Live Poker: Going South

Hi guys, just encountered this situation at Crown Casino here in Melb, and was wondering what the standard ruling in Vegas or wherever u guys may play.

2/5 table, minimum buy in 200, max of 500. This fish sat down with 300 and ran it up to 1.5k in 3hrs. was 5am at that time and he was going to leave. He suddenly declared to the table after the cards have been dealt (he was UTG), 'Alright guys, my last hand, i'm all in.' He then pushed 33 dollars into the middle.

All of us were stunned and asked who had stacked him. Nobody had. The dealer asked him, and he showed that he had racked the remaining 1.4k and placed it on a chair beside him, not visible to the rest of the table.

While everyone was exclaiming and saying that all of it should be in the centre as he had verbally declared all in, I took the opportunity to look down on my hand (was MP). Saw JJ. Was then very interested in what the ruling will be as the supervisor came over. The sup listened to the story recounted by the dealer, and then came to the ruling. 'As you had declared all-in, but the 1.4k was not visible to the rst of the table, for this time only, the bet stands at $33 but the remainder of the 1.4k will be in play for the remainder of this hand.'

Obviously everyone was unhappy, not the least me. The rest of the hand is irrelevant so i will not recount it unless someone's curious.

Just wondering, what do u guys reckon the ruling will be at other casinos?

So the $33 is been ruled as an open raise and the rest of the stack plays ?

Sounds like a fair rule to me, and tbh it sounds like your trying to angle him out of the rest of his stack, just re-pop yourself and play some poker.

Bob, in my defense, I did not utter a word during and before the ruling. Not in my nature to. Doesn't mean that I can't disagree with the ruling inside. And also, I haven't mentioned how I played the jacks, no need to assume anything.

I think that ruling Sucks personally but as T.B stated it's fair and Legit...Does it suck yes it does, Is it Fair, Well yes it is....As he didn't have the Rest of the Chips on table you can't really blame him for it...As T.B stated Repop it..

Just wondering what happened the rest of the hand

I am not sure what the ruling would be at Vegas casinos. I don't think they would allow him to remove the chips from the table in the first place unless he took them and cashed them in - then came to play back with the remaining chips. I could be wrong though.

What is interesting to me about this ruling is that they made the exception for this one hand - then said the chips would be in play for any future hands. (Though if that was his last hand it is really irrelevant).

I play at Harrah's all the time and I am certain of two things -

1) He would not be allowed to remove chips from play (from the table).
2) Verbal declarations are binding.

What they would rule in this case? Just don't know - they will do some screwy things at times.

Fair? I suppose it's fair if you are allowed to take chips out of play. If not then the ruling was not fair - they let him get away with a major infraction to the detriment of the rest of the players. Not even a little bit fair.

If I was ruling he'd have all his chips in there just like he declared.

Thank God You ain't the Pit Boss at our Local Casino In windsor ontario

Think his hand is dead, by removing chips from table he is sitting out. Dealer should not have dealt him in as soon as he started stacking.

I can agree with part of what the supervisor had said, but he seems to contradict himself here. I'd say either the $33 stands as an all-in and the rest of his stack is out of play OR the entire stack is in the middle, but no way does his All-in get changed to a raise with the other $1400 to play with.

No fighting or going south in poker. I'm shocked at this ruling.

The whole stack should have put in the middle by the floor.


-

He left $33 in front of him - that is why he was dealt in the hand.

I saw similar situation happen at live casino in New Orleans. First of all, the dealer should not have let the player remove the rack of chips off table. If it was last hand it was allowed on table. This is bit contraversary cause he had $33 on table. Over here same scenario and the floor person was called. The player lost a hand and would not take the chips out of rack cuz he wanted to use the chips on table out of rack. Well after arguing for 15+ minutes security was called and gave him a choice. Pay up or be banned for life from the poker room. He chose to be banned and the poker room ended up replacing the money from the funds collected from rake.

WOW!
I do know that players are allowed to rack their chips, but they must leave them on the table up until the point they leave. Its kind of funny, when a guy racks em up and has them sitting there (usually UTG) - everyone wants to see the flop and jumps in the hand hoping the guy will have one last act of idiocy.

A couple weeks ago a guys racks up half of his chips and then puts the rack on the floor. Me and another guy were like, "Whoa, whoa, WHOA!" - pointing and grunting getting the attention of the dealer. The guy explained he just had too many chips making it difficult to looks at his cards and was just trying to get some operating room. He was immediately educated and play continued - LOL

FWIW that's not necessarily the reason. I played in this same room a few weeks ago and after I folded what I'd decided was going to be my last hand I stood up, got some racks and came back to the table. I was racking all my chips when the next deal started, but I hadn't actually said "I'm leaving, don't deal me in" so I got dealt cards... which I promptly folded and then left.

I think my point is racking your chips isn't a universal sign for "I'm not playing any more" in this particular card room and they'll keep dealing you hands until either you tell them not to or you and your money both leave the table. He could have racked everything and probably still would have been dealt a hand if he was at the table.

While I expect that would have been the case, I believe the ruling about the rest of his money was supposed to apply to this hand (ie: he's made an open raise to $33 rather than being all in, so if someone raises and he folds he can keep the $1.4K he has behind).

No, that would have been a horrible ruling IMO. Remember that above all else the floor is supposed to rule in the interests of fairness, even if it means bending or breaking the technical rules.

The player in question is, apparently, a fish - he probably doesn't even understand what going south is or why it's wrong. Regardless, it's obvious he never intended to put the entire $1.4K at risk on this hand. Unless there is reason to think that the player is attempting a deliberate angle shoot, do people honestly think it's fair that he be made to put the whole $1.4K at risk?!?

I've got no idea what the technical ruling would be (I can look it up if people are interested) but FWIW I think the floor probably made a fair and reasonable decision.

I can see what Oz is saying... I dont see anything wrong with cutitng the guy a break in this spot so long as he understands that he cannot do it in the future and why he cannot. Obviously having a hand in this spot can make one a bit more interested in the outcome, but ultimately, the most important thing is that the young man in question learns from this.

Yes, racking chips at the table is not an outright declaration that u are to be dealt out, most dealers will ask u if u're playing the hand right before he/she deals, or simply deal u a hand if u remain silent while racking the chips.

Yes, i agree that in fairness, the player in question was definitely not trying an angle-shoot of any sort, it was simply a failure of understanding the basic etiquette of not going south in poker. The question I have is, is going south an etiquette, or is it a rule that u cannot go south? Big difference between etiquette and if it's a rule.

Obviously if it's just etiquette that going south is frowned upon, then I have no issues with the ruling. However, if it is a rule that a player CANNOT go south, then the verbal declaration is definitely binding and the full stack should be in play. As i said, what the player did was genuine without any ill intentions, however, everyone has to pay for their mistakes, just like if they misread their hand and call a shove on the river with 7 hi when they thought they had a straight, doesn't mean they don't have to pay out.

For all that's interested in the remainder of the hand, this is it. I repopped it to $133 (my stack was about 1k), everyone groaned and moaned and folded back to him. He eyed me for about 15 secs then called.

Flop J 2 2

He checked, i bet $195, he called.

Turn was a o/s 6

He checked, i checked.

River o/s A

He checked, i bet $255 and he folded.

I asked pretty much that same question at Harrah's and they said it was a hard and fast rule - not just good manners.

I can see what you're getting at, but whether it's a hard and fast rule or just good etiquette is irrelevant because the first commandment of poker rulings is "Thou shalt do what is in the best interests of fairness, even if it means bending or breaking the technical rules."

From Robert's Rules of Poker, Section 2: House Policies - Decision Making:

1. Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.

8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

Based on this, if it was obvious the guy never meant to bet the whole $1.4K he had behind and nobody thought it was an angle shoot then I think the floor made the correct ruling regardless of whether it was a rule or etiquette that was broken.

FWIW, having now trawled through Robert's Rules I can't find anything that specifically bans going south - it doesn't even come up in the etiquette section. That's not to say I haven't missed it or that specific card rooms can't have rules against it, of course.

So we want to be fair to the one guy but not be fair to the rest of the guys at the table?
I think the fairness clause is in relation to the game, not the individual.
I am not sure what his intentions were, but you cannot totally discount an act of taunting.

Why would he pull some of his chips and leave the rest?

Either he didn't know the rules, in which case I agree with the floor. Or he knew and should put em in.

So my question again is... why would he do that, in that way, if he didn't know the rule.


-

No, it relates very much to the individual - see Rule 8 above.

It's true that we don't know his intentions, but we weren't there and the floor person was, which puts them in the best place to judge. FWIW, in my experience the floor people at Crown generally make good calls in situations like this.

First of all, as I've stated above, I don't actually think it is a rule - I certainly can't find it in Robert's Rules. So really we're just talking etiquette here.

Second, he could have done it for all sorts of reasons. Maybe he racked out an even $1400, had the $33 left over and figured he'd just throw it away in the next pot as a gift to the table? Maybe he doesn't like odd numbers, or maybe he was just drunk. Point is there are plenty of non-malicious reasons for doing it. I'm not saying they're good reasons, just that they weren't necessarily deliberate and malicious.

Actually, I'm interested now: what possible malicious reasons do people think could be behind this?!? In what ways could this be a viable angle shoot?

The amount he left on the table and pushed "all in" was trivial compared to what he had racked out, so it hardly seems likely he was doing it expecting to win one last big pot or anything - surely he would have left a little more on the table and bet that too if that were the intention?

Uncle....the angle shot is the rest of the folks at the table hoping to get into his whole stack.

Yeah, kinda greedy, I'm gonna hafta agree with the ozzie man.


-

Yes, there is a hard and fast rule of not being able to take chips off the table and continue playing. Most casinos you have to leave the whole room for an hour before you are permitted to come back in with a stack smaller than you left with (assuming you are over the minimum buyin).

However, the OP's situation where the newbie thought he could take the money off the table is different. He thought he could bet that $33 as "all in". It would be unfair and short sighted to make him bet $1533 here. The floor's ruling was perfect, that $33 bet stands, and the money he tried to take off the table is returned onto the felt and is in play.

Yeah I cry Uncle too - but honest question here- Are casinos bound by Roberts Rules or are they really just Roberts "suggestions"?

This is what I assumed too, but having looked all the way through Robert's Rules I'm not sure it's the case.

The rule you're referring to is this one (Robert's Rules, Section 2 - House Policies: Procedures):

7. If you return to the same game within one hour of cashing out, your buy-in must be equal to the amount removed when leaving that game.

Call me a grammar nit, but that rule only applies to people who have left the game, cashed out and then decided they want to return to it. Obviously it's meant to stop people ratholing, but we can't apply the rule in OP's case because the player in question had neither left the table nor cashed out.

There is a further rule (same section) which states (emphasis added):

8. All games are table stakes (except “playing behind” as given in the next rule). Only the chips in front of a player at the start of a deal may play for that hand, except for chips not yet received that a player has purchased. The amount bought must be announced to the table, or only the amount of the minimum buy-in plays. Awareness of the amount being in play for each opponent is an important part of poker. All chips and money must be kept in plain view.

From Glossary/Definitions: TABLE STAKES: (1) The amount of money you have on the table. This is the maximum amount that you can win or lose on a hand. (2) The requirement that players can wager only the money in front of them at the start of a hand, and can only buy more chips between hands.

I think this is the closest we get to a hard and fast rule, that the chips "must be kept in plain view". Note though that it doesn't specifically say you're not allowed to go south and take a chunk of your stack off the table - as long as you leave what you're continuing to play with in plain view it could be said that you've satisfied the rule.

In fact, you could read that rule as stating that the player from OP should have been allowed to have the $33 stand as an all-in bet: those were the only chips in front of him at the start of the deal and they were in plain view.

The intent of these and other rules (an intent I agree with, FWIW) is clearly that you shouldn't be allowed to take money off the table unless you're cashing it all out, but unfortunately there seems to be a bunch of loopholes.

That surprises me, given that there are other rules that specifically prohibit things like taking insurance side bets and it wouldn't be hard for an additional rule to the effect of "no player shall be allowed to remove a portion of their stack from play and continue to play with the remainder" to be added. Maybe it's not there because such wording would also make it against the rules to, among other things, pay for a drink, tip a dealer or pay collection with chips from your stack.

If someone has an alternative interpretation or can find different rules that specifically prohibit going south I'd love to hear about it.

No - and that's one of the most annoying things about poker, there is no universal set of rules.

That said, Robert's Rules are the ones most commonly used and they're as close as we've got to a universal set. Most card rooms will base their rules on Robert's Rules, but they don't necessarily follow them to the letter and may have their own exceptions or additions.

The only possible angle I can think of for doing this is, he picks up AA, decides to put in the $33 and declare all-in, knowing full well this ruckus will kick up about him going south. It would make him look particularly weak when he starts arguing he should not be committed to $1433, just $33. Also, he will be happy with either result, whether the floor declares the whole $1433 to be in the middle, or the $1400 to be in play. Everyone at the table will assume he has weak holdings and can push him off it easily when it clearly is not the case.

I see good comments and suggestions provided by many individuals, thank you all for the input.

player was very native if he was just going to leave the game. The dealer was the problem here he/she should have asked the player for his intentions before dealing the hand.

As discussed above, that doesn't seem to be the norm in this card room - as long as you and some money are at the table you'll continue to be dealt hands.

FWIW I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Think about how much it would slow the game up (and how annoying it would be) if the dealer had to ask players all the time whether they were staying or not. Better to just keep dealing hands until either there's nobody in the seat to deal to or the player says stop.

The underlined text for me is why the ruling that the floor gave is correct.

The fish took the chips off of the table and were not visable before the action took place. This shows the players intent before play began.

The dealer should have made sure that the chips were in view and playable when he dealt the hand.

I have had a similar situation happen. I dont think it is that uncommon when playing with fish and when I saw it, there was a similar ruling and I agree that it is fair as long as the chips that the player had intended to take with him are off the table/out of view and there was clear intent.

To make the player go with his verbal commitment I think is taking a literal interpretation of the rules where as the casino should also be at fault for allowing the chips to be taken off of the table.

Good example though. Sucks about the hand but at least you got another few hundred out of it

Slows it up for 2 seconds and it's not annoying at all - they always ask where I play whenever a player has just arrived and is not settled or if they see them racking up. It's no big deal at all.

Yep


-