Well at least you will know who you're dealing with when you see a max $400 BI separated out into 75 stacks!! (I always get 20 $1 chips too) GL

Location? You already know I'm Mid-Western .. GL

I used to do that because stacks of $100 make the stack just tall enough for me to constantly keep knocking chips into my drink in the cupholder.

+1 ... And I'm rarely betting $100 at 1/2. A 75 is much more convenient for betting on most Turn/Rivers. GL

Haha well if you ever play in my mythical room, I'll probably cut you a break anyway because I like you.

I'm not sure why it's important that you don't usually bet 100 but do bet 75. I mean, I guess there is some tiny benefit to having your chips in stacks of 75 for that, but come on now. I also don't usually bet in units of 100, but I keep chips stacked in 20s because that is standard.

You sure do think poker players are "entitled" to a lot of things. Most poker players that have any sort of experience can simply look at a stack that has been stacked in an uniformed manner [Which is why I emphasis there should be more rule enforcement on disallowing players to disguise their chips from being visually estimable and know about how much a player has. The only "risk" a player is facing are the chips that are currently being bet, not a player's entire stack. That only becomes the case once a player has stated the word "all-in" or push their entire stack forward. There comes a point where a player has to actually be left to their own knowledge and instincts in making their decisions, not feel they are entitled to the dealer holding their hand and walking them through every little detail of a situation.





Pulling in bets has become a bit of a cash game routine for more in-house dealers and I'm quite opposed to it without a player in the hand requesting it. It does basically assist the players that still have action pending and can influence s decision. I can go ahead and guarantee you if you got caught doing this in the big events at the WSOP, WPT, or even the HPT, the high stakes players will absolutely verbally brutalize the dealer in question.

Ooh. Other players stacks don't put yours at risk? well then I think I see why don't think a player could need this information ..... you think it's irrelevant. .... but if another's players chips don't put yours at risk why then do even need to be able to estimate them?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Being able to visually estimate a stack keeps the game moving and allows players to make decisions based on that information. Asking the dealer to count every single stack upon request at a table brings the game to a complete halt and now brings the dealer into the game as counting unbet chips as a means of influencing the decisions of players based on information that is not currently relevant to the action immediately facing a player. Not very difficult to see the difference here.

Yes I agree constantly asking for a count could slow the game down and I would have no problem with a floor disallowing a players request if overly repetitive or clearly itrelevant (guy with obviously short stack asking for counts of large stacks) my own experience with the rule is that it is not disruptive because players generally are happy with a clear view or an estimate from the opponent. Even in rooms without the rule, you see players ask ... and it would be rare that they insist on a floor ruling over whether they can get an exact count.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Except if such a thing becomes common place and players grow up in an environment where they can just ask the dealer to count upon request, then the necessity to learn and train to count stacks with your eyes will no longer become necessary. It was among the first things I learned both as a player and when training as a dealer. How much is a stack of $5? How much is a stack of 100s, 500s, 1000s, 5000s, etc? I have little doubt the players who want this time of chip hand holding by the dealer grew up in the online poker era where all the info was there for you.

When properly stacked in 20s and 40s [Although it is possible to still count in 10s and 15s, although it requires more thinking since not used to immediately being able to do the math in my head], it's quite easy to understand the situation of what a player has and how much of your stack will probably be at risk. I can concur that if a player is almost blatantly attempting to hide the size of their stack through uneven stacking of chips and the dreaded barberpoling, exceptions can be made and enforced. If the difference in a tournament between knowing the exact stack and maybe being 1-2 big blinds off in either direction due to estimating is that important to you, it may be better to stick to online poker where you can just use a program to do the tough math for you.

Will you at least acknowledge the fact that an exact count can be make a difference when considering bet sizing an the effect of an all in shove that may or may not reopen the betting ?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

I can agree with that, but I still disagree that the dealer should ever be counting a players unbet chips. If you can see all their chips, you can decide if it is close enough to matter. If not, then you need to learn to count chips from afar better.

So if I you agree that in that instance precision counts. And if I can see all the chips I can tell that its close enough to matter ..... and now knowing that it matters that is somehow suddenly enough. Why is it of value for me to know its close enough to matter if I can;t get the answer when it does matter?


So if being able to count a stack from a distance is a significant part of a poker game should a player be allowed to voluntarily give a count in a multiway pot? In a tournament? where this could impact other players? RO should they not be permitted to give a count of their own chips?

If you know it's close enough to matter, you should be careful of your action. Decision time. Is it worth the risk of calling knowing his all in could reopen the betting. If you can tell obviously one way or the other, your decision should be easy. I'm not saying you should get a count because you can see its close. I'm saying the opposite.

A player should always be allowed to give a count voluntarily.

Can you give me your reasoning? In a multi way pot a player volunteers this information .... it could influence play why is that not a problem?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Both Robert's and TDA only stipulate 'clear view' and 'countable stacks'.

A player 'interested' in chip counts is giving off information while trying to acquire information IMO. How a player reacts to being asked about his chips is also 'information'.

Obviously a player should be more careful talking when multi-way but as long as action is on them it's their prerogative to 'offer' this information to everyone left in the hand. GL

Yes, we know that the current rulesets stipulate clear view, and tidy stacks with large denoms in front or on top. We think the rules would be improved by allowing for counts too.

I think this will just slow up the game, and players will request counts then fold, etc.

Indeed. Yet in rooms where counts are already allowed, this has proven not to be the case.

I don't see how this is possible. If one person in said room asks for a count it has slowed up the game. You have to wait for that player or the dealer to break it down and count it. Even if it only takes 20 seconds, it has still slowed it down. If the player is the one counting and it is the count in stacks of 2's guy we could lose a lot more time.

dinesh obviously means that it didn't have a noticeable affect. Without expressing a view one way or another, I played full-time hours in a room where players were entitled to an unbet stack count. You could have played there for hundreds of hours before learning that.

And that doesn't even take into account the time it takes for a player at one end of the table to do guesswork about a stack at the other end of the table, which you have to discount when you are assessing the true cost of a policy.

Must just be location, but everyone here thinks they are a pro and would think they need a count every hand because the want to make precision perfect bets.

You make up for it in future hands where you don't need to ask for a count or stare for a long time trying to figure it out because the player's chips have been stacked in an easily countable fashion, which they probably weren't before, which is probably why an opponent asked for a count.

But that appears, at least in the case of psand's room, because no one actually invoked the rule anyway. It seems the main defense of it won't take up time is that no one really asks for counts, which begs the question of why the rule is needed at all.

If no one really uses it, then what's the harm of having the rule in the book?

I also do not believe that a rule that says chips must be kept visible and neatly stacked by its terms denies that a player is entitled to a count. Those two things are not mutually exclusive or contradictory.