Chip stack sizes?

[LeftNut]

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.

Tell you what I am going to do! For the Laughlin and Seattle events I will have the players stack their chips by color in stacks of 10 and in multiple stacks!

It will be up to the players to make sure the stacks are in 10's and in the correct order. So anytime during the game if a player ask another if they have their stacks of 10 and by color (should any of the stacks be hidden).

Now, should a player lose because another player actually had their stacks 11 high, O'well to bad!
It is still up to all the players to have their head in the game and still count chips, but now it is only 10 of them!

And one step futher with this rule, since no more then 10 chips in a stack, that means no more then 10 stacks of any color can be bet as well. This means 10 - $5 chips will be the most of any color on a bet. Example: you can bet 1 - $100, 2 - $25, and 10 - $5 chips for a $200 bet, but not 5 - $25, and 15 - $5 chips.

I am going to try this in Laughlin and at the Seattle events. After that I will take a survey of the players actually at these events and decide if we are to keep this rule or not.

Of the players who contacted me about not liking the stack limit rule, 4 of them couldn't make it to Laughlin so I figured this is as good of time to try it as possible.

Once again this was a very positive discussion, and very civil, hopefully we can start having many more. Great feedback from all involved!

 

[fgk42]

My guess is that FGK's missing chip was discovered during one of these stack checking procedures.

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.

2. It's my understanding that at some early point in UBT's existence Mr. Hamilton polled the players about the chip stack height issue, and that's where the 10-per-stack rule came about. Wasn't an arbitrarily engineered surprise.

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

 

[pokernut]

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?

 

[toonces]

I’m not trying to be silly, but if your reasoning about chip stacks to make it easier to count the other players chips is valid enough to change the chip stacks, then the same rule should affect the bets as well. It makes no sense to make it easier to count another player’s chips, but not his chips as a bet?

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.

Here is where I see a problem that I have seen several times, even more so with newer players. The more stacks of chips the more chance of hiding chips. Newer players (not all, but lots of them) tend to hide higher value chips behind other stacks. Also a chip could be simply misplaced and put in the wrong stack by mistake, but with multiple stacks it could be over looked or not seen by the tournament director.

Trust me on this one; the first time any of you lose because of this you’ll scream bloody murder. And having only one stack per color really wouldn’t slow the game down. Hell just having single stacks limited to the number of chip on each would more then make up any time lost.

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.

At the final table going into the final hand (30) it was discovered that I was missing a 5000 chip. This was discovered because someone had a list of the chip totals from the countdown after hand 25, my bets, win/loss/push results and the final chip total. What happened is that the dealer shorted me a chip on one hand. I missed this because I was too excited and counting OTHER peoples chips.

That I am afraid is just a players mistake. I see players shorted all the time. It isn’t anyone’s responsibility, but the players to control their chips.

I am curious as to what the rule was about your missing $5,000 chip? Had you been allowed to receive it after other hands were played, I would have been screaming bloody murder myself. I believe that any mistake must be called when it happens, once another hand has been started, the issue is dead.

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.

 

[TXtourplayer]

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)

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.

 

[LeftNut]

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.

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.

 

[TXtourplayer]

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).

 

[rookie789]

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.

 

[toonces]

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.

 

[London Colin]

Aversion Therapy

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