You may be on to something there.

Helo everyone , my name is Claudiu and a have a poker room in Romania and for some time i am
thinking about open a poker room in Spain. That is the reson i am asking for some help about poker legislation in Spain. Any info will be appreciate .
Thank you very much

Playing more 2/5 and notice that sometimes there are $500 light purple chips in play that are not the easiest color to distinguish/see. Is that a common color for that chip in cash games?

light purple is a standard for $500, at least in the NJ/PA area. My poker room recently stopped giving them out at the poker cage, now it's just black $100 chips and orange $1000 oversize pumpkin chips. wonder if that is why.

We are seeing the $500 chips come out in our 1/2 PLO game (since it has a $500 BI cap) when a Player busts and is rebuying. This game does get deep enough that when a Player colors up they may end up with some as well. Haven't seen an issue as of yet where an opponent got caught off guard by them being on the table.

The chip runners try to push green and black chips into this game as much as they can so the only time the cage gives them out is on a color up. These Players are getting them from the pit and pulling from their pockets. GL

Was playing 2/5 tonight against a donkish player, I bet $175 on the turn and I had ~$550 behind with 1 purple $500 chip, he goes all-in, I push the rest of my chips in. Immediately he's like "oh no, oh no, I didn't see that $500 chip!" I felt like by the way he froze up when he saw it, he wasn't lying. He offered me to just take the pot, no showdown if he didn't have to call the $500. My two pair obviously has him crushed, but there are straight draws and flush draws out there. He keeps saying over and over that he thought I was almost all-in, and he didn't see the big chip (even though it was right out in front). He sounds pathetic really. Nobody has shown their cards. Is anybody letting him off the hook here and just taking the pot, no showdown w/o the remaining $500 getting in play?

I don't think it should be allowed for you to make the decision. If villain doesn't believe he should be kept to his bet, he needs to make a plea to the floor. Allowing you to make the decision makes you into the bad guy if you don't want to allow it.

Definitely this. Certainly not a call for you or even the dealer to make. If the 500 chip was really out in front and easily visible I'd be really surprised if the floor didnt hold him to the bet. But either the floor will hold him to the bet, or rule that the chip wasnt visible enough and say it doesnt play. But either way, I think the hand will have to playout. I've never seen a floor allow the kind of deal you described about just taking the pot without a showdown in a regular casino. I thought those types of deals were the purview of private high stakes games.

There really is no question here if you are in a regulated casino. You can go through the classic list of discussion points that show up with every large (oversized?) chip spot, but once the Floor is called over the hand should play out with all the money in the middle. The last thing the casino needs is some other Player running to Gamming about deal making in the middle of the hand. GL

This is in a casino, but the players more or less run the show, so i guess it’s more like a home game, so maybe this is the wrong thread. I think everyone at the table knew that if I called the floor all the chips are going in. So it’s basically do I want to be the good guy or bad guy. The villain was seemingly new to the game, so I did the good guy thing, but obv wasn’t happy about, especially as I was stuck pretty deep. He had top pair rag kicker, so drawing dead. Pretty silly spot.

Yes, where I play they use numbered seat change buttons. So if someone leaves whoever has the seat change button number 1 gets the option, then 2, 3.

I thought this article (and the one before it, which is linked to) are pretty good ones about why you shouldn't go pro: https://www.pokernews.com/strategy/5...-pro-33589.htm

Post #31 ITT: My opponent wants to negotiate in the middle of the hand. Should I go along?

Posts 32-34: THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED!

Me: Why not? If no other players are affected by the decision, who has standing to object?

This comes up a lot. The only folks who seem to think it's an issue are those who started playing after the Poker Is On TV Now boom. Old timers like me have seen this play out countless times, with zero negative consequences.

I dealt a heads-up game once where, at the showdown, neither player wanted to show, they were each convinced they could not win. They were laughing about it, and they weren't slowing the game down for anyone else (they were the only players at the table), so I didn't prompt them to get the game moving again.

Each guy was so convinced he held the loser, they agreed to swap hands. I'm not making that up.

And I allowed them to...because why not??? If they're OK with it, who am I to object?

When I first started playing, the only games were fixed-limit. If two players started re-raising endlessly, the other players would lament, "Just go all-in! Get this over with!" And that is just what the players would do. I've done it myself a few times. Even though the rules said the max bet was $X, I was allowed to throw that rule right out the window, because all the players involved agreed to it...and the players NOT involved, had no standing to object.

I've seen players add to their stacks mid-hand in a heads-up pot...and I've seen opponents agree to it.

When I tell these anecdotes to modern players, they don't want to believe me, they think I've gone insane. For them, my closing argument is, "How do you think 'run it twice' got invented?" Because if you have no problem with RIT, you cannot justify your objections to any of these other things.

(BTW, those two guys who swapped hands? They were playing high enough stakes that railbirds were sweating the game from an actual, physical rail...and THEY called the floor on me! Why can't folks mind their own business?)

But you forgot the next post, which showed in this case, allowing the "deal" between the two players did have negative consequences. One of the players didn't really like the outcome, but didn't want to be seen as the bad guy.

Post 34 ... Never gave an opinion on whether it should be allowed or not. Just that in a regulated casino it 'should not' happen.

There are constant posts in the forums where we are more protective of tournament Players than cash Players due to the ripple effects it can have. IMO I'm not so sure that we shouldn't also protect cash Players. Granted everyone who is affected is probably present and could object if they wanted. But without the presence of a Player drawing dead we don't know where those chips are going to go yet and every pot has an affect on future hands whether Players want to admit it or not.

Big stack goes on tilt due to suck out. Whale sucks out and 'more easily' distributes those chips to other Players on the table in future hands.

This may sound like an objection, but it's not. I've seen plenty of deal making at home games and respect the operators right to allow them no matter the reason.

What I look for is consistency at each venue. And to have 'some' Dealers allow this type of spot to occur only to have others prevent it is not good for the long term. No disrespect to YTF (and I know that he can handle the heat should it come up later) but it opens up the door to the newbie Dealer getting put in a bad spot the next time around. GL

This. Just ask the supervisors and dealers involved in the flip for 40k with Doug Polk at the Sugarhouse. It's not a question of should as in is it good for the game of poker or not. It's a should as in should a dealer in a regulated casino allow something that is against regulations to happen. As I stated in my earlier response, I'm not aware of any casino poker room that allows players to make deals about who gets a pot without a showdown. If there is one, then that's fine. But in a casino that doesnt allow it, the dealer never should. Regardless of whether the dealer thinks anyone is "getting hurt" or not or whether all players are OK with it.

Seriously?

OK, I stipulate, out loud, that all laws of a given jurisdiction should be obeyed.

I thought that went without saying. I overestimated my audience, I guess.

Oh, so all those examples you gave, like you proudly allowing players to switch cards, because "whynot" was done in a private game and not in a casino? If you had clarified that in your OP, then we all could have said "who gives a ****, its a private game". But I guess I and others assumed you were relating a story from your dealing in a casino environment, as most of your stories are.

No, all those anecdotes came from actual casinos, either in Nevada (who wrote the book on such limited oversight) or Mississippi (the only state smart enough to copy Nevada's rulebook, rather than try to micromanage whether stud players get 7 cards or 10).

They also pre-dated the widespread popularity of Bad Beat Jackpots, which ARE micromanaged, everywhere it seems.

But absent any government official's objection, I still don't understand the foundation of YOUR objection. To me, it sounds like I want a zoning variance to build a shed in my backyard, and you show up to the zoning hearing to object, even though you don't live, work, nor drive in my STATE. This shed would not affect your life in any way--you just like to wave the rulebook around and your sense of control in this crazy, random universe feels threatened when people agree to set aside an intrusive rule.

EDIT TO ADD: The Swap Hole Cards story was Mississippi, which had BBJ at the time--but this heads-up game was not BBJ-eligible, so BBJ rules did not apply.

I love your stories, know you are a good dealer, and imagine you handled those weird situations well.

But you really missed the point in the example here we were all responding to. This was about two people making a deal, WHEN ONE OF THEM DIDN'T WANT TO. He felt pressured to make a deal he never suggested and which hurt him financially, because the dealer and /or floor was leaving running of the game to the players instead of following standard procedure.

I wasn't responding to his post. I was responding to the reaction it caused.

Any such pressure was self-inflicted. No one in the world would resent him protecting himself from an angle shot.

If anyone thinks we shouldn't let two parties agree to set aside a rule because one might feel pressured/uncomfortable, I find that ridiculous.

It may have been technically able to ignore the pressure, but he felt pressured by the dealer and likely other players not to be the bad guy. We're always told to have a good demeanor, don't pick on the fish, don't be a nit about little things. But this was not a little thing - it was a lot of money, and it should have been his by casino rules, ruled on by an actual floor. That's why the floor people are there; otherwise those with the strongest wills or most imposing / threatening personalities would always get the rulings in their favor.

They usually do any way, no?

No biggie .. I think it was the CAPS that got me ... Keep um coming, both here and on Twitter .. GL

PS .. The struggle between opinion and rule will always exist.

Is giving 7-star players waiting list priority a standard practice at all Caesar places?