I'd rather verbalise 'all in', it's two syllables and I don't think I'm giving any information away by speaking clearly. I think it's good to avoid ambiguity as much as possible, saves arguments later.

True, but we all can work to have bad rules changed. And in this case we can avoid invoking this rule.

Several years ago I was playing in a $1000 buy-in tournament at the Peppermill in Reno. I ran pretty hot and had a big stack (probably 3-4 racks of chips). When I would move all-in and had someone covered, the dealer told me to put a stack of chips out to represent the bet. I was still pretty new to the game and didn't think anything of it at the time, but more than one dealer told me to do that. This was before I'd ever heard of an all-in button.

I wouldn't be able to claim that they have the same rule today as I haven't played a tournament there in quite a while.

I know this will always be the case, but I still can't figure out why there are people in this world who do things simply to complicate the process.

What are they gaining? Is the feeling when they walk to their car of "I really showed them how to **** up the process" that much of a win for them?

+1

Personally, I am quite uncomfortable with this new-ish trend.

New-ish, since I don't remember seeing this done just three years back, but now it appears to happen every time I sit down in a game.

Uncomfortable, because it increases the risk (if ever so slightly) that

a. a distracted dealer might scramble the pot and push it towards me without remembering to collect the remainder of chips to match my all-in from the losing opponent (I've seen this happen twice - in a premium Strip room - over the course of just the last three weeks), or

b. an angle-shooting player may decide not to honor the all-in call and take off.

While I have never witnessed this latter contingency, there are a couple of high profile examples discussed here on the board (a formerly well know reg at the Borg for instance), and there's really no reason to tempt any weak soul by opening up this possibility.

The time it takes to push the calling stack over the line in every all-in/call situation must add a whopping few seconds to the game for each hour played.

If you had that many chips and had everyone covered by a ton, putting out a stick of the biggest chips you have was probably effectively the same as going all in. At least that's how it goes any time I ask a player to do this, as I won't ask them to put out a single stack of chips unless this is the scenario. Otherwise I ask them to put all their chips out, or none of their chips.

I would agree with you, except that I never said it was a stack of the largest chips in play, and I'm actually sure it was a stack of 100's that didn't cover the other players.

I wouldn't have posted the story if it made sense or was in line with the thread.

Then as you have written it I would have to say it was a ****ty dealer. Oral call or all in with no chips, fine in many situations. Oral call or all in and shove out a stack that covers everyone in the hand, also fine but now in all situations. Oral call or all in and put out one single chip, many places are fine with it (I think it is quite poor) and it usually doesn't create too much confusion. But putting out a stack that doesn't meet the current bet/raise or doesn't cover or doesn't equal ones bet/raise, etc will frequently cause horrible confusion and takes longer in the long run (at least if I am playing, because I am going to ask the dealer to make the pot right anyway now.)

So the random under call stack is the worst option. And if they say it is for the camera, the question immediately is why would "you" (dealer, floor, room mgr) want to CONFUSE the camera. The camera won't hear you so to the camera the only bet is the stack you put out. So why would anyone think a random stack that is too small to cover the bet or call would help security, you have to expain how that works to me.

I know there are dealers out there that tell players to do this, but that doesn't mean it is the rule. I have heard my own dealers tell players this and I have no idea where they learned it because it certainly isn't in my rulebook. I think some dealers started saying this a long time ago and other dealers heard it and monkey see monkey do.

ive seen it more and more on tv and youtube vids of live play and twitch LATB ect.

For the most part it's dealer laziness combined with the push to deal more hands, especially in a tournament.

Verbal declarations are terrible. Many rooms are noisy, many players wear headphones, people mmight be hearing impaired, and "all in" and "call it" and "im calling" sound almost exactly the same and are indistinguishable in noisy rooms.

This is ridiculous. Many games have players playing with 10 or more stacks of chips. Pushing 17 stacks of chips out just to pull them all back 4 seconds later doesnt serve any useful purpose.

If you understood the post you quoted, you'd understand that we're in agreement that pushing an unwieldly stack of chips out might not be the best action here. As stated in the post you quoted, putting zero chips out and just declaring "all in" is better than putting out an amount that does not equal the size of the bet.

I would say if you say call loudly and clearly enough for the dealer to hear, it doesn’t matter what else you do. If you have 13 stacks of chips, he probably won’t make you move them all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would add that I feel only obligated to make my action clear to the dealer, whose job it is to run the game. If the dealer hears and acknowledges my action but a player who is wearing headphones or not paying attention doesn’t, that’s his fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. We don't need to re-write or interpret differently the rules because others can't follow them.

Fine then push none. Even faster than pushing one.

How does pushing out different from what you bet improve things?

As the bettor, it's on you to ensure the amount being called is understood by your opponent before you turn your hand over. That's the whole point of this thread and the idea behind not making ambiguous looking chip movements that don't match what the actual bet is.

Putting at least some chips out shows that you are voluntarily putting money into the pot. You can claim that you were misheard and didn't say "call", but you can't claim that you didn't intend to move those chips forward.

What you are saying is not wrong, but it fails to address any of the valid concerns with this approach mentioned in the post that you quoted.

I think we need to distinguish somewhat between the single chip all-in and the single chip call.

The single chip call is a call BY RULE. Once the player has put out the chip he is obligated to complete the call (yes there are very limited circumstances when he might be released from his action but the starting point is he has acted ... he has called).

The single chip bet is different. Because the single chip isn;t what is binding him to the all-in bet. Betting a single chip is not all-in unless you only have that single chip (or the minimum bet size is more than your stack). So the reason the player is all in is not because he tossed the single chip but because he FIRST made the verbal declaration of All-IN. At the point of making the verbal declaration of all in he has acted nothing further is needed. So tossing out a chip at that point serves no purpose. But tossing out a single small chip is probably not going to cause confusion so its harmless. But moving out an amount of chips which might in fact be an actual bet serves no legitimate purpose but stands to cause confusion and so should not be occurring.

While I agree with the sentiment, I think people are getting lost in the mechanics rather than asking what the purpose of the rules is.

The purpose is to be clear.

To that end, any action that makes clear what is going on should be accepted. If you say "all in" and the dealer repeats, "Seat 3 is all in," you don't need to push out all 17 stacks at once - even just the gesture of preparing your stack to be pushed is sufficient. If the dealer tosses you an all-in button, tapping the button or any other action suggesting you agree that's your intended action is fine.

The part that is unclear, the part that breaks the spirit of the rules even if it somehow doesn't break the letter of the rules, is to silently toss a single chip forward and expect that everyone knows what that means.

If I call with an unwieldy stack, I look the dealer in the eye, say, "I call," and wait for a good dealer to say something like, "Seat 3 calls. Action is complete." If I bet with an unwieldy stack, I look yhe dealer in the eye, say, "I'm all in," and wait for a good dealer to say, "Seat 3 is all-in."

Either way, as a gesture of good will, I push my stack forward (pushing up to 10 stacks is not that hard, guys) or prep mt stack to be pushed (a triangle of 10 with a triangle of 6 on top will allow you to push 16 stacks at once) and then break down one stack to show it's 20 even.

The single time this has not worked out (in terms of being clear) is when someone had a hidden $100 chip. I declared all-in but didn't wait for the dealer to confirm and put out $200, which covered all his visible chips (~$105); he complained that I had only put out $200 so he could call $200. The dealer was going to call the floor but I said, "No, it's fine, he can call $200." So he called $200 and I dark bet $563 before the river came out and watched with amusement as he decided whether he was going to call his last $5 in a $600 pot.