Tourney Ruling Needed: Player Adds Another Stack Into His Own During Table Merge. (1 Viewer)

[fredo]

My game. The player in question has a large stack ~40k. I gave him a rack to transport his chips to the new table at seat 4.

Worth noting he had too much to drink. Even though we were moved 3 seats apart I don’t think he did this on purpose. I don’t think he knew what he was doing.

I had a smaller stack (really not sure how much) easily carried in my hand, placed it on the new table at my seat (7) and left to use the restroom.

When I returned my chips were gone. Other players verified that they saw me place my stack at my seat.

There were bounty chips in play and it was determined the large stack in seat 4 had an extra bounty. Seat 4 never disputed that he had an extra bounty chip.

I estimated on the very low end that I had 11 or 12k.

I was uncomfortable making a ruling because I was involved, but everyone except seat 4 agreed that he must have taken my stack since he had an extra bounty chip and that 11k was a fair amount.

I ruled for seat 4 to give me 11k and a bounty chip.

Seat 4 became angry, insisted he didn’t take the chips, and complained he had just lost 11k unfairly. He would not let it go for awhile.
I explained to him repeatedly that since he had my bounty chip there was no other explanation as to where my chips had gone.

Afterward, a few players told me in private they thought I had more than 11k and was overly generous with my estimate of my stack.

I know I would have handled this differently if it wasn’t my stack. However, I can’t say for sure what I would have or should have done. I do have some thoughts but curious for some input.

 

[BGinGA]

1. It's wise to always know the approximate value of your stack, ESPECIALLY if leaving it unattended.
2. If leaving your stack unattended, always bring it (and the amount) to the attention of the dealer, the TD, or another (preferably adjacent) player before leaving the immediate area.

I was uncomfortable making a ruling because I was involved,

And rightfully so. You should delegate this decision to somebody who isn't involved (preferably a committee of three), and accept their ruling without protest.

I know I would have handled this differently if it wasn’t my stack.

Okay, I'm curious -- how would you have handled it differently, and why? In the interest of fairness to all participants, it should be handled the same way regardless of stack ownership, which is yet more confirmation that the decision should have been handled by somebody else not involved.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I bet you asked him like "so how did you get my bounty, then?". If so, what was his story?

 

[fredo]

1. It's wise to always know the approximate value of your stack, ESPECIALLY if leaving it unattended.

This was my mistake I usually do know the approximate value. I was distracted with hosting duties. It’s been a long time since we had a game at our place.

2. If leaving your stack unattended, always bring it (and the amount) to the attention of the dealer, the TD, or another (preferably adjacent) player before leaving the immediate area.

Curious if your players do this even on a break and how you keep track/verify the info.

You should delegate this decision to somebody who isn't involved (preferably a committee of three), and accept their ruling without protest.

Something I usually do..like I said it’s been a while. Although I have only ever had 1 or 2 backup TD’s in case I and/or backup #1 are involved. Committee seems like it could get messy if they don’t agree.

Although, in this case there was a committee of the 8 players at the table who weren’t involved. They suggested everyone count their bounties and agreed I should be paid and on the amount. I tried to say as little as possible. It wasn’t until he became angry and wouldn’t stop complaining that I spoke up and explained repeatedly why the decision had been made.

Okay, I'm curious -- how would you have handled it differently, and why? In the interest of fairness to all participants, it should be handled the same way regardless of stack ownership, which is yet more confirmation that the decision should have been handled by somebody else not involved.

As soon as the extra bounty was found in his stack I would have let him know that this was a serious infraction that he could be penalized for and he was going to have to accept whatever decision was made. I would have pointed out how bad a look it was for him that the stack he took was 3 seats away. When he got angry I would have told him to go cool down for an orbit and have a smoke. If he kept it up I would have told him if he didn’t stop he would be asked to leave. If necessary I would have asked him to leave. I didn’t do this because I didn’t feel comfortable making a ruling when I was involved in the hand. Like I said I didn’t say too much and let the players not involved discuss.

He was very drunk and made the situation very uncomfortable but I felt like my hands were tied. He just wouldn’t let it go for so long.

 

[fredo]

I bet you asked him like "so how did you get my bounty, then?". If so, what was his story?

He said he didn’t know.

After he paid me and was angry he kept insisting seat 5, who had an even bigger stack must have taken some of his chips and they somehow got all mixed up. He was really a mess.

 

[WedgeRock]

Seat 4 never disputed that he had an extra bounty chip.

Seat 4 became angry, insisted he didn’t take the chips, and complained he had just lost 11k unfairly.

I don't understand how he could complain. If you took 100k, sure. But he acknowledged that he had an extra bounty and it was quite obvious that your stack disappeared.

 

[BarrieJ3]

I know that rules are rules and should always be followed, but most of the table time I’ve had has been amongst friends and poker games where the social aspect was a large driver.

That being said, if I’m at a real game, I’m counting chips before I get up and not moving anything without a second pair of eyes on me. Hell, at MiM a trusted guy forgot his cell phone downstairs, and made sure to grab me to go with him to get it just so he knew someone else knew there was no funny business.

If this is a friendly game where drinks are flowing and people play regularly together, I’m thinking the way it was resolved is fine, but more so I don’t want to invite that guy back as he makes me uncomfortable as a host and annoyed as an attendee.

 

[fredo]

I don't understand how he could complain. If you took 100k, sure. But he acknowledged that he had an extra bounty and it was quite obvious that your stack disappeared.

Alcohol

If this is a friendly game where drinks are flowing and people play regularly together, I’m thinking the way it was resolved is fine, but more so I don’t want to invite that guy back as he makes me uncomfortable as a host and annoyed as an attendee.

Nobody else there had a problem with the way it was resolved. It is a friendly game there were a few drinks but he was the only one letting it “flow“. I was just curious as to what others thought.

He was making other players uncomfortable and/or annoying them. I didn't find out until after but another player razzed him that he probably stole the bounties he did have - after I was knocked out and playing cash in the next room-drunk guy didn't find the joke funny and actually wanted to go outside and fight! Then apparently he wouldn’t let that go either. Ugh

In Hindsight I should have told him to leave after I found out about the fight shenanigans. I’ve never had to deal with a situation like this before. Lesson learned.

 

[CraigT78]

Alcohol


Nobody else there had a problem with the way it was resolved. It is a friendly game there were a few drinks but he was the only one letting it “flow“. I was just curious as to what others thought.

He was making other players uncomfortable and/or annoying them. I didn't find out until after but another player razzed him that he probably stole the bounties he did have - after I was knocked out and playing cash in the next room-drunk guy didn't find the joke funny and actually wanted to go outside and fight! Then apparently he wouldn’t let that go either. Ugh

In Hindsight I should have told him to leave after I found out about the fight shenanigans. I’ve never had to deal with a situation like this before. Lesson learned.

Sounds like this guy needs a reminder on how to conduct himself at your poker game. Angry drunks are not welcome. Splashy, fun loving drunks welcome.

 

[JustinInMN]

A host needs to put a decision making process in place, and players consent to it by participating, simple as that.

Host should announce a secondary decision maker for this situation going forward. That should cover everything.

I think the OP underestiming his stack is appropriate considering he didn't protect it, not count it. Also, I think a player that drunk should not be reinvited.

I am not a huge fan of committees but I can see a usefulness as an absolute last resort if the decision makers are at an impasse in a situation where they should not rule.

But give me one person that knows the book well enough all day over a committee that will take longer and may be prone to putting opinion above fact.

 

[BGinGA]

Curious if your players do this even on a break and how you keep track/verify the info.

I dunno what other players do (unless they happen to inform me), but I always notify *someone* if I am leaving the playing area and my stack unattended during a break. Just having someone else aware goes a long way towards legitimizing a later issue/complaint. No need for a formal tracking system.

I have only ever had 1 or 2 backup TD’s in case I and/or backup #1 are involved. Committee seems like it could get messy if they don’t agree.

If any TD ruling is appealed, our rules state that a 3-person committee is convened to hear the appeal, privately confers, and announces the verdict. How they come to that conclusion is up to them, but 2-of-3 in agreement would be sufficient (and be kept private from public scrutiny).

If I happen to be involved, I prefer to use a committee rather than pick a single person, as it protects those making the ruling from pushback and lessens the likelihood (or possible appearance) of my cherry-picking the person to rule in my favor. Rulings are rarely appealed however, as in most cases the applicable rulebook clause is specifically cited during the ruling.

Having your group of ~8 players come to a consensus on how to handle it was a wise idea. Formally making them responsible for the ruling would have been even better..... removing the focus on you.

 

[Frogzilla]

Thats a tough decision. Geez. That guy might not be invited back based on the stack merge alone

I probably do same as you...get opinions of the group and go with the conservative estimate of my count. And I’m watching the stacks at break next game like a hawk.

Very tough spot there

 

[EnjoyLife]

I wouldn't be inviting that person back.

 

[JustinInMN]

I mean what to home game players want? They want to go to a home game. The host has responsibilities including decision making. The host in this case I think found a reasonable way to avoid a conflict of interest and a players came up with a reasonable estimation.

It probably would have been better if someone had been deputized in advance, but I still think they reached a good decision.

I don't get what this guy's beef was. Maybe it is as simple as being too drunk to know anyway.

It's inherent that there will never be the level of neutrality in a home game as there is in a casino no matter what. Home game players need to accept that if abstention from play is a requirement to host, then undoubtedly, fewer players will be willing to host. They have to accept that hosts are going to play and that hosts or other players will be making rule decisions. Steps can be taken to avoid hosts ruling on themselves, and to the OP's credit, he did his best to avoid that and this jerk is still complaining? If that isn't good enough for a home game, they can go somewhere else and pay rake for all I care.