This happened this evening. I wasn't in the hand and the 3 people in the hand didn't really care. So at no point was a ruling requested. But interesting to me...what if it mattered?

Post flop:

Player 1 bets $100
Player 2 short stack goes all in. His stacks aren't neat, so when he shoves, no one really knows amount. As he's putting his chips in he pre-tokes the dealer 4$.
There's no intended angle here.

Player 3 asks for a count.

Player 2 stack was $203 to start. He tokes dealer $4. Dealer drops toke. Counts the bet and it's now $199. Doesn't open the betting for original better now.

Turns out player 3 reraises and issue is moot.

What if it didn't play out this way and it did matter to player 1? What if, for example, player 2 snap calls before there is a count.

Not reopening betting would allow players to angle.

Players could in general also make a case for the player not being allowed to tip from his stack during a hand. that's usually tolerated but only in a reasonable way.

I am also not a fan of allowing players to use a significant percentage of their stack for off-table stuff even if it's not during a hand. Always reminds me getting AA vs. KK AI preflop at Bellagio, losing and then witnessing the other player using part of that money to get a $60 massage at the table. I don't think that's OK.

I have serious issues with the dealer dropping a pre-tip from an at-risk stack. Holy ****.

It's obviously somewhat contentious, but I think many rooms would allow tipping just about any amount from an uncommitted stack to a room employee or contractor (like massage or room service or maybe food delivery). In some exceptionally gross cases, like when the player tips all but $1, they might intervene, but then again they might not.

Once the stack has been bet, or used to call an all in, I don't think you are permitted to reach over and grab some of it to tip with though (at least not until you've won the hand). If the drink girl comes by and you need a dollar mid-hand, many people probably wouldn't quibble with it, though some of the nittier players might. But not $60 for a massage, no ****ing way.

Do you feel that way about $4 waitress tips?

It's not 1967 any more, guys. People sometimes tip > $1 for things.

ytf I honestly have no idea wtf your comment has to do with mine, sorry. Yes I would have a problem with a waitress dropping a $4 pre-tip from a bet but a lot of those words do not cleanly translate to a waitress situation. I also don't expect the waitress to understand what is happening.

If he tips, then goes all in no problem.
If he goes all in, then tips there is a problem.

Realistically I wouldn't probably bring it up unless it caused me a problem (like not being able to reopen).

If you re-read the post, you'd see that he goes all-in, then tokes.

No one is talking about bringing it up to anyone.

I thought the op was pretty clear. It's now a hypothetical.

I dont think anyone would have an issue if this hypo was that 2 tipped before going AI....though doing it right before going AI is quirky too. Dealer gets KITN for taking it, even though I understand the desire for a $4 in what I assume is a 1-2, 1-3 or maybe a 2-5 game. The ruling would have to be that the $4 goes back into his stack and the bet is $203- how it gets there is a different issue, as crappy as this would be to fix it would have to be done. However, the stink it would create at the table would be so bad that I cant imagine someone would make such a fuss about it.

So tell us already - how did the hand end?

As I said in the post- player 3 reraises. Hence the issue is moot, that opened up the betting for player 1. Player 1 calls the reraise. Player 1 was a station. How the hand went down after, I forget.

My point was - say player 3 just calls.

If that happened, action back to player 1 to call or fold to a less than now legal raise.

As I also said, player 1 didn't actually care about it not opening up the raise during the hand. He did joke about taking money from what might be his pot.

It was 2/5. Was a friendly game at the time. What does the stakes have to do with anything?

Doubt anyone would make a stink? The point is what if player 3 flats and player 1 wants to shove? Player 1 and 3 both cover player 2 by a lot. The issue isn't $4 from the pot per se. The issue is, it technically is not a legal raise. When I said, what if it mattered; I thought it was obvious that I meant what if it matter relative the the action. What if player 3 flats and player 1 wants to 3 bet?

If it were an issue and I was the floor, I'd rule that the second the player said "all in," his chips were no longer in his possession. They belonged to the pot. As such, he can't commit money from the pot which he doesn't own to someone else. Just as he couldn't decide on the turn that he wants to give the waitress $4 from the pot. Therefore, player 3 can re-raise.

Now if he tipped the $4 before he said "all in," then I'd rule player 3 can't re-raise. Sure, he could have been doing an angle shot but it harms him as well.

I think that's a bad ruling. Players A and C go to the turn under the assumption that player B's stack is $203. It should not be at player B's discretion to decide if his stack size for that betting round is $203 or any number smaller than that.

I agree with this.

Both scenarios (before or after) during a hand if you take money out of stack to tip, dealer/waitress, pay for a massage, etc. if it effects betting, should somehow be added back into pot. Or at least be counted as part of the bet.

I thought this was interesting because I don't think think many/any of us have come across this.

Mods - note I originally posted this in PG&C by accident. It's still in there on page 2 or 3. If you want to delete that post. I couldn't.

Ok, I missed that the tip came after the all-in declaration. But it's such an insignificant amount; it came at essentially the same time as the bet; and this is the one time in a million that it affects something.

If I'm the floor, I rule it's ok. If the nits start making fiery speeches about how this ruling will lead to the crumbling of civilization, I'll add the standard warning, "Please don't do it again," then walk away without caring if he ever does it again. This allows the nits to feel like they won.

Won what, I have no idea.

As described, player did not tip from an at-risk stack. Player shoved, then tipped from chips in the pot. This should not have been allowed.

You realize the issue isn't that someone else might win the hand and get shorted $4, right? It's that the original raiser can't reraise if another player just calls the $199.

The hand started. Player takes money off stack after hand started. Whether before goin all-in or after. Regardless, it could effect player 1, big time. If player 3 asked for a count and now sees it's $199.

Say floor gets called at this point...

Yes, I do.

Tipping is an integral part of this game, and exceptions will be made. IMO.

Remember Rule #1. Sometimes things will happen where the written rule should be ignored.

Ok just wondering since you used the word nit here as if this is a $20 pot and not an over $600 as would be in the hypothetical.

Yeah it's even worse than I worded it, and it's scary to see someone cast as a nit anyone who takes issue with the dealer dropping it.

I have a bad feeling that by "he" you don't mean "the dealer".

If you get called over to be told that a dealer dropped an $x tip taken from the pot, how large would x have to be before you express some alarm that he did that? When does it stop being nitty?

Remember, it is a firing offense for a dealer to return any tip.

What goes in the lockbox, stays in the lockbox.

That's a fair question. I'd ballpark it at, "An amount that raises an outcry BEFORE we found out its going to impact the action." If we were talking about $20 or more, the floor would have been called before the next player had a chance to act. $10 would be a gray zone for me. <$5 makes me think, "Is there anything a poker player WON'T make a big deal of?"

In this case, it was just another toke, nothing to see here, carry on. That's why no one objected before our hypothetical re-raiser asked about his options.

...so can we stop acting like he reached into the pot and grabbed some money? It is not the same thing, imo.

If you think it IS the same thing: technically, you're right, that is the worst kind of right.

Who thinks he reached into actual pot?

It shouldn't be.

Tipping to food service or whatever in the middle of the hand is tolerated but it really can cause problems.