Russ Holland sent me an e-mail recently in which he described a very interesting decision. I will let Russ tell the story, and then answer his questions at the end of the column.
Recently, I was playing at Motorcity Casino in Detroit. I had been playing in a $300 minimum no-limit hold'em game for about an hour and a half when the No. 7 seat came open (I was in the No. 8 seat).
A new player, whom I had never seen before, took the open No. 7 seat and bought in for a rack of red ($5 chips) and a stack of green ($25 chips), for a total of $1,000. He placed his $100 stacks of red chips perpendicular to the rail, with the stack of greens on the left. I introduced myself and asked him if this was his first time at Motorcity; he said that it was.
About 15 minutes later, he (I will call him NP for new player) was down about $100 (all of it in red chips), and called from middle position, as did one other player. Another player, whom I will call RP (for regular player), called from the small blind in seat No. 2. The big blind checked.
On a flop of A
9
6
, RP bet $100. The big blind and the other player folded. NP looked at his cards and raised to $300 (pushing in three stacks of red chips). RP announced that he was putting NP all in, and NP immediately called.
Both players turned their hands faceup; NP had a set of nines and RP had a king-high flush draw. The turn was a blank and the river paired the board. NP announced to RP that his total (excluding the $300 he had already put into the pot) was $600. RP immediately announced, loudly, that he didn't know NP had a stack of green chips behind his red chips.
At this point, it is important to note that Motorcity has adopted a rule that is strictly adhered to in this situation. The rule more or less reads:
"You must keep your high-denomination chips visible at all times, in order not to deceive anyone moving you all in." The rule is used to make sure that players are aware of what other players have in chips when they either move all in or are moved all in on.
The dealer told NP that he needed to keep his green chips exposed to the table. NP's immediate reaction was, "Exactly how was I hiding them?" A relatively new floorperson was called over and listened to the dealer explain what had happened. The floorperson made a quick decision, stating that the stack of green chips wasn't exposed and that it would not count in the hand. He awarded the pot to NP, excluding his $500 stack of green chips.
I didn't think it was the right decision. Right about then, another floorperson, whom I knew pretty well, was walking by the table. I got his attention and asked him for a second opinion. The dealer explained to this floorperson what had happened, and also re-created the position of the stacks. The floorperson then asked the players to re-create for him the actions that they took. RP stated that he bet $100, and then NP showed how he had raised to $300, leaving one stack of red chips and clearly revealing the green stack of chips. The floorperson looked at RP and asked, "You didn't see that?" RP was adamant that he had not been aware of the green stack of chips.
The floorperson announced that there was clearly no deception taking place, and that it was the responsibility of RP to make sure that he knew what the other player had in chips before moving him all in. He then asked RP to put another $500 in the pot. RP became irate and shouted, "When is a floorman's decision final?"
The floorperson immediately replied, "When the pot is awarded." RP literally started jumping up and down, and stated that the dealer had already awarded the pot based on the first floorperson's decision.
I tried to calm RP down by explaining what I was seeing: "I think what the second floorperson is saying is that the decision with the information that was presented to the first floorperson was correct, and the amount of the pot at that time, based on that information, was awarded. But now that more information is known, it is clear that an incomplete pot was awarded on the initial decision and was therefore incomplete, and the additional $500 will complete the pot and finalize the decision." RP reluctantly gave up the additional $500.
Russ had the following questions regarding the situation he described:
1. When exactly is a floorperson's decision final?
In every poker room, management reserves the right to make decisions in the best interest of the players and the room. It is not uncommon for a floorperson's decision to be overruled by a supervisor or even the manager. I don't think there is an actual answer to the definite time when a decision is final.
2. If I hadn't called in the second floorperson, who just happened to be walking by, a great injustice would have occurred. What if I had told this floorperson about it 20 minutes later, or two hours later? I know we couldn't go into RP's stack at that point and pull out $500.
In this case, an actual decision was made, so the facts are clearly defined. Based on those facts, or additional evidence (surveillance), a different decision could be made by management 20 minutes, or two hours, later.
Management usually won't force a player to pay money after a pot has been pushed, but it can ask the player to pay, and if he doesn't, ban him from the room.
3. What is the responsibility of the players in no-limit? Frankly, I believe that if you are moved in or are moving someone in, you had better know how much your opponent has, hidden or otherwise. If you don't - shame on you. Is this a legitimate belief?
The rule that requires players to keep high-denomination chips visible was implemented so that players didn't intentionally, or inadvertently, hide higher-denomination chips completely.
In the case that you described, NP started the hand with four stacks of reds, then bet three of them, leaving him with one stack of reds and a stack of greens. It is impossible not to see the greens in that situation.
Yes, a player should know how much the other players have in their stacks. They also should be protected from players trying to hide chips to shoot an angle. In this case, NP wasn't doing that.
4. I was told afterward by a couple of players that I was wrong to get involved. One player is one for whom I have a deep respect. I explained to him that I didn't want to see RP get away with a move. He said that I really needed to mind my own business and that it is the responsibility of each player at the table to protect his own cards and money. Is it wrong to argue on someone else's behalf at the table?
I do not believe it is wrong to argue on another player's behalf. As poker players, we have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the game. With so many varying rules being used in poker rooms around the world, it is impossible for players to know what to expect in each room. The regular players in the rooms are the ones who are familiar with the rules and should help to enforce them.
In this case, I do not think you were out of line to voice your objection to the ruling, but I think that the proper approach would have been to ask the floorperson who made the original decision to call a supervisor or manager over to verify the original decision.
It is important to note that, in Russ' original e-mail, in addition to the facts, he also expressed his opinion of RP throughout the situation. Inasmuch as both he and RP are regulars in the poker room, he has experience with him and was convinced from beginning to end that RP was shooting an angle. He believed that RP intentionally used the hidden-chips rule to take a shot at the new player. Russ suggested that had RP made his flush, he gladly would have collected the whole pot.
I asked Russ to rewrite the e-mail without those thoughts, because I thought his opinion of RP would distract from the questions he asked. 
Michael O'Malley, www.Partygaming.com poker room manager, can be reached at [email protected]. His website is updated regularly at www.rzitup.com.
