I was playing some 1/2 live when this scenario came up between a buddy of mine (Player A) and a reg (Player B):

1/2 NLHE. UTG(Player A) raises to 6, UTG +2 (Player B) along with several others flat call. SB shoves for 20 total, BB raises to 60 total, Player A thinks and moves all in for 300+.

Player B picks up all of his chips in a forward motion, sets them in front of the bet line (bet line is in effect at this particular establishment), sets them down (while still holding them), and then says I'm out.

Player A, who is a dealer at another casino, immediately states out loud that those chips should be in play. Dealer says player B was obviously just joking (which is most likely true, but irrelevant imo). Player A asks dealer to get the floor.

Floor ends up ruling that Player B's chips must go in the pot.

Player B then takes ALL of his chips off the table and leaves (doesn't put them in the pot). Player B is supposedly banned from poker room for 6 months (probably will be back in a week tops, security was not called)

Does player A have any recourse in this situation? That money is essentially "stolen" from him since floor ruled chips have to go in pot. Could he have gotten security/floor to "force" player B to put chips in the pot?

Who deserves a KITN?

FWIW player A didn't pursue the matter any further afterwards since he didn't want the situation to escalate even further, even though he ended up making the nuts with AKss.

B has totally dissed the significance of the betting line. The casino went to a lot of expense to trace the white out along the pencil tracing, to create that line, for the purposes of deciding which chips play, so on principle those chips are in the pot.

Bottom line is that B deserves the KITN, for making a mockery of a serious poker hand.

It would have been funny if B won the pot in a showdowm after all his looniness...

If the house rule is what ever goes over the line, if in your hand or not is in play then.
No the casino couldn't make him or would make him put his money in the pot, it would for one involve the police and they would say it is a civil matter anyway. So sue him for his chips if it is that important.
The casino did the right thing by banning him and moving on.

It is obviously room dependent, with the most famous incidence where a Russian player at the WSOP main event moved all his chips forward and then back and got the ruling that it wasn't a bet because he hadn't released his hand.

If the bet line is real (several places have a bet line but don't consider it magical, but a courtesy for the dealers to show where people need to leave their bets so the dealer can reach it), then it doesn't matter whether his hands were on the chips or not, they are in play. The floor ruled correctly.

However, the punishment is wrong. The player who scooped the chips out and left shouldn't be allowed back in the room until he pays the debt. The house takes down the winner's information to get him the money if it is ever paid.

The "scooper" would be warned that if he tries to sneak back in and is caught, they'll confiscate his chips to repay the debt, then toss him out.

I'm sure Al's ready, but everyone but the SB and limpers involved deserves a kick (including the floor for giving the wrong punishment, maybe Al is merciful and doesn't use the steel toes for him), including your friend that is willing to let $300 go. I'm sure there are a lot of poker room dealers who would like to know where he works where he gets paid so much he can afford to blow off $300.

The punishment (if it is actually a six-month ban), seems appropriate to me.
Player B was clearly joking and not angle-shooting, since Player A is already all-in.
He is obviously wrong and very very rude...but saying he owes a "debt" of $300 is kind of silly, since he pulled his money back before he actually saw any of the cards. What if he actually held the winning hand?

Can I say, "All-in, oops just kidding," or "I fold, oops just kidding?" Crossing the line, if the room decides it is magical, is exactly the same thing. He owes the money. Trust me, if he put the $300 on black on roulette and pulled it after the croupier declares all betting closed, the casino wouldn't let him off if he said, "My hand never left the chips and I was just kidding."

Same thing. That's player A's money he walked off with.

What exactly would you have liked Player A to do here? It sounds like in the described absence of a strong floor/security response, any further action on Player A's part at that point would have involved physical force (at least attempting to keep him from leaving). I'd probably avoid that whole hassle for the sake of $300, especially since it was a dumb joke gone wrong as opposed to him grabbing chips from my stack and running out of the room. (And no, I don't consider the two situations to be exactly the same even though Player B was an idiot and I agree with the banning.)

Where was this? In AC I think you can call the casino police (gaming commisison?) and they have ways to deal with it...

This happened about 5 nights ago at my local cardroom in Halifax, NS...it would be quite the coincidence but that isnt the casino you are talking about is it?

The floor made a good call.

It absolutely is haha. Wed night.

As soon as he started picking up his chips, yell, "Security, [describe Player B] is stealing chips." That will get everyone's attention, including the security guys who should be barring the door as soon as they hear that and see someone running. My guess is in reality, it will stop Player B in his tracks and he can be convinced it is in his best interest to put the chips in.

If failing to take quick action and Player B is gone, call the room manager over. Tell everyone you're sitting out because you don't want to stop play, but you're speaking to the manager. If you don't get satisfaction, keep moving up. At some point, someone will pick up on the fact that if the runner will leave with my chips, he'll have no problem at some point taking the casino's chips too. I'd keep making that point so the casino employee understands that letting this guy get away with it is going to eventually impact them.

Player B isn't some Newfie that walked in off the street, he knows the floor's ruling is binding and should know better than to be screwing around with a 150BB bet. He should know this place takes the betting line seriously.

To put in perspective, even if you're crushing 1/2, that's the equivalent of 12 hours work Player A just gave up on. I'm sure if his employer told him that they were just kidding about paying him for 12 hours, he wouldn't just let it go.

In the end, if the guy involved doesn't care about it, then fine. However, not everyone is going to be (or should be) the same way.

You can't do any of the things that you describe. And you can't do what Player B did. That is why I agree with the ban.

But I don't agree that Player B owes Player A $300.
He took back his chips before it was at all clear who would have won the pot. If Player B's has turned his hand up before leaving, and that hand would have won the pot, would Player A now owe Player B $300?

The guy made a stupid joke that was clearly against the rules, but this joke had absolutely no upside for him. There was no way for him to take advantage of another player by making this move.
It is entirely different than a player saying "call" on the river and refusing to pay his bet, because he only refused after seeing he was beat and would have taken the other guy's money if he had a winner.

Again, Player B broke the rules and the banning is correct.
But Player A didn't get "screwed" here. The result would have been exactly the same for Player A if Player B had never pulled this "joke" and just folded normally. Player B's action didn't make Player A any better or worse off.

In every state with casino gambling, the gaming laws define cheating (in this case altering the size of a wager) as a criminal offense. Restitution of losses to those who have been cheated is generally a civil matter.

Obviously there's a wide range of possible reactions by the management in these circumstances, but it's by no means cut and dry that the casino won't force a player to make a pot correct. Another facet of the gaming law is that invariably chips are considered property of the casino. In a dispute such as this, it would be perfectly legal for the casino to seize the chips from the player and give a receipt to hold while the gaming commission can render a decision.

However, I think in a case such as this, you are right. Without an actual verbal declaration of a call, the "joking around" explanation is plausible enough that this case isn't going to get far as a legal matter. A long vacation is a good punishment.

I don't see how anyone can agree with the ban but not that he owes Player A the money. Player B's money was ruled to be in the pot - if that player then decides to leave he gives up his claim to his share of the pot (and Player A wins be default if they were HU, or the hand plays out and Player B owes whoever the eventual winner was).

I definitely wouldn't sue Player B, but if it was in someplace like Las Vegas I can't decide if I'd press charges or not. I think I probably would on principle. I probably would have just let the guy get away with his joke, but if for some reason I didn't and got that ruling - I think I'd pursue. Not sure why because it doesn't seem that logical to me.

hey lets chill out. the idiot did a stupid thing but wasnt taking a shot as is stated. so let him leave and not be banned and get a warning.

people gambling do all kinds of things so why punish them too bad for it unless they had a big upside to the move. which is not possible in this case as he would have been calling. if he shoved as a bet then pulled it back then it would be different as he had a chance to win on a free roll.

All due respect Ray, but the floor ruled it a bet. He only left after it was clear that he was going to have put the money in. He could have appealed it to the poker room manager. He's also a regular, so it isn't as if he never played in that room before and didn't have any clue.

In addition, while he could have been joking, he could also do this to try to get a tell from the reaction of from player A. He did 4 bet this pot already, so it isn't like he had 72o. He most likely had QQ+, AK. If Player A had anything less than rockets, he was likely to show a reaction to the call. That's the big upside of trying this. Of course if Player B was angle shooting, he's going to claim he was joking.

If he had mucked his cards, then said "Call," OK, that's a joke. Because there is no way for him to profit.

Yeah, the more I think about it the more I think you have to pursue and punish the behaviour of player B pretty aggressively once its ruled a bet.

If I was player A I probably would have just let it go. However, once the floor comes over and rules the money is in the pot it sets a bad precedent to not enforce the ruling.

But if A is going to protest he needs to do so before the board is dealt out, right? Because he needs to be just as willing to lose his money to Player B as he is willing to take it. He can't wait to see whether he would have won the hand and then claim the money is his! This would be a huge angleshoot by Player A, and much worse than what Player B did.

Absolutely. I just meant that I think Player A was a bit of a douche for pressing the issue originally. But given that he did and got a ruling, I don't think there's anything out of line about pursuing enforcement of the ruling vigorously. I also think the casino's stance should be Player B is banned for 6 months AND until he's paid Player A the money he was owed.

As written, Player A objected immediately after the money was pulled back.

What is this, chess?

What a f*&ktard.

Wow, this is kinda crazy - didn't realize there was so many of us on here...

Do you guys just play 1/2 or also 2/5 and the 5/10 when it runs?

Who was working in the room that let this happen?