Other than perhaps logistics, as I mentioned. It can slow the game down if it's not handled correctly, which others have also mentioned as an issue.

Online poker certainly may have had a hand in changing some of the things, and perhaps this is one of them, but I would argue this point even if online poker didn't exist.

Eh, what about not slowing the game down unnecessarily?

You can get all the info you need by glancing at their chips, even if they're not in stacks of 10/20. Unless big chips are hidden somehow.
It is a skill you can practice and learn, just count stacks a lot and you'll get better at estimating them.

I'd be totally fine with it if this happened once every 2 hours, but if we're gonna allow this, some people are just gonna ask every hand ...

I guess you missed the last paragraph of that post:

Yup Oops

"ONE PLAYER TO A HAND PLEASE DEALER."

Backpedal much?.

I guess you missed the last paragraph of that post too, while somehow still quoting it.

You can ask for it, and it can be allowed, at floor's discretion, and should not be abused. there is nothing inconsistent with that. but if you find it inconsistent, what i meant is: You can ask for it, and it can be allowed, at floor's discretion, and should not be abused.

In a magical land where getting an exact count were possible without delaying the game (say with RFID technology), then I would allow it at any time. No other player would even know you were checking, or how often, or for what purpose. There is nothing magical or game breaking about knowing the exact count of your opponent's stack. There is no (longer) any need for visual estimation of a stack to be considered a "poker skill".

You have this completely backward. This is a situation where the dealer REALLY needs to stay out of it. And your suggested work around is even worse. Now not only are you (indirectly) providing a chip count you are providing additional information (betting reopens or not) beyond even just a count. You are interpreting what that count means.

If the rule is 'clear view, no count' (which is AFAIK the most common rule in play) then a count rough or exact is definitely a OPTAH violation. Plus if it is a rough count, what if the dealer is off by $5 which then does allow betting to reopen but the player asking "depended on" the dealer information for his decision. Now you have a guy who wants to change his mind since the dealer was wrong (he can't but there will be a 5 minute delay when the floor is called and the player continues arguing.) It won't speed up the game anymore than 'OPTAH and neither I not anyone else is allowed to tell you)

Since we don't live (usually) in this magical RFID insta count world for cash games, what has changed such that stack estimation is no longer a game skill?

Maybe there never was such a skill need and estimates should have always been given. But that is not the actual history. What has changed to negate the need for this skill?

IMO, there is actually less need for a count now than in the past. In the past, cash played and getting an estimate of that was FAR more difficult. So if the dealer could not assist then when it was more difficult, why should he assist now that is it easier for the player to do it himself?

Aren't dealers allowed to answer a question about whether a bet in a particular amount constitutes a raise? I've asked, and had that question answered, many times.

Also, just a general comment... I find it interesting how often we jump to the conclusion that rules will be abused. Personally, I don't think allowing questions about remaining stack sizes will result in anarchy.

Generally, I agree with those who feel that the rough amount of remaining stacks is usually enough for decision making purposes and reasonably obvious from observation. This should cover the vast majority of circumstances and preclude hijinks.

Having said that, I think the rules should accommodate the remaining times when the actual amount of the stack is material to a decision and mere observation is unlikely to provide an answer. If the difference between a $55 shove and a $60 shove affects betting rights, I think that is a legitimate inquiry. I also think answering it is likely to take roughly the same amount of time, and maybe less, than requiring the person with the decision to squint across the table and discern whether a stack has 11 or 12 chips in it.

"Aren't dealers allowed to answer a question about whether a bet in a particular amount constitutes a raise? I've asked, and had that question answered, many times."

AFAIK, they can answer this question ONCE THE ACTION HAS BEEN MADE but they should not be answering hypotheticals and what ifs.

BTW, I don't think an exact count is necessary but if the dealer/house is providing information, then they should provide accurate information.

This is really the biggest reason to keep the dealer out. Not all dealers (particularly new ones) will be good at these estimates. Then even the "good" ones will sometimes have a natural bias or "guessing" high or low; some might even slant there estimate to favor one player or the other (this is likely VERY rare where both the slight $ estimate error matters AND there is a dealer trying to "help" someone.)

IMO, having dealer give counts is likely to:
Slow down the game
Lead to more arguments and unhappy players
Very, very rarely have a dealer with a bias try to help (or hurt) one player over the other.

Meanwhile, I am not sure it has benefits for the house.

The slowing down of the game is an issue, but I also don't see the reason why we don't/can't provide this information in cash whereas we do provide this information in tournaments.

Not sure if mentioned in my scanning, but there's also the 'read' you get from forcing someone to handle their chips .. fumbling, shaking hands, attitude while preforming the task and non-compliance can all mean something to some Players who like the live read considerations.

IMO the vast majority of rooms are in the 'clear vision' camp and between the table captains and 'assisting' Dealers there's usually some information provided anyway. I firmly believe that if a Player pressed the issue they would get an exact count 'this time' with a potential warning that it's not always going to happen. GL