Contracts and Poker: Getting a Count

In his When I Was a Donk column (Card Player Vol. 31, No. 26), Jake Schwartz laments the time he berated an angle-shooter for taking him in. The opponent’s chips were stacked in such a way that they were hard to determine, so facing a bet, Schwartz asked for a count. The opponent answered, and Schwartz shoved.

However, the opponent had understated the number of chips in his stack. After the opponent called and won the hand, Schwartz was out. He concludes, “I still think it wasn’t right for him to shoot an angle, but I also recognize that I made a mistake by not asking for the accurate count.”

If he had asked for the accurate count, would it have made any difference? As Tony Dunst likes to say, let’s break it down.

There are two TDA rules that directly apply to this situation, and two others that prove helpful in analyzing it. The first is Rule 25:

Cards & Chips Kept Visible, Countable, & Manageable

Players are entitled to a reasonable estimation of their opponents’ chip count; thus chips should be kept in countable stacks. The TDA recommends clean stacks of 20 chips each as a standard. Higher denomination chips must be visible and identifiable at all times.

This rule is drafted in terms of what players are “entitled to,” that is, what rights they have. But a right is the flip side of an obligation. So the rule would be more helpful if it stated the obligation: “So that other players can reasonably visibly estimate their opponents’ chip count, players must keep chips in countable stacks.”

Some players think this rule requires a player to tell another player how many chips he has, but it does not address that topic. This rule only addresses what a player sees. This limitation is made clear by the final sentence – “Higher denomination chips must be visible and identifiable at all times.” Dealers often remind players to keep their bigger chips in front so they are not hidden.

We have to go to Rule 60 to determine when a player is entitled to a count:

Count of Opponent’s Chip Stack

Players are entitled to a reasonable estimation of opponents’ chip stacks (Rule 25). A player may request a more precise count only if facing an all-in bet and it is his or her turn to act. The all-in player is not required to count; on request the dealer or floor will count it. Accepted action applies (Rule 53). The visible and countable chipstack rule (Rule 25) greatly helps accuracy in counting.

So Rule 25 provides that players must keep chips visible in countable stacks and Rule 60 provides that a player can request a more precise count only when the opponent is all-in. If the opponent is not all-in, the player asking for a count is really saying, “I can’t get a reasonable estimate by looking at your chips.” If that is the case, then the bettor must comply with Rule 25 by making it easier for the other player to make a visible estimate, but the bettor does not have to respond verbally.

Therefore, Schwartz was wrong to conclude that he should have asked for an accurate count. Since his opponent was not all-in, he was not entitled to one. However, he was entitled to have his opponent stack his chips in a manner that would make it easier to determine the count visually, and that is what Schwartz should have requested.

Even though he wasn’t entitled to a chip count, having asked for one, was his opponent permitted to misrepresent the amount in his answer? Here, the rules of contracts are clearer than the rules of poker. In contracts, if there is no duty to disclose, you don’t have to say anything. However, if you do respond to a question, your response cannot be a misrepresentation. There is a suggestion in Rule 60 that that may be the poker rule as well, for the rule states “Accepted action applies (Rule 53).” Rule 53 provides:

Accepted Action

Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling regardless of what is stated by others. If a caller requests a count but receives information from a dealer or player, then pushes out that amount, the caller has accepted the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount. As with all, situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion.

This rule technically applies only to the count of a bet. It provides that if you get inaccurate information in response to your request, you are still bound by the amount of the bet. But note the last sentence – “As with all situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion.”

Rule 1 provides that “common-sense decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over technical rules.” It seems to me that this sentence was added to Rule 60 to address the angle-shooter who provides inaccurate information. In such a situation, the TD has some discretion. And if he has discretion to apply Rule 1 to this situation, then he also has discretion to apply it in any situation where an angle-shooter provides misleading information. However, if the TD does intervene, he is more likely to issue a penalty to the angle-shooter than to undo the action.

So while Schwartz was wrong to think that he was entitled to ask for a count, he should not be berated for his response to the angle-shooter. Rather, it is the angle-shooter who should be berated. Perhaps the best takeaway from all this is to remember what Ronald Reagan liked to say to the Russians: “Trust, but verify.” ♠

Scott J. Burnham is professor emeritus at Gonzaga Law School in Spokane, Washington. He can be contacted at [email protected]. This column is adapted from his article, A Transactional Lawyer Looks at the Rules of Tournament Poker, which was published in Gaming Law Review and Economics.