On the large chips issue, I have also already shared a neutral way to 'answer' that.
- inform player/table, large denom must be clearly visible to everyone
- state hidden large chips may not play (I like MAY as then the reverse free roll is in play.)
- additional penalty may be incurred for hiding chips

Personally, I don't have an issue with dealer saying, 'large denom ships need to be visible;front and or on top' and 'it appears he is stacked within the clear view rule'. The former puts notice out to ensure the rule is understood.

Maybe the dealer just says, 'please ensure all large denom chips are clearly visible; outfront and/or on top'.

Maybe someone else has a better way. I am not adverse to the dealer 'assisting' to ensure the clear view rule is followed. Because which player is he 'assisting'? I contend both. Ensures one player is getting the needed clear view and the other will be able to play his full stack with out penalty.

But I am not married to this opinion. If someone can make a case that the dealer can only sit quietly, I will listen to their position and logic. Might even be convinced to change my mind.

I prefer the dealer not make definitive statements 'he has no big chips' or 'he has 5 black' because they are not binding plus he isn't supposed to be estimating chips behind. Thus a more neutral means of meeting the clear view or don't play rule seems better.

Again, I could be convinced otherwise but I have not seen that convincing case presented. Just 'it speeds up the game if I do it' will generally not be convincing to me.

LOL, stop. I can't help but laugh.

You obviously are not being pedantic enough. Seriously. You keep quoting me things I did not ask. I asked what rule was being broken by a dealer saying there were no large chips behind.

Being pedantic, you would realize I am not asking what a player may or may not request. I am asking about a dealer offering up info in response to a clearly confused situation in order to keep the game moving.

Again. I am not saying a player can request a more precise count.

No duh. That is not my point.

My question was where does it say a dealer shouldn't? What rule is being broken by a dealer offering up clarifying information in order to keep the game moving in what is obviously a confused situation?

Oh come on, I know you are not this dense. I have to conclude that you are just being stubborn. Sorry.

We are talking about a situation where a player asks to see another players stack, that player moves his arms but the initial player is still uncomfortable with his view. He is either afraid that he cannot see big chips or he is missing them. Reality applies. As I have already mentioned, quoting rules that say all big chips must be visible ignores the fact that what is visible from one seat may not be clearly visible from other seats, especially given in the real world there is all sorts of crap on the table and potential obstacles in the way. If the player asks if the other player has big chips it is quite clear he doesn't have a good enough view of the other players stack or why would he ask?

That also ignores my example of big chips being clearly visible but distinctly separate and easily missed. What then?

What is wrong with a dealer providing a sanity check to an obviously confusing situation? What is gained by letting a player wallow in his struggle to get a clear view an see if there are more chips than he can see? Should the dealer just sit there dumb until the player gets up and walks over so he can get a better view of the other players stack?

What is gained? Answer that question. The only answer I can come up with is that players can take advantage of other players who do not have perfect views of their chips. That doesn't seem like poker to me

No. I just have to ask what rule prevents it. No answer so far.

Sure if one ignores intent and all sorts of reasonableness I don't like arguments that rely on ignorance.

LOL

Do you seriously think your hyperbole is a rational argument and is comparable to helping out an obviously confused situation?

You are better than this. Your stubbornness is hurting you. Stick to what people argue, not what you make up.

Let's make it even more pedantic. How many times can a player request to see another player's chips? If I ask to see another player's stack and he quickly moves his arms but I do not get a good enough glimpse (maybe my eyesight is bad), so I ask again and be moves his arms. I see stacks of red but am unsure of bigger chips. I ask if he has large chips. He ignores the question.

I then stand up and walk over to the player and ask him to move his arms so I can see his chips. He refuses saying that I have already saw them twice.

I can 100% guarantee you that if a floor is ever called to a game because one player is uncertain of what chips another player has behind, the floor will insure the the asking player has the correct information to make his decision. What is the purpose of hidden information here?

Actually that is a good answer.

Respect.

The rule was quoted. #60IIRC

Now if you believe ‘The player can not request the count but the dealer can do it voluntarily’ then again you are the one choosing to be illogical and stubborn. What other rule can the dealer unilaterally decide to enforce that a player may not request be enforced’?

What rule is broken if the dealer calls the clock?

What rule says anything not specifically disallowed is allowed? That is the position you are taking. You are actually going farther saying even if not allowed by player request there needs to be a separate rule top stop the dealer volunteering to do something

If your illogic applies here why not to calling the clock? Why not to giving prior street action? Where is the rule listing all of these?

Also note the rule says when the player request the count of bet chips the dealer / floor will do the count. There is no language allowing to voluntarily do so. LOGIC AND REASON (which you refuse to use here) would dictate such a unique exception vs other rules would be documented if it existed.

Any discussion about latte chips is simply a diversion of the discussion since the specific question was about a dealer giving an estimate. If you would like a discussion of clear view that should be a separate thread. Feel free to start it.

Btw locally there is no prob with junk and trash on the table. No drinks. No napkins. No phones. Nothing except cards chips and card protectors allowed on table. If protector is too large or obscures view must be removed. That is the rule and it is enforced.

But again these off topic questions are just a weak attempt to divert the primary discussion.

It absolutely does not ignore that fact:

The rule does not make an exception for some seats at some times. You want the answer to the question By whom? to exclude one or more players in the very game it is describing. What are you ever talking about.

Your arguments are not able to survive being observed. That is a problem with your arguments, not the responses.