So what. Imagine he pulls out the bills sets them on the table calls for chips folds picks up the bills and leaves. The only way this is a problem is if he owes a blind.

Outside the blinds you could in fact let people sit around the table without chips, look at their cards, and buy chips only if they decide to get into the hand! No, not quite, only if there is a standard buy-in. Otherwise they could, when deciding to get into the hand, buy in to an amount they thinks is best suited for that particular situation.

So we do still have a problem IF the buy-in amount isn't standardized, AND people are dealt in without any chips. Similarly it's wrong to let people buy more chips when anybody at the table already has looked at his cards in a hand. You could, depending on the reactions, decide to either play with the chips you have, or buy in deeper.

But there is a standard and easy way to deal to with buy-in size. If the player has not announced a different buy-in his buy-in is the minimum buy-in. If he announces a buy-in amount you can deal him in .... you have to have the money out on the table before he calls or raises.

And of course we are talking about a player who in fact folds ...so it doesn't really matter

Not sure where you are getting your info. No one said anything about him looking at his cards. The issue is he pulled out his wallet, was dealt in, then said, "no, never mind I have to go".

If however he looked at his cards and then said give me the max buyin after seeing them we have a problem.

Actually we don't even have a problem if after he asks for the max buyin he folds and leaves as in this case

Would we?

We would just need to make sure that he asks for a buyin amount and is held to it before he looks at his cards. The dealer must keep a good eye on him.

Yes, we would. Because I said "if he looked at his cards first and then decided he wanted to buy in for the max we would have a problem."
You just can't do that.

So you tell him min buyin plays this hand. Not really a problem

I don't let him play the hand. It's too late to decide how much you will buy in for once you've seen your cards. The hand is dead.

They're saying he doesn't get to decide.

No, I am saying he doesn't get to decide. They are saying he gets to choose between folding or playing this one hand for the min.

If the rule is that he has to do a min-buy if has seen his cards, then you're giving him a free shot at a hand he might only like to play short stacked. Now I look at my cards and see K8, ok I'll fold and take a max-buy. Or, I look at 88 and say ok I'll play this hand for the min. You can't let them choose. DUCY

Wut.

As opposed to him min buying for one hand and then topping off afterwards?

I don't see the issue, just fold his hand. Whenever a misdeal is called players with good hand always complain so better to just fold his hand continue on.

I learned to play in rooms where it almost took an act of Congress to have a misdeal.

Random cards are random cards to me.

Fold his hand and play on, I say.

As long as the house rule is applied consistently, I can live with it.

How is this a shot. Suppose he says I'll buy in for $100 (assume $100 is the minimum) pulls out the money puts it on the table, gets dealt cards ... makes a decision about how to play that hand, and then the next hand decides to increase his stake......... how was the first hand a shot?

He never looked at his cards. Its been a week now but IIRC he had put his wallet back before he even got his second call. I don't think there was any attempt at an angle here. It'd be a pretty rare one too - bust out then angle a shot at free cards?

Lets say this guy always buys in for the max (lets say its $300), but this time he looks at his cards and thinks "oh, this is a halfway decent hand I'll give it a shot one time for cheap" and trys to buy in for the minimum (lets say its $40). He ships it and loses. Now he rebuys for the usual $300. You see no issue with him looking at his cards before deciding?

I don't want to play against this guy that you are allowing to freeroll for a short buy just because he peeked already when I can otherwise play against him for a max buy.

Your way really isn't that big of a deal, but I don't see it as the best way. That's all.

What I am saying is he doesn't get to look at his cards and then decide whether he is buying in for the minimum or the maximum. If he looks at his cards first HE HAS ALREADY DECIDED. HE DOESN'T GET A CHOICE. HE IS IN FOR THE MINIMUM ON THIS HAND. He can choose to not play the hand ... we call that folding. And if after playing this hand or folding this hand he wants to buy-in for more for the next hand ... hey great .... he can do that.


I'm curious which of the alternatives you would want me as a dealer to do:

Deal him out until he brings out the money or announces the amount?
Hold up the game and wait for him to do so?

I'm well aware of what you were saying. I just don't think its the best way to handle it. That's all. Like I said, it's not really a big deal.

I want you to do the bold. It's very simple. "Are you coming back in sir? How much would you like?"

If it takes more than 10 seconds to get an answer deal him out while he decides. OR Deal him in, but as you do, tell him you need an answer before he peeks and if he looks at his cards before he decides, kill his hand.

The last time I did that the floor asked me to apologize to the 1000 year old man.

sniffle sniffle

I knew you would miss the point. The point wasn't that I was asked to apologize.

The point was that it upset guests so much that the floor felt it necessary to ask me to apologize. And it wasn't just the guest I dealt out .... it was him and a couple of tourists who couldn't stand to see him treated so badly ......

You don;t want me to upset the guests now do you?

You said a hell of a lot more than that, and none of it made sense.

My sniffle sniffle was for the guest(s), not you.

If this is true then I'm sure you understood it all completely.