Here’s something that happened as the opening scene of a CSI rerun that I happened to catch. I was curious what would happen if it occurred IRL.
Imagine five people at a high stakes NL Hold 'Em table at a major casino. There was a raise pre-flop, which all call. Then the flop is checked around. On the turn, the first player to act bets $2K. The next player (Player A) raises. There’s a fold, then a reraise by Player B. The original bettor folds, and Player A moves all-in. Player B does an analysis of what he thinks his chances are, and is obviously going to call. But before he can officially do so, and push his chips in, he keels over dead.
Player B, BTW, would’ve won on the river, but obviously that’s neither here nor there. What would happen to the pot? I can’t imagine the rest of player B’s stack going to Player A (as the character demanded in the episode), but what about Player B’s original reraise? The rest of the pot? How would this be resolved?
Player B’s stake passes into probate. The other players can wait for his designated heir to continue play, or since he’s got 0 for a stake, consider him ‘all-in’ as of his last bet, and play accordingly.
I wonder whether the WSOP, or ordinary casinos, have a ‘house rule’ for such a contingency? I’d think that a house rule would control.
A related follow-up that occurred to me: suppose Player B had called, but died before the river card was revealed? On the CSI ep, by the time anyone bothered to look at either set of hole cards, or the river, Player A could’ve argued (rightly) that anyone could’ve marched up to the deck during the confusion and call for the police and monkeyed with the cards. How would that have been resolved?
There is a cute movie with a similar situation from 1966 with Jason Robards, called A Big Hand for the Little Lady. It’s a Western and they’re playing some form of “regular” poker - 5 cards, no river, turn, etc. The guy dies during the hand, and the players don’t know what to do. The hand goes to his wife, but she doesn’t have enough money to call. They aren’t even too keen on letting a woman play. She ends up going to the bank to get a loan based on showing the cards to the bank manager. I forget what the hand was or the outcome.
The guy didn’t really die. It was a con game to sting the high stakes poker players involved in the game. The traveling player (Henry Fonda), his “wife” and “child” (who really weren’t), the banker who backed the wife’s hand, and the town doctor who pronounced the guy dead were all in on it. The banker had reason to dislike the town bigshots who regularly had these games, and set the whole thing up. It’s an entertaining movie.
Just FYI, poker almost never (I say almost because I guess anyone can make a rule in their home games) ever ever works like it does in westerns (and I’m guessing it didn’t then, either). You’re not forced to sell your house or whatever to call a big bet, you’re only liable up to the amount you have on the table. Otherwise, poker would just become silly… the richest guy at the table could win every hand simply by betting big.
In general, when there’s a major foulup during a hand, such as the dealer dropping the deck on the ground, etc., the players get their chips back. (But if the foulup is caused by a player, the outcome is determined by who can draw their gun the fastest.)
Death of a player would seem to be an “outside act” that would cancel the hand.
This depends on the specific rules of the casino. Most have rulebooks similar to or based on Robert’s Rules of Poker. In this situation I believe the following rule applies:
World Poker Tour, et al, call their games “No Limit” when in reality they’re “Table Stakes,” because like you said, the most you can bet is what you’ve got in front of you.
I guess No Limit sounds more dramatic.
But in your fantasy, Senor, don’t you get into a Texas Hold 'em No Limit game with some rich Saudis and take them for a gazillion bucks? Which goes right to a Swiss account? Tax free? Plus 172 nubile virgins (which you won in a side bet) are lolling on you 400-foot yacht, breathlessly awaiting your arrival?
Well, no. I mean yeah, no limit sounds more dramatic, but the game is “no limit” when compared to “limit” in which the amount of each bet and the number of raises per betting round is set.
I don’t want to sound too cynical but instead of coming to a reasonable agreement among themselves and the dead players’ estate, they’ll fight about it and their lawyers will wind up with much of the pot.
As my evidence I cite the case of the rich geezer and the cutie (Anna Nichole Smith?). The son thinks she shouldn’t have anything and is fighting or has fought. I believe hundreds of millions are involved. That sounds like plenty for everybody to me. I don’t think the son was left penniless and it was the old man’s money to do with as he chose.
