Thursday, April 03, 2008

You make the call




Playing my usual $1-$2 no-limit hold'em at the Venetian this afternoon, quite early in the session, I picked up J-J in second position. Ick. Oh well--you've got to play them even from out of position, right?

I have a system of raise amounts that varies with my position (earlier position means smaller raise, later position larger raise) and the number of limpers already in (more limpers means a larger raise). I never want my bet or raise size to be related to the strength of my cards, but it does make sense to take into account those two factors. My formula dictated $8 for that spot, so that's what I made it. A fairly loose-aggressive player on the button pushed it up to $18. I couldn't give him a lot of credit here for a big hand, so I put in the third raise, bumping it up to $38. He called. We're the only ones in this pot.

The flop was Q-9-4, rainbow. I hated the queen, but nearly half my stack was in the pot already, and with J-J if you're scared of every overcard, you'll almost never play past the flop. So I scrunched up my courage, put my remaining chips into one stack, and slid it forward across the betting line. As usual, I didn't say anything.

My opponent asked how much the bet was. The dealer eyeballed the chips--without breaking down the stack--and announced "35." Well, that's what everybody else heard. I actually thought he said "45," but he had an exceptionally heavy Asian accent, and those two numbers could sound quite similar in a noisy cardroom. Furthermore, I had not paid any attention to what the amount was, and really wasn't listening to the dealer. I was just watching to see what my opponent would do.

He plucked seven red chips from his stack and tossed them in, after thinking for a bit. I showed my jacks. He just nodded. The dealer put out the turn and river cards, and the player kept his hand face-down. He never did show it, so apparently my unimproved pair had him beat.

But now the problem arose. Another player not in the hand noticed that my stack was actually $45 (eight red chips and five whites), not $35. When he pointed this out, the dealer broke down my stack and confirmed it.

Now the other guy didn't want to put in the additional $10 for the full call. His argument was that he put in what the dealer said was the amount required to call. I didn't get involved, just sat quietly, knowing that it would all get sorted out in some manner. My reasons were that, first, because I hadn't really paid attention at the critical moment, I didn't have any useful firsthand-witness observations to contribute to the discussion, and, besides, anything I said would look petty and self-serving.

The floorperson got called over. He eventually ruled that all of my chips had gone forward across the line and were clearly visible, and that it was the caller's responsibility to know the amount, even if the dealer misstated it. His intention was clearly to call, and the floorperson couldn't believe that the player would have been willing to call $35 but not $45 in that situation. He was, therefore, required to complete the call for the additional $10.

I still don't know whether that's right or not, which is why I'm posting this for comments--especially from you dealers and floor guys who read this.

Yeah, in this particular case the difference is pretty small, which makes it likely that the guy would have called even if the dealer had stated the amount correctly. But what happens if we change the facts just a bit? Suppose that I had had a black $100 chip at the bottom of the stack, and the dealer's error had been overlooking that, and the opponent, at the far end of the table, couldn't clearly see it? Should he then be required to call off the additional $100 after thinking that he was making just a $35 (or $45) call? What if the player is known to have very poor eyesight, through no fault of his own, and has no reasonable choice but to rely on the dealer's count?

And don't I have at least some responsibility here to have noticed the error and help get it right before the guy made his decision?

When the player takes the trouble to ask the dealer for the amount before making the call, and the dealer gets it wrong, who should bear the responsibility? My opponent, when arguing with the floor guy (very civilly, I should point out; no raised voice, no swearing, no insults, no sarcasm--just thoughtful, logical questions and statements) asked, "Do I have to walk around the table and physically count it myself to be sure that the dealer isn't getting it wrong?" Good question, for which the floorperson didn't have a convincing reply.

My gestalt sense is that the floor's decision was probably the best one for this particular set of facts, but I don't like being left without a clear rule or rationale that would guide all such decisions, even if the facts were somewhat different.

Comments welcome.


Addendum, April 4, 2008

I posted this same question in the forums over at www.allvegaspoker.com. Chris Coffin, poker room manager at Treasure Island, posted a superb response, listing all of the relevant rules and considerations. Highly recommended reading, if the situation interests you: http://www.allvegaspoker.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=47137.

5 comments:

Wine Guy said...

I would wonder about this. My question would be that, if he said "call" then it is binding no matter what he sees/doesn't see, BUT if he throws in what he is told to throw in, but it ends up being more then should he have the right to not increase his bet?

Wouldn't it be the same case where, in a game and I wasn't paying attention, you raise it and I just throw in my chips to the min bet. The dealer announce that it has been raised to me. I can now no longer remove the chips I have bet, and have only the options to muck my cards and lose the chips or match the raise.

In this case he put in $35, after being told, and when told it was more after the fact, he should have been able to muck and walk away.

Personally I felt that the house should have been responsible for the extra $10. I understand that it is only $10 more, and he did match the value told him for the all in, BUT he asked what the total was AND he was advised by a dealer who didn't have the foresight to actually count your chips out.

If he says CALL then yes he is responsible, but to me he asked, was given a value, and matched it. Maybe symantics but I feel the house is due to make up the difference for providing incorrect information when asked.

Another view point would be what if YOU said $35? Could we all then just push our chips in and give false information (i.e. I'm all in for $125, but say it's only $75)? What is the ruling then? Is the caller(s) responsible even when given the wrong information?

Interesting dilemma. Makes me put this away in the old brain to get accurate counts when calling.

cheer_dad said...

Thanks for sharing the situational question. Now I've got something else to occupy the gray matter. I think what I appreciate MOST about it all, is that you opted very intelligently to stay out of the discussion/argument.

Regards,

cheer_dad
http://ndebtpokertour.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Philosophically, I'm not sure the "if he would call $35, he would call $45" argument is on firm foundation. That seems to assume your opponent plays a hand a certain way, and that it can be generalized to all players. Plus, it leads to the murky procedre of judging what's a "reasonable" difference or not.

I think we all agree that either the dealer made an error by eyeballing and not counting down your stack or your opponent made an error in not understanding the dealer correctly.

For the first case, what's a general procedure in case of dealer error? E.g., the dealer dealt two turn cards? Shouldn't those types of remedies apply in this case?

For the second case, th floor should ask other players whether the dealer was understandable, and if so, then that's your opponent's responsibility to act on correct information. If not, then I think we're back in the first case of dealer error.

Thoughts, everyone?

--S said...

The decision made is one of two I would have made, and my choice would have boiled down to a few things such as how civil the other guy was being, how valid I felt his argument to be, and whether or not I felt he was trying to take a shot (or maybe was a player known in the room for taking shots).

I believe the rules are there as guidelines and the best floorpeople I've dealt with always make a decision in the "spirit of the rule."

It sounds like the guy wasn't trying to take a shot, so I probably would have let his $35 stay, I would have made up the $10 you were missing from the main bank in the room, and I would have two happy customers. I don't think customers should be penalized for a dealer error.

Then, I would have a long talk with the dealer after he was pushed from that table. I cannot stand dealers taking shortcuts or not performing their job the way they should - drives me nuts :)

genomeboy said...

"What if the player is known to have very poor eyesight, through no fault of his own, and has no reasonable choice but to rely on the dealer's count?"

I would imagine that if this were the case, you being a most reasonable person would have stated the amount to the player for the sense of fair play.

On a side note, how come I only read about JJ in early position holding up?