A question for you......

[AndrewT]

Why should there be a distinction because someone has gone all in? They have still made a bet or a raise and surely it should just be treated like a normal bet/raise?

Because normally, the value of a non-all-in bet is verbally announced ('I raise to 24,000'), whereas an all-in isn't. ('I'm all-in'). Therein lies the confusion.

[dik9]

Thanks Andrew. I have no quibble at all with making it unequivocal. I'm trying to find out what the Rule is, & why. This thread suggests few of us know! Hence the question.

Weirdly, if we compare it to Online Poker, we ALL know the rule there, because the amount is shown.

As far as I can see, there is no 'rule' as such, it is, as you say, custom and practice.

But it's a custom that the old-school players certainly see as giving them an advantage over the kids (who may not know/feel comfortable in asking for a count), so they want it to remain. It could be argued that, in and of itself, would be reason enough to get rid of it.

As it happens, there are other, better reasons (speeding up the game, kiboshing the stroke-pullers etc).

Well Said Mr T

[tikay]

In my view, this has come about from custom (in this country) and I don't think it is a bad custom.

In USA they are told not to count, don't know if there is a rule about it.

There should be a rule yay or nay, but a rule non the less. In fact a book should be published, with every small point, or even APAT could do something, but can I urge you that TD's should be involved rather than players only, a mix would be good or a debate, to clear the whole god damn mess up. It's not that hard for rules like ths and others to be written down as standard practise.

In answer to your question though TK a rule does not exist at the moment. As far as i am aware.

Thanks Rich. You anticipated my thoughts precisely. There IS no Rule at present.

Every eventuality, sadly, should be anticipated by the Rules in something as huge as Poker. In my opinion.

[tikay]

It is the players responsibilty to see how much goes into the pot, but more often than not (especially low value chips, lots of) they are chucked in the middle willy nilly, how can anyone count these in a mound? I never understand why people count out chips in nice little stacks, then push them forward, knocking them everywhere? Is it in a players manual to do this

I've wondered this as well, along with its corollary - me pushing forward my chips, in nice neat stacks of 20, winning the pot, then having the dealer sweep the chips back to me in a dishevelled heap.

I know your point, but i know a lot of players who enjoy the whole stacking up their chips after they've won a huge pot and building them into nice piles.

You & me too! Better than sex. I did it once. Won a huge pot & spent ages stacking it, that is.

[mikkyT]

Why should there be a distinction because someone has gone all in? They have still made a bet or a raise and surely it should just be treated like a normal bet/raise?

Because normally, the value of a non-all-in bet is verbally announced ('I raise to 24,000'), whereas an all-in isn't. ('I'm all-in'). Therein lies the confusion.

Not always. I've seen many plyers pushing in stacks of low denomination chips without announcing how much. To which someone says "Dealer friendly ffs", and to which I instantly count and announce.

[thetank]

Every eventuality, sadly, should be anticipated by the Rules in something as huge as Poker. In my opinion.

Would a rule for every eventuality remove the need for common sense we were all such big fans of a couple pages ago?

[mjrevie]

Thanks Rich. You anticipated my thoughts precisely. There IS no Rule at present.

Every eventuality, sadly, should be anticipated by the Rules in something as huge as Poker. In my opinion.

I agree but I think there is lots of ambiguity in poker when it comes to rules, especially at home games and self-dealt tournies. What officialy constitues a mis-deal? This should be known by all players at a table as its a fairly big rule but I wuold say 7 or 8 out of 10 playesr dont know what officialy is a mis-deal.

High stakes poker had an incident where Daniel Negreuna announced what the all in bet when T Brunson asked. Negreuna wasnt involved in the hand and Brunson wasnt happy that Mimi didnt need to answer. Brunson said it was etiquette not to talk abuot anohter players hand. Daniel justified it by saying that it had been happening all day and yesterday. Even at the very highest stakes there is ambiguity!!

[Bongo]

Why should there be a distinction because someone has gone all in? They have still made a bet or a raise and surely it should just be treated like a normal bet/raise?

Because normally, the value of a non-all-in bet is verbally announced ('I raise to 24,000'), whereas an all-in isn't. ('I'm all-in'). Therein lies the confusion.

I was trying to say that things shouldn't be treated differently because the person has gone all in, well at least in my opinion.

If someone says "raise" and chucks in a pile of chips (but not their entire stack) should they be counted by the dealer?

[thetank]

Why should there be a distinction because someone has gone all in? They have still made a bet or a raise and surely it should just be treated like a normal bet/raise?

Because normally, the value of a non-all-in bet is verbally announced ('I raise to 24,000'), whereas an all-in isn't. ('I'm all-in'). Therein lies the confusion.

Not always. I've seen many plyers pushing in stacks of low denomination chips without announcing how much. To which someone says "Dealer friendly ffs", and to which I instantly count and announce.

....and then wonder why the chap who won the tournament the other night only tipped you £2 

[AndrewT]

Why should there be a distinction because someone has gone all in? They have still made a bet or a raise and surely it should just be treated like a normal bet/raise?

Because normally, the value of a non-all-in bet is verbally announced ('I raise to 24,000'), whereas an all-in isn't. ('I'm all-in'). Therein lies the confusion.

Not always. I've seen many plyers pushing in stacks of low denomination chips without announcing how much. To which someone says "Dealer friendly ffs", and to which I instantly count and announce.

Yes, that happens. That's why I said 'normally', not 'always'.

[AndrewT]

Why should there be a distinction because someone has gone all in? They have still made a bet or a raise and surely it should just be treated like a normal bet/raise?

Because normally, the value of a non-all-in bet is verbally announced ('I raise to 24,000'), whereas an all-in isn't. ('I'm all-in'). Therein lies the confusion.

I was trying to say that things shouldn't be treated differently because the person has gone all in, well at least in my opinion.

If someone says "raise" and chucks in a pile of chips (but not their entire stack) should they be counted by the dealer?

It's not treating all-ins as separate - it's just that this situation overwhelmingly occurs with all-in bets, as opposed to non-all-ins. That's why everyone is talking about all-ins. But it would equally apply to any non-stated bet.

[dik9]

Every eventuality, sadly, should be anticipated by the Rules in something as huge as Poker. In my opinion.

Would a rule for every eventuality remove the need for common sense we were all such big fans of a couple pages ago?

How many TD's have common sense? LOL

[mikkyT]

Why should there be a distinction because someone has gone all in? They have still made a bet or a raise and surely it should just be treated like a normal bet/raise?

Because normally, the value of a non-all-in bet is verbally announced ('I raise to 24,000'), whereas an all-in isn't. ('I'm all-in'). Therein lies the confusion.

Not always. I've seen many plyers pushing in stacks of low denomination chips without announcing how much. To which someone says "Dealer friendly ffs", and to which I instantly count and announce.

....and then wonder why the chap who won the tournament the other night only tipped you £2 

The one whose bets I kept counting tipped big

[thetank]

Sometimes, I wonder why it's not called rare sense.

[tikay]

Every eventuality, sadly, should be anticipated by the Rules in something as huge as Poker. In my opinion.

Would a rule for every eventuality remove the need for common sense we were all such big fans of a couple pages ago?

No, & well you know it!

You already know this, but it works ike this. FIRST you have the Rule (which it seems we don't) THEN you apply common-sense. Without the Rule, the Common-Sense does not work in this case, as money is involved, & there are some very strange peeps in poker.....