Chip stack sizes?

I know that I'm not a TBJPA player - YET - but for what it's worth, I think that's a damn fine idea, TX.

 

Yes, that is what occurred. In addition to putting the chips out we had to VERBALLY announce out bets. In this case it was a 47,000 bet with a 10,000 DD. Now I can't say what happened but at the pre-final hand countdown it was discovered by Joe Pane, who was keeping the records.

I too was under that impression because of some of the occurences at the first event in Aruba. People talked to Russ about it and he decided to implement the new rule the very next day. I recommended that the dealer wear a bikinni but obviously he didn't listen to THAT suggestion

 

For TV where everything is recorded, I can see th emistake being corrected. Had that $5,000 chip come in to play, WOW, I would have wanted to be the TD...LOL

Isn't all play recorded by the casino's eye in the sky, I know in poker they can review the tapes.

That same thing happened on the WSOB II, but I believe that players mistake was getting over paid and it was caught in the middle of the round, no knockout cards on that show.

On a regular land base event, I would have to have ruled against you recieving the chip as TD. It is the same as the button getting placed out of order to me. Once the next hand is started I believe anything that happens before that hand is a dead issue.

If the player does not like the floor's ruling has anyone in BJ events ever asked for the Gaming commission to rule?

 

I don't think bet size has the same issues or concerns. First of all, bet sizes have limited ranges, i.e. $5-$500 in multiples of $5. Stack sizes often involve hunderds of chips, so the difficulty in counting them can be much worse. Second, most bet sizes are on the lower end of the scale. Third, in most cases, knowing the opponent's bet size is for the purpose of matching it. If they choose to use a silly combo of colors, then you can just match the colors. Finally, assuming that the stacking rules exist, any confusion in bet size will be quickly resolved when the win or loss is stacked.

I've responded to this issue on the other thread. I saw no instances of this happening in any of my UBT rounds and in most cases, this will be caught beofre the stack gets hidden. If you truly think this to be a pervasive issue, Rick, (I'm going to assume this screwed you at least once in a tournament, which is why this is an issue for you) then I think that you can impose penalties to minimize it from occuring. For example, if a higher denom chip is determined to be hidden in a lower denom stack (that could not be seen by the players because it was a hidden stack), it is replaced with a chip of the lower denomination. This is a violation of the rules, even if by accident, so I think that between inspection and a penalty, the instance of occurance would be pretty small.

This was an interesting case in the TV finals.

**********SPOILERS TO FOLLOW********























On hand 28, Fred made a bet big enough to move from 3rd to 1st and won. On hand 29, Fred noticed that his stack was still in 3rd place, but must have attributed it to bad counting or the result of double downs. Monica and I also counted his stack and noticed it to be less than ours and bet on hand #29 accordingly. On the hand, Fred bet 44,000, I bet 22,000 (to make Monica choose someone to match) and Monica bet 44,000 to match Fred. The dealer beat all of us, putting me into the lead, and they went to a chip count.

During the chip count was when they realized that Fred was short a $5000 chip, after checking it with their paper record of bets. Now that i think about it, I remember the confusion about hand 29 and think that Fred was shorted in hand 28. But I kept out of the discussion, since I didn't know what solution they would come up with, and for sure, I did not want them to throw out hand 29 and replay it. They ended up concluding that Fred was likely shorted on this last hand, and was given an extra $5000 chip to move him into 2nd place.

So, as it turns out, the only person screwed in the decision was Monica, as she lost her chance to move in front of Fred. Fred was lucky to keep position on Monica, and I was happy that I got a swing on hand 29. As the result turned out, Monica has nothing to complain about.

I also think that there ought to be an agreed upon way to handle times where the paper record disagrees with the chips. I'm inclined to agree with Rick that once the hand goes by, you can't correct a chip count, but it makes it a little harder when people can see the numbers on the screen, and know when they are not adding up.


NOTE: Most of this post was written before lunch and before Rick said that he was going to use the "10 chip rule" in Laughlin. I kept the argument in here for future's sake. I applaud Rick for listening to the concensus opinion/arguments here, and think that his 10-chip of any single color betting rule is a perfectly fair rule as well. The only time I expect it to be an issue is on all-in bets, where the dealer may need to do some coloring up ahead of the hand.

 

A long time ago I had it happen to me, but I have seen it happen to others several times. Most resent was a month ago.

As long as the players understand it is their responsiblity to still count the players chips, I have no problems with trying the 10 chip stack rule.

 

TX, you should think about what you're going to do if one blockhead decides to repeatedly violate the 10-stack rule. As much as we might like everyone to compete as gentlemen (and women), so many times there's one jacka$$ who simply has to see how far he can push it. If you get that person in your event, and he keeps screwing up his stacks on purpose, sooner or later the players are going to call over the TD.

 

Already ahead of you

When I started the surrender cards I had players that did like the idea, but afterwards they all love the idea.

I am sure this can workout the same way, but to answer your post, yes there will certainly be someone who tries to see what they can get away with (there normally is).

 

Violating the 10 Chip Stack Rule

I don't forsee a problem with someone "Deciding" to repeatedly violate the 10-stack rule, other less obvious attempts to decieve opponents of a true chip count have been tried and caught. "Bonehead" may be an excellent choice of words to describe someone that would "Decide" to try this as the evidence is in full view. But more important in my opinion, I knew probably 75% of the players at the first Laughlin event and although all probably would legally use the rules to their advantage if possible, there is "honor among thieves" and I'm sure none would intentionally "Decide" to violate the rules.

I do expect some players will stack chips in excess of 10 prior to the learning curve due to old habits especially those that haven't played previously with a chip stack rule. This occured occasionaly at the Venetian UBT Turbo SnG's when casual players joined a table and was viewed by other players as a "Brain Fart" not an attempt to deceive or cheat.

 

Well put, rookie. My thoughts, exactly.

 

Aversion Therapy

Maybe special 'smart chips' could be constructed which administer a small electric shock to anyone attempting to stack them too high.