$2/5 game where max buyin is $500. $100 bills play on the table. Reg player loses an all-in, reaches into pocket, puts some $100 bills on the table. Gives some but not all of them to the dealer who changes them into chips. Player now has combo of chips and $100 bills.

A few hands pass, reg does not put any chips in any pots. Finally he's involved in a hand in which he gets all-in preflop against a player who covers him. The player who covered does not win, reg wins. Reg has $600, more than the max buyin, even though he hasn't played a pot -- obviously when he rebought he put more than the table max on the table. Player who lost the all-in says he should only pay $500, floor is called. What to do?

I'm recounting story 3rd hand so here is one possibly critical detail I don't know: Who went all-in preflop? Was the preflop wager ever stated as $600 or did one player go all-in and was called without a $ value ever being stated?

My thoughts:
- It is dealer's responsbility to confirm player hasn't bought in for more than the max. I don't see how that's practically possible in a room where cash plays without dealer counting out everyone's cash every time they add-on or rebuy. IMO this is why cash shouldn't play.
- This is why all chips should be brought into the pot before the board is dealt; the discrepancy would've been discovered before someone was in a position to win a freeroll. If it had been discovered pre that the player had $600, what is the correct decision?
- If the guy who lost jammed and was called, there's no way he could've known his opponent's effective stack was greater than $500. It seems fair to make him only pay $500.
- If the reg jammed and was called by the guy who lost but the bet was never counted out since the guy who lost knew he covered, it still seems like the loser was safe to assume the reg had no more than $500 but still might have had the responsbility to ask for the bet size. I'd still be fine with having him pay $500 -- he was freerolling but if you buy in for more than the max, you deserve to get freerolled.
- If the bet was ever counted out as $600 preflop and loser did not object, loser was just freerolling and should pay $600.

Hypotheticals:
- If you think the loser should only pay $500, do your answers change depending on how long the reg played without playing a pot? What if he blinds down for 1 hour and is found to have $550? What if he wins a small pot just before this hand and is up to $625?
- What should dealers practically do to prevent this situation?
- What if player had changed all 6 bills for chips and dealer changed it all despite game max? Probably someone would've said something but suppose no one does.
- If you think no matter what the loser is obligated to pay $600, what protects such a player from players deliberately going north above the table max? Other than the dealer who I think we've established is pretty ineffective at protecting the players here.

I think the loser is absolutely obligated to pay and the winner should be 86'd if it's happened before.

The loser pays $600, then the reg has to take $200 off the table. The loser should have objected before all the cards were dealt out (and exposed), then he would have a case.

It's the dealer's job to police the game, not the players'. That's what they pay rake for. Whenever someone rebuys the dealer should remind him of the table limit if there's any doubt. Most reasonable players will verify they only have $500 on the table.

The casino takes ~$150/hour in rake to pay the dealer $5/hour? Interesting.

I think the guy who violated the buy-in should get free-rolled. If he loses, he loses the max and if he wins, he only gets $500. This is one of several reasons some casinos have stopped allowing cash to play.

You are hired.

What a player starts a hand with is what he plays so he was playing $600 for the hand. If he broke a rule it should be fixed after the hand or by him getting kicked out after the hand.

Or both.

The reg should know what the max buyin is and that you can’t exceed it. Can you really expect players to count chips/cash in this situation? He only gets $500.

I reject the premise b/c every table I have ever sat at has an eagle-eyed nit who would have called out the over-limit rebuy. Every.dang.one

personally that never effects me as if a player pushes all in or makes a bet i always ask how much is the bet and make the pot right by putting my money in with his.

i am old school where if a player makes a bet and you accept it then it is in force. same as if a person over bets the pot in pot limit. you accept the bet then it stands. no way should after the fact money be returned.

and yes it is the dealers responsibility to protect the players, not just deal the cards. so ones that dont or are inept show the proper appreciation so you dont perpetuate the bad dealers and then have to complain about how you got screwed out of all your money.

There have been similar threads before this and the vast majority of them keep all the chips in play for the ongoing hand. The Dealer should've verified how much was put on the table. The reg can certainly state that two bills were stuck together ... and the loser of the hand could certainly be pulling an angle. (Ask him if he was going to rebate the $100 if he had won the pot. He has to say yes.)

I don't think we let the winner go south. It's not fair that the loser/table misses out on the opportunity to regain those chips.

It's obviously up to the Floor to observe how the reg is handling the spot before taking other action. In the vast majority of 2/5 and up tables I think you would find that most of the Players don't care if a guy buys in above the table limit as long as they know about it. GL

What if he loses the hand and tries to keep the extra $100?

=)

I lean to holding the bet to 500, especially given sloppy stacking by the perpetrator.

The victim has reasonable basis to believe that villain should never have more than 500 here. Whether it is villain error, dealer error, or both, villain did in fact break the rules by buying in more and was aware of the rule. Ultimately, i think there is more potential for abuse by buyin limits not being enforced/respected than the villain being free-rolles for 100. Once villain plays some hands, the loser is out of luck, as tracing back the action is not practical. But since villain has not played any hands there is no real way to wiggle away from the fact he broke the rules and deserves a penalty.

if victim asks for a count before the hands are shown and accepts the number it plays. if he objects and holds it to 500 its his choice.

if he says nothing and immediately after the hands are shown finds out its more than 500 then all he pays is 500. and if he just rakes it in then he gets whatever was in there.

Reread the first post.... this was not the first hand after he bought in

Yeah no ****. He played “a few” hands without putting a single chip in the pot. Can you do better than to assume that monikrazy or any of us didn’t read the first post?

I apologize he did read the post he was just referring to playing a hand as putting chips in the pot as OP did. If you are dealt into a hand you are still playing it in my opinion. I guess if you're a blind and you fold it's not considered playing as well or it is???

Hero had plenty opportunity to ask for count.

How chips are stacked is immaterial since it was cash where extra was.

Villain broke rules so fine penalize him but it is a table stakes game. The extra plays. Penalty after hand which for me is warning. But here we can match big stack so hero can’t be hurt by buy in size limit.

I just watched a player get felted and rebuy.
He hasn't dragged a pot. The max rebuy is 500.

Try to make me pay the extra 100 and the gaming commission is getting a call.

opponent if hadnt had the stack counted can have it lowered to the 500. if counted and he accepts that amount then it can or should play.

other wise if it auto plays then what prevents someone from sneaking more bills in the pot and claiming it plays because the opponent didnt count.

or worst he loses and claims it doesnt play because he wasnt allowed in the first place to have that much. since the rule says only 500 is the max.

“You know that I just got stacked and had to rebuy, so it’s obviously $500 to start the hand you *****************” is a way more likely outcome to that question than the once in a blue moon situation of him rebuying for more than the max.

1. Call gaming. I bet in most jurisdictions unless it is a law or regulated max they will say action offered action accepted.

2. It does not matter if he rebought last hand or an hour ago. Doesn’t matter if he has played no hands or every hand I am asking the DEALER for a count. Not him.

3. As to addictive my on in the hand. If he does and gets away with it. Then by definition it plays because you don’t know he did d it. If you catch him doing in the hand then that action was never accepted. So it doesn’t play. And after the hand he’s given a rack and a vacation.

4. Last why are you all fighting against more money on the table with a V who will put it in play. Play well and tak it all plus the extra and hope he does it again when felted again b

So rules are optional? When are they enforced? Against whom? Is it enforced the same whether the guy who broke the rule is the big whale or the big reg? Maybe let it slide for the whale but punish the reg?* Max buyin rules protect recs who would otherwise pick up than risk their stack at table stakes (e.g. guy doubles from $500 to $1000 and now covers the effective stack of $700, but he might leave if everyone could then top up to $1000 making him have to risk the whole stack in a single hand).

*Actually in this instance I think it'd be reasonable to punish the reg since he's more likely to have done this intentional/know the rule in the room.