Yeah above is correct, villian with headphones loses whole stack. Once all-in is confirmed by dealer its so very simple and straightforward.


Next time solution: All-in button or dont have headphones in.

-- or ask "what's the count?"

No matter if it's $1 or $100 chips being put in - always ask the count - that way there cannot be any confusion.

The local casino uses all-in buttons and I have not yet seen a controversy from their use.

You know what would fix this problem? Banning headphones in poker rooms. Are we there to jam out to Katy Perry or are we playing poker?

yeah thats probably the worst solution so far, good try though

ive also never seen a problem with AI buttons, no idea what 2outs means, as SOON as the dealer tosses the AI button player is ALL IN, no questions, no betting line, no ****s given if you try to argue the outcome.

perhaps he thinks the players each have an all-in button? LOL thats what im assuming.

BRILLIANT!

Actually I would argue that most of the headphones crowd would play poorly without them. Without the distraction they'd get bored/irritated.

To be fair, if you've never seen an all-in button, why wouldn't you think this is a valid way for the all-in button to be handled? I still have never seen one and I wouldn't know the dealer is responsible for throwing it in front of a player if I hadn't read it here in B&M. So "LOL @ him" though, right?

Not to mention that the first time I ever saw an all-in button was at the WSOP in 2006 and players were given them to optionally throw in when they went in all in. My experience was that few people actually used them and they did result in some issues when players claimed they accidentally dropped them. That experience may be why most places that use them now have the dealers throw them out.

I suspect that it's somewhere in the middle - some are distracted, some find it focusing...

At Foxwoods in bounty tournaments your bounty chip or chips serve as an all-in button. Just tossing them in indicates you are all-in. This works fairly well.

Every now and then somebody mistakes two green $25 "bounty" chips for two green 25 tournament chips or one black $100 for a 100 black tourney chip) . And the fun begins...

meh i dunno, i usually just think about it. 10 buttons seems hilariously unlikely even if i didnt know about AI button existing. as said above, the wsop tried it, saw how awful it was when players are given them, now the dealers control it.

This is why in my room they are specifically told bounty chips are not action.

What if the player had said, "I call the $100."?

That's what exactly what happened. He called and put 100 dollars into the pot.

The rules say that the raiser must ensure that the other person understands the action before they turn their cards over. They ignored that rule because they feel that if circumstances where different he should have understood.

They did that even though the rules don't even hint at that being relevant, it's pretty much all everyone wants to talk about.

Not exactly.

So I watched the video from surveillance of this hand and here's exactly what happened...

Obviously we can't hear what is said so we will go by what has been told to us for that.

OTR A says "I'm all in". He then slides a stack of red across the line ($100). Dealer says "he's all in". B then says "I call". A then tables his hand. B then tables his hand. B then cuts out 100 in red chips across the line. In that exact order. Also, I will note that B was holding a stack of red in his hand (100+) before the river card was even brought by the dealer and he kept this stack in his hand and it is the stack he used to cut out 100 across the line. I only mention this because it wasn't like he had to go to his stack and grab ~100 to make the call.

So it is obvious that:
-B said "I call" before putting chips in the pot.
-A showed his hand first and after B said "I call" and before B put any chips in.
-B showed his losing hand before he put any chips in the pot.

It took just under 2 seconds from the time A pushed that stack across the line until both hands were face up on the table. The dealer had zero time to clarify any action and it is very unlikely he could've gotten an all in button out in time either. In fact the dealer is looking at A for his action and as soon as he slides in the stack of red the dealer turns to look at B and by the time he turns his head the cards are being tabled. It was fast.

Anyway, after reviewing the tape, my mind has not changed. I would still rule this exactly the same.

As a side note... Once the river card comes, B reaches up and appears to pull one of his earbuds out as if to hear better or hear what was said. It's almost like he knows A said something so he pulls it out and hears the dealer repeat it. This is speculation as I cannot tell when anything is said.

You made the correct ruling, this is an allin and a call. Player A is potentially getting freerolled if ruled otherwise

Good thing!

My mistake. My comment was intended for the person who put in 100 dollars when he shoved, definitely not for you. You're in a pretty tough situation having to judge something you didn't witness first hand.

My feeling is that the person who could have made his action totally clear is mostly responsible. I have a feeling that most of the young people in the forum with excellent hearing feel differently.

The more and more I think about this I really feel like I want to rule in favor of the caller. It just seems to me like you could go around and bet an absurdly different amount than the amount you put in the pot and trick people into calling a bet they did not realize they were making. Sit in the one so the dealer can hear you, bet $200 and put out a $5 chip on the river. It just seems like it's not in the spirit of the game.

I understand any other ruling allows the caller to free roll for the guys stack but I'm not sure about how else to handle it. Maybe we need to make an addendum to rrop where it says a a bet size should always be unambiguous. All bets where chips are placed in the pot should be the exact size of the bet. Players should not be allowed to verbalized a bet size but make it appear to be another size

And as I continue to dwell on this I really feel almost no recourse for the bettor. He created the situation by making an ambiguous action

I would be extremely hesitant to play in any room that would rule this in favor of the caller.

So do you think I should be able to verbalize any bet, throw out a different amount for villain to clearly see, and be able to be awarded money the player may never have intended on putting in play?

I think all the circumstances of the specific case should be viewed as to whether or not the bettor here had a reasonable reason to think that the caller did not know the bet size before bettor turned up his cards.

In this case with the information we have I think the bettor had no reason to believe the Caller thought the bet was only $100 and therefore the ruling should be that it is a call of the whole bet.

But you could create a similar situation with slightly different facts where the opposite ruling is appropriate.

So what happens when the hands are reversed?

Guy goes all in (verbalizes it) on river with KQ..slides out $100....guy calls and tables AJ....original bettor slides over the $100.....caller says where is the rest?.....bettor says I only put out $100. Now what?