So, I had this happen while I was supervising the poker room at my casino:

I had two tables running (lets say tables 30&32), both short handed, until table 32 broke. There were enough seats remaining at table 30 to accommodate 4 of the 5 players left on table 32, which worked out because the 5th player was gone for dinner (let's call him Ben). I got the dealer at table 32 to draw cards for the remaining 4 players for order of choice of seating, racked Ben's chips, and set them aside.

While I was dealing with a few patrons doing some color-ups and changes, Ben came back upstairs and was wrongly informed by another poker player that his chips had been moved to table 30. Only after about 10 minutes or so did I notice that Ben had sat down and was playing another player's stack (let's call him Mark). It turns out that Mark's stack also had a dinner button and was within $20 of Ben's stack, so it is easy to see that this was a simple mistake. Several hands had been played in which Ben says he made around 2 hundred dollars.

I'm a new supervisor (though I've been dealing for nearly 4 years) and I've never seen this situation previously, so I made a couple phone calls. The best solution given to me was to call surveillance and ask them to track the hands that had been played during the time Ben was playing Mark's stack to confirm how much was won so that amount could be taken out of that stack and be given to Ben.

In the end, luckily, Mark knew how much he had left on the table before leaving for dinner. Ben and Mark ended up settling it between themselves, where Mark gave Ben the difference of what he knew he had before leaving for dinner.

Any comments? Would any of you have handled the situation differently?

And hypothetically, what do you think should have happened had the Bad Beat gone while Ben was playing Mark's stack? We also have a promotion where %10 of the Bad Beat gets awarded to a player who gets a royal flush, any ideas what should happen if Ben were to get a royal?

Regarding the BBJ I would consider it nullified since that seat was supposed to be vacant and that player should never be dealt in the hand. Since that player is never supposed to be dealt in the hand it would change the card distribution and the BBJ would never happen.

BBJ should be nullified , but winning 200$ in regular play is ok..where is the logic? Seems like the resolution that would benefit the casino only, while it is casino (its staff) that made the mistake of seating Ben in Mark's seat in the first place.

Mark/Ben 200$ situation was resolved fairly and has seen a good end to it. Even though Ben was dealt Mark's cards, it takes skill to win money at poker so it could have been AA that he won the money with or 72, there is no point getting into that, the money was won by Ben. in case BBj hits, i would split whatever Ben gets with Mark as there is no skill involved, just the hand that was dealt to that particular seat. The arguement that the seat should have been empty can be made by casino, but it is a clear angleshhot, as it is the consequence of their staff mistake and not player's deliberate action in violation of rules.

OP said another player informed Ben where his chips went, so it wasn't the staff seating Ben in Mark's seat. Ben should have asked the staff where his seat was.

I missed that. Allthough my contribution to this thread is undeniable, someone else can take it from here.

I don't work in the industry. I'm a customer.

I'd expect that my chips would be safe, and the same amount of chips that I left would still be there when I returned. I'm not expecting to get a free-roll, or get free-rolled.

If I'm Ben - As played, I'm expecting that I keep the winnings, and pay back the losses to Mark. Jackpots/promos included.

If I'm Mark - As played, I'm expecting Ben to make my stack the same as it was when I left.

Potential problems... sure, plenty. Regulations probably dictate more about major decisions than anything else. I always thought that the rooms were happy for the buzz that promos created, and were looking to fairly award them as often as possible. I'll guess that someone above will make those decisions based on the regulations.

The best measure of what Ben had won would be to count the chips in the stack he was playing. But, you did the right thing since you decided to seek advice and some higher-up told you to consult surveillance ... despite the implied delay to the ongoing game while that was sorted out.....

You seem to know, and Mark seemingly confirmed what he had in his stack when he left for dinner, from which Ben was playing. The difference was what Ben lost or won.

(You also know what Ben actually had when he left, not that that matters.)

Not sure why you think Ben is entitled to get anything from playing Mark's stack, but if so, and Mark and Ben had not settled on a number .... the room can cover that liability.

You are not without fault. Your room was at the point of tables breaking, you knew there were X seats available, because you presumably knew that Mark was at dinner, as was Ben. When Ben came back, you should have been watching for him, noticed and told him, given him his chips and put him on a list for the next seat.

Pay attention to the ongoing games over coloring folks up or cashing them out.

The dealer who let Ben sit down and play also should be talked to. The dealer he replaced, if there had been a change, should have told him Mark was the player on dinner break. If it were the same dealer who gave Mark the dinner button, then he should be talked to a bit harder.

Otherwise, no big deal, the affected players settled it. You punted the matter to higher-ups and made everyone wait for a resolution, which the players themselves eventually arrived at themselves without you actually deciding anything; you have the makings of a veteran floor man/supervisor.

How about the players who lost pots to a guy playing someone else's chips.

Do they deserve a refund? If they complained to the gaming commission could the casino get in trouble?

No

Gzesh, I got the impression that Mark went to dinner after moving to the new table. OP said there were 4 active players and one at dinner at the broken game.

Thanks, Gzesh, though I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Thanks for the feedback everyone, it is much appreciated. I am always looking to improve my skills and learn more and this forum looks like it will be quite helpful.

You are correct, Chillrob, Mark took a dinner button after moving to table 30.

This is simply incorrect. The room is in zero way liable to cover anything. Are you saying that the money Ben won now belongs to Mark? What if Ben had lost? Is mark then just out that money or would you expect Ben to be liable to make up the loses to Mark? You really aren't making any sense. Mark can't freeroll on Ben's mistake. It doesn't work that way.


Also incorrect. You did nothing wrong. In fact, you did everything correctly when breaking the table. The only thing I would have done differently is that I always draw a card for any absent players, but your room may have a different procedure. The player was 100% at fault for not asking the staff where his chips went and just assuming that a random empty seat with chips was his.

So how do we ever cash anyone out then? There are always players away from the tables. Are we supposed to dedicate an employee to keeping track of each and every player that is away and make sure no one else sits in their seat?

What makes you think the dealers know these players by name? I don't know who the hell Mark or Ben is. Especially in a room with 30+ tables...



My advice to OP or basically what I would have done:

I would have had both players wait while I called surveillance. I would ask surveillance to try to tell me how much Mark had in his stack when he left for dinner. If they can't give me an exact amount at least a very close estimate should be easily available. I would give this info to them both and ask that they work it out between themselves with the advice that Ben makes it right as close as possible. This means Ben keeps anything he won while he was playing. Then I'm giving Mark his seat back and ben can wait on the list.

I would never ask surveillance to track every hand he played and try to determine how much he won. They will never be able to do that accurately. It sounds like it worked itself out this time and that is always the best result. It is a good thing Mark knew how much he had when he left (great tip for all players to follow).

Suit and I typically are along the same lines ... but I can never resist the chance to expand a thread!!

1) No Bravo to show who's on dinner? Dealer may not have know the difference between P1 and P2, but the Players should've known whose chips those were .. even if the Player hadn't even taken a hand after combining.

2) Improve the room procedure? Typically when a Player goes on dinner the chips are counted, racked and 'capped' with another rack AND a piece of paper with the time, chip count and Player's name.

3) Under these unique circumstances I treat this no different than a play-over, so any promos and/or gains/losses of chips are the sitting Player's 'responsibility'.

4) Do your best to make sure that both parties are whole and move on. Players who may have lost pots along the way are OOL ... action giving, action accepted.

There was at least one similar thread about a tournament spot where a Player either sat back down at the wrong table or their table broke 'at break' and played from someone else's stack. The ramifications of tournament play are more wide spread for sure, but I think there was a similar solution. GL

If the BBJ would be nullified by this, then all the players that won pots during this time should be refunded the BBJ rake.

The BBJ would not be nullified by this. This gets used as a reason for things way too much. Wives tales.

Right. I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of nullifying the BBJ for any of the absurd reasons people claim it will be nullified for.

If it were the case, all of that rake would have essentially been stolen from the players with no chance of winning.

This. I suppose some rooms don't allow play-overs but if they do, it should be treated this way. Even if it doesn't, just treat it as an exception to the rule. Figure out the relative stacks and make up the difference. The last thing you want to do is have surveillance track hands. They may be able to estimate Mark's stack with some degree of accuracy. Luckily Mark knew what he had so that was easy.

In a room with (now) 1 live table running, this shouldn't have been difficult to avoid. But I'm sure you know that now. How do you technically mark meal breaks? In our room we have little plaques and we write the name and departure time on the plaque. We rack the chips up if we get a play-over request.

And yeah, no way in hell does the BB get nullified.

mark gets all the winnings.