Ruling please...

[thetank]

Is that not irrelevant?

His chip stack is 3.6k, just in two different locations, and he has called the all-in (of >3.6k).
It shouldn't really be ruled in his favour because he didn't keep track of his chips. (counting starting stack would be part of that responsibility)

All that is if there has been no hands played in the meantime obv.

[I KNOW IT]

Like i said there are instances in this case. he was an alternate apparently, maybe unaware of starting stack due to coming late I dont know I wasnt there but I also agree with you its the players responsibility to know these facts

 Dealer was involved in giving chips ffs even they didnt know how many to give out to the alternates lol . because of this I personally think the fairest ruling was given this time ,reasons given in earlier post



pls explain this:His chip stack is 3.6k, just in two different locations,

[littlemissC]

Is that not irrelevant?

His chip stack is 3.6k, just in two different locations, and he has called the all-in (of >3.6k).
It shouldn't really be ruled in his favour because he didn't keep track of his chips. (counting starting stack would be part of that responsibility)

All that is if there has been no hands played in the meantime obv.

the guy that won the pot noticed straight away that the pot was not right so there were no hands played and the floor was called straight over.

[thetank]

Like i said there are instances in this case. he was an alternate apparently, maybe unaware of starting stack due to coming late I dont know I wasnt there but I also agree with you its the players responsibility to know these facts

 Dealer was involved in giving chips ffs even they didnt know how many to give out to the alternates lol . because of this I personally think the fairest ruling was given this time ,reasons given in earlier post



pls explain this:His chip stack is 3.6k, just in two different locations,

He's only got 2.6k sitting in front of him, but this doesn't change that his official stack size is still 3.6k.
If the other 1k chip had been under a cocktail napkin instead of in the chip tray how would we rule?

Being an alternate and perhaps being unaware of stack size due to coming late is also irrelevant imo. Still his responsibility to know and check these details.

[I KNOW IT]

Like i said there are instances in this case. he was an alternate apparently, maybe unaware of starting stack due to coming late I dont know I wasnt there but I also agree with you its the players responsibility to know these facts

 Dealer was involved in giving chips ffs even they didnt know how many to give out to the alternates lol . because of this I personally think the fairest ruling was given this time ,reasons given in earlier post



pls explain this:His chip stack is 3.6k, just in two different locations,

He's only got 2.6k sitting in front of him, but this doesn't change that his official stack size is still 3.6k.
If the other 1k chip had been under a cocktail napkin instead of in the chip tray how would we rule?

He has 2.6k sitting in front of him because he thought that was his official stack size. It was what was given to him by TD/Dealer.Maybe if he had the 3.6k he may have acted differently.

In reference to the chip under the napkin: Jack Strauss (chip & a chair) this exact scenario, he was allowed to play on and went on to win the WSOP Main event. He didnt forfeit the chip.
You cannot use the napkin scenario as that would have solely been his fault for missplacing his 1k chip, in this instance the person responsible for handing out chips is equally to blame.

[bolt pp]

Like i said there are instances in this case. he was an alternate apparently, maybe unaware of starting stack due to coming late I dont know I wasnt there but I also agree with you its the players responsibility to know these facts

 Dealer was involved in giving chips ffs even they didnt know how many to give out to the alternates lol . because of this I personally think the fairest ruling was given this time ,reasons given in earlier post



pls explain this:His chip stack is 3.6k, just in two different locations,

He's only got 2.6k sitting in front of him, but this doesn't change that his official stack size is still 3.6k.
If the other 1k chip had been under a cocktail napkin instead of in the chip tray how would we rule?

He has 2.6k sitting in front of him because he thought that was his official stack size. It was what was given to him by TD/Dealer.Maybe if he had the 3.6k he may have acted differently.
In reference to the chip under the napkin: Jack Strauss (chip & a chair) this exact scenario
You cannot use the napkin scenario as that would have solely been his fault for missplacing his 1k chip, in this instance the person responsible for handing out chips is equally to blame.

 

thats some top quality detective work

here you go, solve this one....................

http://www.mysterynet.com/see/

[I KNOW IT]

Like i said there are instances in this case. he was an alternate apparently, maybe unaware of starting stack due to coming late I dont know I wasnt there but I also agree with you its the players responsibility to know these facts

 Dealer was involved in giving chips ffs even they didnt know how many to give out to the alternates lol . because of this I personally think the fairest ruling was given this time ,reasons given in earlier post



pls explain this:His chip stack is 3.6k, just in two different locations,

He's only got 2.6k sitting in front of him, but this doesn't change that his official stack size is still 3.6k.
If the other 1k chip had been under a cocktail napkin instead of in the chip tray how would we rule?

He has 2.6k sitting in front of him because he thought that was his official stack size. It was what was given to him by TD/Dealer.Maybe if he had the 3.6k he may have acted differently.
In reference to the chip under the napkin: Jack Strauss (chip & a chair) this exact scenario
You cannot use the napkin scenario as that would have solely been his fault for missplacing his 1k chip, in this instance the person responsible for handing out chips is equally to blame.

 

thats some top quality detective work

here you go, solve this one....................

http://www.mysterynet.com/see/

LOL Bolt
That was 1 of those useless bits of info that I carry around in my brain. Tank probably already knew this info too.
I hang around with the ole boys who know 1st hand of some of the famous vegas tales/strokes. These infamous stories fascinate me lol

[owen1923]

Pretty simple really, you cannot bet what you do not have in front of you.

[thetank]

My understanding was that Jack Strauss made a bet and was called.
Totally different set of circumstances than if another player had been all-in and he called them.