I'm sure nobody else at the table caught it or cared or thought about it, but playing tonight I saw the dealer cost a player about $10 violating one-player-to-a-hand.

Two players in, on the turn, UTG checks, UTG+1 bets $40 into a $50 pot, and first position calls leaving himself $10. I can see UTG+1 didn't even look at UTG's chip stack and has absolutely no clue how short he is.

River is dealt and UTG checks and UTG+1 starts stacking chips. He has about $60 stacked up when the dealer says "he only has ten dollars left", referring to UTG's anemic stack. UTG+1 looks shocked, glances over, and says "oh" and checks. UTG+1 turns over ten-high. UTG turns over top pair.

Basically UTG+1 was getting ready to bluff until the dealer pointed out his opponent was too short-stacked to be bluffable. UTG+1 totally gave up at that point and just checked. If the dealer had just waited a moment, UTG+1 woulda made a bet which UTG with only $10 couldn't fold to.

I see this sorta thing pretty often: players or dealers being "helpful" trying to speed along the game and not really thinking that they may be providing someone useful information that they haven't figured out on their own. I imagine I've done it myself. If UTG+1 had asked "how much do you have" then I don't mind the dealer or a player providing a quick and obvious answer to speed things along if the opponent wants to sit stone silent. But volunteering it to someone who hasn't asked is helping someone play.

So please, no more spontaneous "he's all-in" or "he's almost all-in" or "he only has ten dollars left" comments, mmmkay?

I'm sure that Al will be along shortly to deliver the dealer a kick in the nuts. Dealers should know better than to comment on the hand.

OMG! This is EXACTLY what I was thinking!!!!!

Slight hijack - I don't like that in the case that the dealer is wrong. We've had threads before about players hiding big chips or cash under stacks which made them virtually invisible. I had a push or fold decision and I asked the guy how much he had. The dealer immediately gave me an estimate and the guy sat silent. I asked if he had any bills behind, the dealer immediately said he doesn't. I asked if all his chips were the same color as what's visible and the dealer immediately said yes, even though he couldn't see for sure. The dealer wasn't even giving the guy a chance to answer. If this turned out to be one of those angle-shooting stack-has-twice-what-I-thought deals, the floor would probably say dealer statements are not binding. So in this case I'd rather the dealer STFU.

Yeah, that's why I phrased it like I did. "To speed things along" and when "the opponent wants to sit stone silent". I've seen someone ask "how much do you have" and the opponent moves his arms; he's told "I don't have my glasses, how much is there" and he sits silent. So we can either wait for gramps to walk over and stand behind his opponent and examine the stacks, or someone can say "it's about 240 to 260".

the point is... someone shouldn't say it's 240 to 260...

Is it proper procedure for the dealer to physically count out the players chips when asked "how much does he have?" This happens frequently in the rooms where I play.

It's usually viewed as wrong, since proper procedure is to keep dealer's hands off players chips. RR may have to comment, but it seems like a ripe area for an angle shot since nothing compels a player to count his own chips.

The point of my original post is that folks shouldn't be pointing out during hands when players are shortstacked. That does provide strategic info that violates one player to a hand. Once someone is cognizant enough to ASK for an estimate, now we're into new territory.

Stepping in to break a deadlock from a tug of war between the stoic opponent who won't speak and won't count, and the other sight-limited player who can't play until he determines what his opponent has is not in the same ballpark. Sanity has to prevail somewhere in here. In the edge case, imagine a 20/800 legally blind player at the table. Sorry, but that guy DOES deserve to know how much someone has.

But yes, players who rely on the estimate of others in making decisions don't get to whine if they end up off by 30%. I just don't see someone providing that estimate as destined for poker hell for breaking any rules.

When I am asked as a dealer I usually let the player answer(usually they give an estimate and their opponent accepts that as an adequate answer), if the player refuse sto answer I will ask himn to count his chips. If he won't count them I will ask him to breing them out for me to count.

One of my floor people has told me that the delaer should not count the chips, but that if a player refuses to count his chips he would kick them out of the room. I have never had the issue arise when that floor was working and his view is not universal among our floor people.

Couldn't that also be an issue of ADA, for the same reason that the dealer can literally read the board if a player is visually impaired? Certainly estimating a stack can be considered an essential poker skill, but not in such a way that the blind are rendered inherently less "skilled", right?

The dealer doesn't read the board for a player who can't see the cards. The dealer reads the cards.

The difference is that if the board is 10 J Q K A. The dealer doesn't say there is a straight on the board. the dealer tells the player there is a 10, there is a J , there is a Q, there is a K, there is an A (i left suits out to make it easier but obviously the dealer would announce the suits of each card),

Semantics - that's what I meant by the word literally, but your phrasing is probably clearer. Obviously the dealer doesn't say, "There's four to a flush and three to a straight" or what-not.

RR I think claims a player is not entitled to an exact count, only a clear view of all the chips. In actual practice in Vegas I have seen more what ps describes here... if someone insists on an accurate count, they get it. Either the player counts their own stack, or the dealer counts it for 'em. But I don't see this issue get pushed all that often, since someone somewhere at some point offers an estimate and the requesting player accepts it. When I have seen it pushed, the dealer has always told the other player "either count 'em yourself or push it over here so I can count it". I'm not thrilled with that, but it doesn't twist my insides, either.

I disagree iwth RR on this issue. I thibnk in a no-limit game a player should be entitled to know how much his opponent has (within reason). If A player is opbviously covered I don't think he should be able to get an exact count, and a player who is abusive by asking for an exact count every hand can be told to knock it off or leave, but I can't see why a player should not be allowe dto know his exact exposure in a hand.

In my case, I wanted to hear some sort of declaration from the player, since we've had a few threads here on players hiding big chips at the Wynn. I didn't need an exact count. I'd have been happy if the dealer had allowed him to answer my questions on whether all his chips were the same color or if he had any bills underneath.

Anytime a dealer suggests an action, or gives information about a hand in progress that's not part of their regular duties as a dealer ...

I'LL KICK 'EM IN THE NUTS!!

Al

We aren't very far apart. They aren't entitled to a count, but they are entitled to have the chips clearly visible. I would say clearly visible means stacked in an orderly manner and all high denomination chips and the bills spread out flat.

Therein lies the potential problem. If the player remains silent when asked, and the dealer is not allowed to demand a count or do it themself, how can you ensure everything is clearly visible? It would be nice if "hidden" money/chips were not allowed by the floor to play, but judging from some threads posted here, it sometimes is.

It's just so freaking annoying when someone is Hollywooding a decision in a $180 pot when their opponent has $15.

Even worse when the person w/ $15 tanks for 1.5 minutes w/ two pair on a dry board.

For the dealers,

Can a player be warned for not having his high denomination chips in plain sight? Should the dealer tell a player that he has a dirty stack (I saw this happen in Planet Hollywood recently - after a hand was completed)?

If I notice that high denomination chips are out of sight I tell the player to move them into view.

Telling a player that a stack is dirty is usually a courtesy, not so much concern about hidden chips since usually the dirty chips are lower denomination. What I don't want to happen is a player tries to bet $100 and puts out a stack, only to find that his bet was only $92.

Bills inherently hide someone's true stack size. This is especially true when bills are tucked underneath stacks of chips, which is often the case. Old bills take up more space than new ones, and fresh, crisp bills just can't be looked at and estimated with any degree of accuracy. $900 may look just like $1500 or $2200, depending on how the bills are placed and how old they are. Bundled bills are quite worthless in my view, as there could easily be a bunch of ones in the middle, with $100's on the outside. Do I believe players would actually do this - absolutely. I've said it before, I'll say it again - cash on the table sucks.

Al

I was playing at the Wynn where the floor made an interesting decision about this type of case. A player in seat 8 (young kid wearing a beanie, kind of a douche but whatever) had just busted at 1/3 NL and had chips coming. I don't remember the exact action in the following hand, but it can be summarized as such:
- At some point in the hand, seat 1 asks how much seat 8 has coming; dealer says $100. The dealer may have repeated this at some point later in the hand. In my personal opinion, he said it audibly enough that the kid should have heard. The kid did not say anything.
- On the turn, seat 1 bets $50 or something and seat 8 shoves.
- While seat 1 gets ready to call for like $30 more or whatever, seat 8's chips arrive and it turns out he's playing $200, not $100, and seat 1 is like "wtf, I wouldn't have bet $50 if I thought he was playing that much money."

Dealer calls floor, explains the situation (though he never mentioned the explicit fact that the kid heard him and had the chance to correct him, which I think is fairly important - after all, if dealer had just quietly said something to seat 1, how fair is it to seat 1 that only half his stack plays this hand?) - floor rules that because the dealer declared $100, only the $100 plays and the $50 bet stands.

The kid didn't really speak up during any of this, except to say that he had $200 in chips. I wonder if he'd argued that the dealer said it too quietly or something like that, if the floor would have changed his decision - and if the floor had changed his decision to $200 playing, whether he would let player 1 take back the $50 bet.

I don't know why I always pose these questions in the middle of threads on a totally different subject rather than making a new one.

Works for me.
I do it a lot, too. Just never feels like whatever little thing I have to say deserves its own thread, so I tend to hunt around for a similar thread I can bring back to life.