50/100 cash game. All amounts are in HKD (divide by 8 roughly for US).

Fold to MP who raises to $350 preflop. One caller in CO, SB and BB fold. MP leads the flop for $600 and CO raises to $4600. MP calls $4000. Dealer believes MP is AI for the $4600 and puts up the turn and river. As he's exposing the river MP says "Wait, I'm not all in".

The river has already come off and is visible. Floor is called and finds that MP has $150 remaining, which is 3 chips (two green one black). It is unclear if MP was holding the chips or if they were on the felt after calling the $4000 raise.

Floor rules that the $150 is an insignificant amount in relation to the pot size and the river card will not be reshuffled. MP is to be considered AI after calling the $4000 raise and it is now showdown. For the purpose of my question, hand results and discussion regarding MP possibly angling due not apply.

While discussion on the ruling is fine, what I'm really looking for is some opinions on how much does MP have to have remaining to make reshuffling, and quite possibly altering the outcome of the hand, worth it?

If we were to make a black and white rule, what would that amount be measured as? Would it be?

# of BB's?
% of minimum buy in?
% of pot?
Something else?

Thanks for your input.

I don't like the ruling.
Who called the floor? MP CO or Dealer?
Does MP (if he loses) get to keep the $150? If he wins does it play?
How about if MP is holding 8c8s and the flop comes AKQ all hearts, he may fold for that $150. Might depend on the flop.

Basically if there's zero chance that he could bluff with the remaining money, it's insignificant. Exact percentages I'm not going to attempt because it would be a judgment call at the table anyway. As it was I'm glad they ruled as they did.

Yes, he keeps it if he loses, and no, it doesn't play if he wins. He's been declared all-in.

Being AI would me he gets to keep it and it doesn't play so no, he doesn't get it both ways obviously.

The black and white rule is all in is all in. You don't need to change it for what appears to be a Dealer error here. You might look at a case by case basis otherwise you open the door to almost all in is the same as all in.

The problem is that I have seen the situation where a player bets almost everything and then on the river makes a all-in betr of some tiny amount that no reasonabl;e player would fold to, and then seen players fold to it.

So I don't like to assume any amount is insignificant.

I agree with this and have seen this ruling myself. If I was going to try to write a rule I would guess that a stack that is less than 10% of the pot is insignificant. There is a problem though. I have seen players go all in except for one chip so if they lose they can rebuy short, but I have only seen that a couple of times.

in this case we were talking $150 in a pot that was close to $10K. I certainly wouldn't give anyone a new river card over it.

Someone could have the low end of a straight flush draw, 23 suited into a board of 45 (same suit) K and the turn comes K and the river Q and 23 folds.

Well you might be able to get there some other way than making a ruling that some amount is insignificant.

Whats interesting is as I read the description of the action i pictured a player timely and immediately stopping the dealer so i am much less worried about angleshooting . . . as opposed to the guy who is first making an issue as the river is sitting on the table.

imo its not for the house to decide if a given sum of money is significant or not

Look if we're going to (once again) get into a bunch of what-ifs then everybody just save a dollar every time, in case you don't like the river. Make sure to palm it or at least hide it where nobody can see it until you decide. Sheesh.

The bottom line is the floor has to protect the game, and if chips are hidden, they're not really in play now are they, especially when it's about 1.5% of the total pot, and certainly not worth giving up a do-over on the river when they're suddenly revealed after the river card is dealt.

Nobody's making up rules we're just rightfully applying rule #1

And bluffing the nut low on the river is always something to concern yourself with. Would be a shame if you managed to lose to the nut low, and then were like "Shoot, I should have pumped tht $150 on the river so the NUT LOW would fold."

I have also seen the hold-back-one-chip tactic, not only for the option to rebuy short, but also so that when the other player bet on the river (to take his last chip) the one chip guy could call and a) muck without having to show or b) see the other players hand first since he was last aggressor (and muck without having to show).

I was also thinking of a percentage of the pot. As AL mentioned, it was just over 1%, which was completely insignificant. But on the flip side, I think that 10% becomes exponentially larger as the limits increase. Of course it's all relevant to pot size, but 10% of a $80,000 HKD pot is still $1,000 US, which is more significant than $150 HK (<$20 US). Again, I understand it's all relative...

I'm a bit confused about ruling in OP. I get that the floor ruled MP was basically AI. But does the 150 count as in, or does he keep it and it does not go into the pot? I'd assumed it was left out, but further posts indicate otherwise.

150 was left out... it's as if it wasn't even on the table. I didn't see this contradicted anywhere.

I don't disagree with either statement. I would prefer to look at mistakes like this on a case by case. However, what would have the ruling been if the amount was $700 HK? Personally, I think the river gets reshuffled, as $700 is a significant amount relative to the pot IMO.

I really believe that there needs to be a line drawn, espcially in this market (Macau). The local staff is very black and white. It's just the way the culture is. If they had to rule on this, 90% of them would have reshuffled the river because the action had not been completed. Players know that they follow the rules to the letter, and won't make exceptions. With that in mind, it's not long until they start holding back one chip knowing that they have a shot of getting the river reshuffled if they don't like it.

I'm glad Al and RR are coming out in favor of this "insignificant" aspect, because I wasn't really sure. To those asking where to draw the line... well, I think for the vast majority of cases where you have to worry about being close to that line, this won't happen anyway.

BoDiddley, please train your dealers to verbally verify all-ins before dealing multiple streets in a row.

I think this may be why some rooms have the policy of cards being tabled at the point of the shove being called. It's an extra step to verify the shove, and prevents this kind of thing from happening.

I can see your point in the US, where 1-2 $5 chips probably won't bring us close to "the line". But in this case, it could have easily been one $500 chip (which is a primary chip in play in this game), and I think that would have brought us much closer.

It was a dealer error and should be treated as such. So if the rule is re-shuffle then re-shuffle no matter what amount. Player did not say all-in.

If i had to guess id say 5-10% of pot becomes insignificant. But dont really need a rule because dealer should'nt be making these errors often, and if this guy is angle shooting he should be warned + others will catch on.

If dealer made a comment before river that players were all-in then river card should definently stand. Because he had a chance to speak up at that point

I miss your point here.

My point is there are or may be some hands that would for that last bet. As horrible as that is, some hands might fold.

I think that it isn't worthy of reshuffling. However, the dealer didn't confirm AI before proceeding. Given how fast the action was, it would be hard for the MP to stop the action earlier than he did.

However, the MP shouldn't be penalized for the dealer mistake. We aren't at showdown yet. Action is on the MP. If either player wants to throw in the last HK$150, they should have the opportunity to do so.

There is an article written on this exact subject 4 years ago by Rolf Slotboom here:

http://www.cardplayer.com/cardplayer...would-you-make

I definately agree that a new card should not be given when the amount left to play is insignificant. The question remains as to what amount is insignificant? On this point I am open for debate

This is yet another situation where there may be no need for a floor ruling if the players behaved like normal people.

1. If both players acknowledge that MP would have gone all-in and CO would have called, MP should voluntarily put himself all-in with a matching amount from the CO and there's absolutely no need for the floor.

2. If MP does not accept that, CO can offer for MP to choose whether or not to put in the last $150 (and have CO call) or to keep the last $150 out. MP can choose depending on whether he thinks he has the advantage or not; MP cannot lose this proposition and CO loses $150 at most.

3. If neither MP nor CO are willing to concede the point, THEN call the floor. There's no need for the floor ruling when a gentlemanly gesture from either player will obviate the problem.