[vrecksler]

If it was a tournament game I would say you went all-in wtih $23 but the way you described it I think you were playing with $3. In cash games I play you are free to cash out whenever you want, however much you want just as you can buy-in for any amount. You cashed out $20 in chips and your friend bought-in for $20, so no way can that be considered part of the pot.

Now if you had given the other player $20 in chips in exchange for something that represented your $20 (like a special chip or button) then that would be different because that money would then still be in play, but you clearly cashed out and am surprised some people are saying go with house rules.

[vanquish]

Originally Posted by 2_hotty

In my game, if you said "all-in" it would have been for $23.

I think in this case that there is no reasonable case to be made that his all-in included the $20 cash. It's house rules. No rules were defined. He went all-in for $3, and the hand went to showdown before the issue was even raised. Physically pushing $3 in chips into the pot (not $3 in chips and a $20 bill) is a bet of $3, not $23.

Anyway the key here is that further action occured. If no one notices an error before further action occurs (here, at least the river being dealt, probably more) then you can't turn back the clock and force anyone to do anything. I think that is in Robert's Rules somewhere, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think anyone could possibly argue that, in this situation, they could have reasonably assumed that the extra $20 was in the pot (when it physically was not). No one mentioned anything until the end, and that just sounds like someone got greedy after they saw that they won.

When the complainer called, did he put $3 or $23 in the pot? That should settle the argument right there.

I say the "fair" ruling would be his $20 didn't play and they need to come to a consensus on whether cash plays/table stakes rules apply at this game.

[R Deckard]

daveyboy (and schmag), if by selling the chips your intent was to cash-out that $20, then you should have removed the bill from the table and put it in your wallet. If you are indeed playing true table-stakes rules, all funds that you have on the table are in play and at risk, whether it be in the form of chips or cash.

The casino rule about not betting with cash is irrelevant to your situation. It has nothing to do with how much you have at stake--you may still bet those funds and they are considered to be part of your stack--it is just a matter of having to wait for the dealer or chip runner to convert the cash into chips. You can even bet with "imaginary chips" (i.e. verbal declarations) until they get your chips to you. The no-cash rule I surmise is more about issues with pot-handling/security/confusion if there were bills and coins all mixed into the pot.

Your situation consists of two separate questions:

1. Did the rules of your game allow partial cash-outs (some call it "ratholing") during play?
   I suspect not. Therefore, that money was still in play, and your stack is considered to be $23, and all-in would be $23.
   
2. Did the rules of your game allow cash in the pot?
   If so, then you could bet/call with the $20 bill, making change from the pot if necessary.
   If not, then you would have had to exchange the bill for chips from the chip case or another player before betting/calling.

Now, what to do about that particular hand--I agree with vanquish in that if the other players continued to act afterwards as if you were all-in (i.e. they created a side pot for themselves), that means that they all understood you to be all-in (even though incorrectly) and so that should be the end of that argument.

As an aside, at every casino and cardroom I have ever played at, you are not allowed to cash out any portion of your chips unless you are ready to quit the particular table you are sitting at. This also seems to be the case in online poker.

[coyote]

everything I've ever seen or heard at about cash on the table at a casino is that you must declare that you want to buy more chips with the cash, it is then considered "behind" your stack and is in play until the chip runner arrives with your chips..

Of course my experience at the casino is strictly limit.

[daveyboy]

Originally Posted by R Deckard

daveyboy (and schmag), if by selling the chips your intent was to cash-out that $20, then you should have removed the bill from the table and put it in your wallet.
Now, what to do about that particular hand--I agree with vanquish in that if the other players continued to act afterwards as if you were all-in (i.e. they created a side pot for themselves), that means that they all understood you to be all-in (even though incorrectly) and so that should be the end of that argument.

Thanks for all of the feedback everyone.

By me not removing the $20 from the table was problem #1 (it was in my cell phone on the table). My fault.

This was a very amature game being played (dice chips used) at a company meeting with one guy (not a friend) who was a big drama queen. I had to even teach them who gets to bet 1st after the flop. The player who started the betting (3rd player to the left of the button), also bet first after the flop, turn, and river. That should have been my sign to get the hell out.

And yes, there was no problem or nothing said with my all-in bet of a whopping $3. The 2 remaining players continued to play and bet after I said "I am all-in for $3". The only time there was a problem, it was when drama queen completed his set of 4's on the river and got the other player to fold. He threatened to walk off the table if this were to continue. All that for $3!! What a beeeep!!

My intent was to only play for the last $3 I had and get to bed. I did'nt realize until his rant and rave that I still had the $20 on the table.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff

In Vegas, I've seen cash on the table. One guy at our table wanted to buy chips, but the dealer tray was either short or change was coming. Something like that, I don't remember exactly. Anyway, he bought chips from another guy at the table. The dealer said it was OK and even made sure that the bill had to stay on the table. I guess technically that money was still in play although this was a limit game and it wasn't likely it was going to be going into the pot.

This has happened to me at Foxwoods. Someone sat down at my table, and bought some chips off of me. That money must stay on the table. Similarly, if someone is low on chips in the middle of a hand, cash on the table can be used to buy more chips during that hand. Perhaps even cash not on the table, but I'm not so sure about that.

[dad604]

The way it was describe, I would consider the cash as part of the stack. In most casino that I have been in, you can not cashout any of your chips until you quit the game. In home game, it will depend the rules for that game. In some of our home game, you can cash out part of your stake between hands. You can add up to max buying between hands but not during a hand.

[vanquish]

Originally Posted by daveyboy

And yes, there was no problem or nothing said with my all-in bet of a whopping $3. The 2 remaining players continued to play and bet after I said "I am all-in for $3". The only time there was a problem, it was when drama queen completed his set of 4's on the river and got the other player to fold. He threatened to walk off the table if this were to continue. All that for $3!! What a beeeep!!

My intent was to only play for the last $3 I had and get to bed. I did'nt realize until his rant and rave that I still had the $20 on the table.

I hate drama queens. I hope you told him to go ahead and leave. You didn't actually give him the $20 did you?

[CaptLego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

This has happened to me at Foxwoods. Someone sat down at my table, and bought some chips off of me. That money must stay on the table. Similarly, if someone is low on chips in the middle of a hand, cash on the table can be used to buy more chips during that hand. Perhaps even cash not on the table, but I'm not so sure about that.

I was watching a nolimit game at Wynn last week. There was quite a bit of cash on the table, and the cash often found its way into the pot. Cash on the table is equivalent to chips.

But there's no way any home or casino game should allow cash that did not start the hand on the table to come into the pot. That would be just plain wrong. Since bet size is often based on the size of your stack or an opponent's stack, adding to one's stack in the middle of a hand (based on the cards they're holding) would seriously screw up the game.

[daveyboy]

Originally Posted by vanquish

I hate drama queens. I hope you told him to go ahead and leave. You didn't actually give him the $20 did you?

No way. After his rant and rave, I left the table like I planned. He looks and acts like the the comedian Ant.