2/5 NL. Three-way pot on the turn, guy goes all in and it include a purple $500 chip, a couple black, and some small chang. Pretty sure the purple was on the bottom of his stack and blends in with the $2 chips blue chips (which he also had in the stack). Dealer says the $500 chip doesn't play at these stakes. Player objects.

The floor is called and the floor confirms the rule that purple doesn't play to avoid exactly this kind of situation. The guy argues that it was in his stack for an hour and no dealers warned him against it. A player 2 seats to his left confirms that the purple was always there, but I had never seen it from across the table and no one else seemed to chime in.

The floor again says purple doesn't play, but says he will allow it "this time" since a dealer never caught it and color it down after the hand. Neither of the other 2 players in the pot said a word the whole time and the hand marches on with the full stack bet.

Purple doesn't play but he can exchange it for 5 black and the black then play?

Sounds stupid.

There could be an argument that the purple chip was hidden so it won't play. Largest denomination chips must be front and visible.

I feel like this is the right ruling.

The gentlemen doesn’t seem to be angling. Technically the chip was in front but those unfamiliar may not understand.

Floor ruled in a way that seems to be the intent of the player. And that seems to be the best way to rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

How is the player supposed to know the chip doesn't play if nobody tells him? (This isn't a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know if it is the responsibility of the player to find out.)

Fair question but that could be exploited by a player who does know the rule pretending they didn't. I don't think that was the case here, hopefully the floor would have some judgement over whether the player is a regular or not.

I'm for this rule and wish more casinos would use it. There's literally no reason to have a purple at 2/5 table, or even a black at a 1/2 table. All it will do is help players go south and cause difficult situations when the chip isn't noticed.

That being said, I'm okay with this ruling. It's up to the dealer(s) first and foremost to enforce this rule. It doesn't seem fair that this guy is allowed to have the purple in his stack for as long as he did and only be told it doesn't play as he's shoving.

Doesn't play? And it's hidden? Bad ruling if you ask me.

Another situation where the "rules" are what ever the floor says they are. This is certainly not the worst ruling. Maybe letting it go one time is best for the table vibe. It should be a one time floor descision to play on and trade in the oversized chip for 5 Hundreds or a stack of greens.

My room recently adopted the rule that black chips don't play on 1/2. If a dealer misses it and it's not confirmed with the dealer before the hand, then it is treated like cash "sorry, but next hand that will be in play and I'll change it out for you". I feel like that should be the case here too, what's to say this guy didn't slip a purple in with his blacks when he realized he had the nuts and claim "it was here the whole time!" Big chips out front/on top is a universal rule, the fact that this guy had them under his blacks makes me hate this ruling.

If purple doesn't play is the rule, then purple doesn't play should be the ruling. It doesn't matter that the dealer didn't say anything. Especially because the chip was likely hidden.

The biggest problem with the ruling is that an angleshooter can be sitting on the nuts knowing that he could get this ruling overturned by the head of the room but doesn't escalate it because he has the nuts.

If I sit in a PLO game and am playing for the low and its a high only game, do I get half the pot? What if nobody told me?

This is strictly a protect your hand situation. Whenever I sit in a cash game I always ask if cash plays. And if it is hundreds only. If a guy has a stack of twenties under a hundred and twenties don't play, does it matter how long he has sat with them? It shouldn't.

Maybe most rooms specify in their house rules which chips play in which game, but I know of at least one room that doesn’t and am pretty sure that’s not the only one.

If there’s no written rule and the dealer didn’t tell the player, the chip should play unless it’s considered “hidden”. But then the ruling shouldn’t be “purple doesn’t play here” but “hidden large denomination chips don’t play”.

After the hand is over, the player should be forced to color the chip down.

1. The only legitimate reason to make a one time exception is if the player were actively given information that purple played. If he asked the dealer and the dealer said it played, I'd be okay with a one time exception. If he colored up to a purple and someone gave it to him, I'd be okay with a one time exception. If he came in with a purple and put it on top of his stack for an hour, I'm okay with the presumption of innocence with the idea that everyone (specifically, the cameras) had full view.

2. The fact that the chip was hidden skews the situation away from presumption of innocence. Certainly the more he insists that he is technically abiding by the rules, the less likely this was an accident and more likely this was deliberate.

This is similar to a Player sitting down with more than the table stakes allows. If it's not caught before the start of a hand, then it plays for that hand and adjustments are made accordingly after the hand ... depending on the result.

The fact that it was hidden certainly adds a second contributing issue, but we shouldn't change a fairly standard ruling that we would give for them independently just because they both occurred at the same time.

These are both 'warning' issues IMO with any adjustments coming between hands, not during a hand. GL

When did the chip enter his stack? If it was when he sat down, correct ruling. If he slid it under some $2 chips mid session then it shouldn't play in that room.

Not sure what max buy-in is for that game, but in general a player should make the presence of a $500 chip completely obvious to avoid this scenario.

most new players hide there big chips under there stack because they don't want to accidentally bet them or lose them.

ruling was fine

also no one wants this player leaving most likely

My home casino adopted the rule that no blacks or larger play at 1/2 a while back. I thought it was the correct decision, as large denomination chips caused nothing but headaches at a 1/2 table. Plus there was always the people that would run up a stack and color up to purples and even 1k pumpkins just so they can say they had them on the table at a 1/2 game.

As for the situation in question, I dunno, I really don't like the ruling. Yes the player had the chip on the table for a while, but it sounds like it wasn't properly displayed. While it may not be fair to short a player's stack by $500 mid-hand, it's also not fair to the other players in the hands that suddenly find out their opponent has upwards of $500 extra in his stack (depending on what chip they believed the purple to be beforehand) in the middle of the hand once he decides to shove. An apology from the floor to the player with the purple for not seeing it and correcting things before now, but I'm going with the house rules and not forcing other players in the hand to be facing an opponent who has an illegal chip in play and suddenly has a much deeper stack than what they believed he had at the start of the hand. Bad ruling by the floor IMO

If the dealer doesn't correct the situation for a significant amount of time, then the floor has discretion. If the players in the hand both object, maybe the ruling should go with the "no play" rule but when there is a discrepancy and sufficient doubt, whatever the floor believes makes sense should be appropriate. I know it's wishy washy but that's how it should be to allow floors to have sufficent power over the game.

I for one am not disagreeing that the floor should have the authority to make the ruling that they believe is appropriate, I just don't like the ruling given the info that's provided. If there's even a possibility that the unknown deeper stack puts the other players in the hand at a disadvantage, which we know it is "possible", I don't think the other players in the hand should have to bare that burden when they aren't the ones that made the mistake.

Here's the deal. Purple doesn't play. This means purple doesn't play. Or in other words: purple doesn't play. Whether you have had the purple chip in your stack for 1 hand or 32 hours straight, it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't play. Bad ruling by the floor. Bad dealers for never saying anything.

It is no different than cash not playing and someone having a stack of bills on the table. They can't later decide they are all in and those bills are now in play.
"I'm sorry sir, but purple doesn't play in this game and I cannot let it go."
"But I've had it in my stack for hours!"
"Well apparently this is the first time you've tried to bet it, at least that I know about, and that doesn't change the fact it doesn't play. Again, I'm sorry."

You walk into the poker room, take a quick look at the house rules posted on the wall (that don’t tell you which chips play), sit down at 2/5 and decide to match the biggest stack at the table. That belongs to a guy who has $195 in red and one purple.

For the next two hours you play every single hand under the impression that guy has a stack of $695 which alters your preflop play significantly from playing someone with a stack of $195. Now you finally make your set against his overpair and snap off his shove only for him to tell you at showdown “sorry bro, you’re not getting that chip, haha”. Would you ever go back to that poker room?

You're not wrong here, but it goes both ways. We were told the chip wasn't even properly displayed. So the situation could also arise where a player decides he's willing to call down with something like TPNK because he believes the player in question has a $200 stack. Then after he's put money in the pot the opponent jams and it's revealed that the player in question has a $700 stack instead. Both situations could arise, but when there's even a chance that the unknown extra money in the stack puts other players who did nothing wrong at a disadvantage, the floor should always favor on the side of the known house rules.

I would want to know why he was allowed to have that purple chip on the table so long. The staff is supposed to regulate that and should have caught it. I'm assuming it was hidden because the staff didn't catch it. Either way, it doesn't change the rule. If you have a rule that says purple does not play then you can't allow it to play just because it wasn't noticed.

Question for you:
You walk into the poker room, take a quick look at the house rules posted on the wall (that don’t tell you which chips play), sit down at 2/5 and decide to match the biggest stack at the table. That belongs to a guy who has $695 in red with a purple chip at the bottom of one of them that you don't see.

For the next two hours you run your stack up to $1,200 and play every single hand under the impression that guy has a stack of $695 which alters your preflop play significantly from playing someone with a stack of $1,195. Now you finally make your set against his straight and are doubling him up only for him to tell you at showdown “sorry bro, you must've missed this purple chip, haha”. The floor comes over and says purple doesn't play, but I'll let it go this time because he has had it in his stack for at least 2 hours. Would you ever go back to that poker room?

Both of the previous posts use information that is not present in the hypothetical to argue against the point that the hypothetical attempts to express. A hidden chip should be dealt with in accordance with the rules and procedures that apply to hidden chips. The argument that madlex is responding to is one that clearly does not assume or require that the chip is hidden:

If you rule the chip was hidden, it shouldn’t play. Not because it’s purple or magenta or rainbow but because hidden larger domination chips shouldn’t play.

If you have a rule posted on the wall or at the table to tell players which chips play, the chip shouldn’t play. Then you point to that rule and tell the player he should have known. That’s also pretty clear.

The (potentially hypothetical) problem occurs when purple doesn’t play because the room decided it shouldn’t play but didn’t put that in writing anywhere accessible to players and relies on dealers informing the players.

This unfortunately may be the case in some rooms. I know the casino I play in that banned blacks or larger from the 1/2 game did not update their house rules that are posted on a sign when you enter the room, and this rule change took place a while ago. They just expect their dealers to spot it and enforce it in-game. There's been a handful of times where someone sat down who wasnt familiar with the rule and I ended up letting them know to avoid any confusion, as the dealer never spotted the chips themselves.