There wouldn't be much of a long term impact. Business won't stop at the casino regardless of what they do in that situation. It is of no consequence to them.

That's a good hand lol. Also lol @ grabbing $150k out of DN's stack and putting it in

So this happens more often than a once off?

Why do casinos have all in chips etc. Surely that's just helping to facilitate this? Ban the all in chips and then the chips have to go into the middle more often.

Bizarre.

Any law heads see a way of suing in this situation? I'm not much for suing anyone but this seems like a good spot, although lets face it the sum of the money is a joke for legal action. Just seems like a horrible precedent to be easily exploited.

I wonder how many copycats there will be after this, some amateur degen reads about this, has next months rent on the tables and loses then says **** it and says "my chips never went past the betting line!"

So there's the angle on river that Player A says they're all in. Player B says 'call' without moving their chips. Player A flips over their hand.

If A's hand is good, B says the chips didn't move and isn't paying. If B's hand is good they get the pot shipped to them.

I'm not sure why Jamie Gold was insisting that Hellmuth put the money in the middle but I highly doubt that he was trying to protect himself against Hellmuth angling Gold by taking his money back if he lost.

There's really not much of a potential angle here because although B doesn't have to pay, he also gets permanently banned from the casino. That's not going to be worth it to be in 99.9% of situations.

Did I miss something? Why is he putting in Danny's money? lol

I did not look it up in the regs, but I am fairly sure that a poker room can make verbal bets binding. I recall it at least at one venue, Mandalay Bay but there were likely others. If the regs prohibit it, I will stand corrected, but I'm not bothering to research any official source simply for NVG.

(NGC regs have drawn distinctions between table games, where the house is taxed on the win, and poker games, where the taxes are not dependent upon a win. For example, a casino owner cannot play blackjack in his own place, but can play poker in his own place .... because the table game drop is taxed and an owner who wins against the house personally, consequently saves on gaming taxes.)

There is not a “good argument” that the casino should be liable. Would be an easy way to scam the casino between cooperating players, for one.

Not to a winning player, but to a losing degen that is just the icing on the cake.

I had someone at Red Rock refuse to pay a bet once. On the river I had quads and he told me he would call anything I bet, so I went all in. RR’s rule is that if you tell someone you will call any bet you are obligated to call it. This helps prevent someone from trying to influence the other players actions.

It was only about $400 (1/2 game) but then he refused to call and wouldn’t pay. They banned him for life but I never got paid by anyone including the casino.

If the victim were a celebrity/whale/friend I imagine the casino could make it very difficult for the villain to cash the chips, which are property of the casino.

Seriously ? Think about it....

The casino runs the game, for which it is well paid by the players.

The casino is required to run the game honestly.

The casino told the caller that the welsher had gone all-in (i.e. the All-in card.).

The caller relied on the dealer saying the welsher was all-in and called.

The casino, apparently decided to allow the welsher to pick up stacks he had actually lost and then cash "his" chips out at the cage.

......... and you think that was blameless conduct which should not give rise to liability by the casino ? Not even a good argument for liability?

Would you feel differently if a dealer pushes a pot to the wrong player, who knows/is told he did not win, but then refuses to push the pot back, picks the chips and goes to cash out ?

As for two players possibly colluding in the future, I am more worried about the casino allowing someone to cheat, lose and paying the loser what is clearly the other player's money.

The casino paid the villain, who committed fraud against the caller, instead of paying the caller..

So, you relied upon a clearly stated rule of the game, and your villain violated the rule ?

Did you seek enforcement from Gaming against the Casino refusing to uphold its stated rule of the game ?

What was the outcome if you did ?

Phil has 150k behind to start the hand so Daniel will get paid.

Jamie just trying to get a read here.

edit: damn, Phil Galfond in the game.

My sense from my poker room manager friend (it's in Nevada) is that this sort of bullsh*t is "common" (e.g. anybody who works in a poker room sees it half a dozen times a year). He was quite clear to me that he doesn't have the authority to "require" the player to put his chips in the pot. That may be house policy, it may be NGC policy, it may be Nevada law. Obviously there are implications to the differences.

I see two approaches here:

1. Take your chances - it's highly unlikely, and if you get scammed, meh, you've got a story to tell here.
2. If somebody verbally calls without pushing chips, or does the "one chip" call, politely ask the dealer to ask the player to move (perhaps) a stack of the largest denomination chips he has in front of him into the center. If nothing else, if something goes wrong, that will give you added ammunition when you complain to the NGC or small claims court.

It's kind of a personal decision, depending on how much you wanna rock the boat versus have a Plan B when the pot is supposed to be pushed your way. I'm honestly conflicted.

Regards, Lee

This.

This is a somewhat standard angle, so much so that when I’m in these situations I politely ask the player / dealer to pull all chips forward.

Surprised people are still shocked by this in 2019.

I have seen rooms make the winning player whole out of their own funds, but I have never seen someone forced to pay. This leads me to believe it does have to do with the legality of how poker is set up, and not the casino being greedy or whatever.

Everyone concerned with “rampant abuse”; the player is 86’d. The end.

You're looking at it from a lawyers POV and we're looking at if from players POV with experience being in these situations.

Basically you're trying to act smarter than the rest of us (which you usually try but fail) but you don't actually have much real world first hand experience with these kinds of issues while we do.

You keep making my post in the "what makes you cringe" thread more valid every time you post.

Well he's clearly smarter than you; he produced an actual argument, whereas you just called him names and assumed things out of nowhere.

He's right too, by placing the all-in chip in front of the player, they are stating the player is all-in. If the player then changes his mind and walks away, and they allow him to do it, then they were lying when they stated he was all-in, and thus should accept liability when their lie allows another player to be stolen from. If they don't want to accept that liability, then they shouldn't be using the all-in indicator.

Because he had top-top.

I've seen this happen once to a friend of mine. The guy was connected and security didn't even stop him on the way out. They made my friend whole for about $700 or so from their own pockets to their credit.

The guy was back a week later.

As a dealer in Vegas, I've always understood it that it's not illegal for a player to refuse to pay in this situation. They can refuse, and the casino will basically tell the player "either you pay it or you're getting 86'd".

In 10 years, I've never seen this happen before, but I've had this conversation with other guys who have been around longer than I have. They've told me some stories where basically what happened in the OP occurred. Player refused to pay, they got banned.

I have some "real world first hand experience" from playing low-limit live poker for business and recreation in casinos around the world for 45+ years, practicing gaming law representing players or operators or regulators for 25 years, and concurrently owned and operated an online poker provider for about 10 years.

Doesn't make me smarter than the wisdom of the forum crowd, but I think I've got the edge on you individually in this matter.

(Nice try though at setting this up rhetorically as
1. me versus "the rest of us", and
2. "Lawyers v poker players".

A knowledge base or real world experience does not present an either/or situation in the real world, experience may teach you that.)

Just feel free to ignore what you deem "cringeworthy"; ignorance may be blissful .... I'll take your word for it.

Is Villian pictured?..if so I want to know who I have to make put every chip in.

would guess its the guy on the left. he has a stack of $5 chips in

as mentioned in this thread, if u ask everyone to always put their chips in you will protect yourself from this angle, but it will slow the game down and probably make you look like a weirdo paranoid. it happens so rarely too. dont do this. maybe its ok if u only do it for 100bb or more or something like that. say something slick like 'put your money in dont be scared' , dont explain you are trying to not get scammed. thanks