blonde poker forum

Player A raises to 8k at 1.5k/3.k

PLayer B makes it 15k more

Dealer advises player A its 10k more. He calls

Flop is dealt

Suddenly table realises Player A owes pot 5k

Floor is called. Ruling should be?

AndrewT, gatso and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Gatso's 'ruling thread' bat signal works again. CF's must be broken.

yeah, cf's rubbish lately. need him to come on so I can quote and put +1 cos I dunno what to say about this one

I'd give A the preflop option to call or fold. If he calls, reshuffle the stub and deal a new flop.

No idea if it's 'correct' but it seems fairest all round.

Urk. It's a dealer mistake but I think no matter the flop the player is obligated to put the remaining chips in. He has been badly advised but it's ultimately his responsibility for knowing the amount.

The other option is to treat it as a premature flop and rewind the action. But I don't like this. Ultimately it's the players own fault, even with the dealer misadvising.

Agree with above. Player has to put it in.

Sucky situ tho

give the dealer a one round penalty..

This is what happened and player decided to fold

and got back the 10k or had to leave it in?

got back the 10k

then I guess it's not a bad ruling. basically the same as if the dealer had put out the flop with a player still to act

If after being badly advised Player A said 'call' rather than silently putting the chips in, wouldn't he just get the 5k 'overcall' back and play the flop as is?

Well either

A) The player should get given the option again as he was ill-advised by the dealer and the flop should be re-shuffled and dealt. (as happened)

or B) The player should be made to put in the extra 5k because he should be paying attention to the action.

I dont think either of these could be considered wrong rulings. Does anyone actually disagree with the ruling? Seems pretty fair to me, although I also agree with my 'B' option.

I'll just about accept either option is fine but I prefer the second. Would be pretty annoyed if I was the raiser and the flop was good for me. I'd be arguing it's not my fault the other player wasn't paying attention.

Definite grey area, both rules are fine I think.

I think if the guy announces "call" then he should have to put in whatever the bet amount was, regardless of what the dealer tells him. It is a clear dealer mistake but that's just tough luck. If he doesnt say anything but chucks in the 10k more then it's possible to go back, reshuffle etc and give him the option whether to call the entire 15k raise, or none of it.

Wiiiiiiiii, a proper ruling thread!!

The kind with a grey area, that the TD has to think of all factors and make a decision based on all facts given, then use common sense to make a judgement that gives the least advantage to either player.


You could also use the statement that it is down to the player to protect his own interest in the pot, and should have said something when the dealer told the other player it was 10k?

Hmm, that's certainly one way of putting it. But I don't really see how Player B has done anything wrong here. He raised, and Player A then called. It isn't B's fault that A didn't know the amount. But yeah, B surely could have said something. Given that it only came up after the flop i'm assuming B didn't hear the dealer or notice that A's amount was wrong either. I'm sure there's something in RRs that attempts to cover this sort of situation. Let me dig...

12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300 into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot.

Example: On the end, a player puts a $500 chip into the pot and says softly, “Four hundred.” The opponent puts a $100 chip into the pot and says, “Call.” The bettor immediately shows the hand. The dealer says, “He bet four hundred.” The caller says, “Oh, I thought he bet a hundred.” In this case, the recommended ruling normally is that the bettor had an obligation to not show the hand when the amount put into the pot was obviously short, and the “call” can be retracted. Note that the character of each player can be a factor. (Unfortunately, situations can arise at big-bet poker that are not so clear-cut as this.)

Hmm. So it basically comes down to whether you think the player is pulling a stroke or not when applying this rule. And the rule as written I think makes it very easy to do so. It claims TDs discretion.

In this hand we could argue A has grossly misunderstood the wager, as has the dealer! It's whether we count the flop as significant action or not. But no betting has been made, and there are situations where flops get redealt because the preflop action wasn't finished.

Changed my mind. The right ruling was given. Ruling it this way gives no advantage to either player (except for knowing that 3 specific cards are left to come out). Ruling the way I originally suggested allows some angle shooting from Player A. If he likes the flop he can throw the extra 5k in. If he doesn't he can argue that it has to be redealt or he wants to fold.

Do you think it matters if the player calling said "Call, how much is it?" or asked the dealer "How much is it to call?" then called on the dealers information?

Say you were the raiser with KK, and I was the caller with AQ in a 10 handed game and the flop came A,A,A would you still think the same? Should it make a difference what the flop is? Would all options be reopened for the caller or can he only call or pass?

"Call, how much is it" is clearly a binding call for whatever the amount is.

"How much is it?" "10k more" "Call" is a different scenario that is covered in the rule quoted above.

The actual contents of the flop aren't relevent I don't think. Generally there's no advantage to either player in knowing 3 of the cards. Obviously in the above example they both know the other person hasn't got AA or Ax if they have an A, but that's prob quite rare.

The rule doesn't mention action being reopened, but I would assume his options are "call" and "fold". I wouldn't let him raise here. It was clear his intention was to only call whatever the bet is. I would imagine the "protection" the rule is designed to give is to allow him to fold if he wishes because he didn't realise how much the bet was.

In a sense I think either is fine. But I think the rulings given need to be consistent otherwise there's possibility of angle shooting.

In many ways this ruling is just an extension of the classic case where someone calls not realising there's been a raise. Some places let you take your bet back and reconsider. Some won't hold you to call the full amount but will state that what is in the pot stays there (I do not like this, and it hasn't actually ever happened to me..). The added complication here is we've seen a flop. But there's been no action so we can apply the premature flop rule.

Not sure it would be classed as a gross misunderstanding, he knows there has been a raise, he has just been misinformed by the dealer the amount.

It is a dealer error, which should have been rectified sooner. The OP says "Suddenly table realises Player A owes pot 5k", if this the case the pot should have been brought in before the flop was dealt, so at what point did a player notice?

If we go with your bible then it states


Once the flop has been dealt IMO that betting round has been completed so technically the amounts already wagered remain. This would make more sense if it was a multi-way pot as it would not be able to be traced. There would be no "new flop" in this situation either.

In the interest of the game in this scenario i.e. heads up where action can be traced, we can now go against technicality and use common sense. We know that a specific player is 5k short due to a dealer error. So we now have two options regarding the 5k, we can either insist the 5k goes in or give 5k back to the other player, even though that betting round has supposed to have finished. Either way someone is going to get pissed. But it is after all a dealer error.

Would knowing the correct amount change the callers decision, would they have folded to the correct amount, insta called or reraised?

The fairest way IMO would be to keep the flop, ask the dealer the actual actions and speech. i.e. If they said call and said how much is it they would be obliged to put the additional 5k in. If they asked how much is it? And the dealer gives the wrong info then I would give the bettor 5k back. Continue as normal.

Then as it was one of my staff making the mistake, duck and take the flack, whilst the rest of the table tell me that was the wrong ruling and that I don't know what I'm talking about (you know, the ones that learned the game 3 months ago or the know it all old timer who still insists that a raise must be double the call etc.). Put the blinds up and knock out the 15 people that have been knocked out whilst you was dealing with a dealer mistake, balance tables and work out that the bubble burst 5 players ago lol.

On my phone now so apologies for lack of formatting. The rule you quote is a "general rule". The rule I quoted was a specific nl/pl rule. I get the impression the rule you quote is more intended for fl where there'd generally be less ambiguity.

Another general rule is:

15. If the dealer prematurely deals any cards before the betting is complete, those cards will not play, even if a player who has not acted decides to fold.

In op the player never called the full amount. So the betting wasn't completed. We can now refer to the specific nl rule which in this case I think should override the general rule to see what we do about it. It states the player may call/fold. So what we essentially have is a premature flop. We refer to the above rule for how to deal with that.

Note that I only invoke the nl rule due to the gross misunderstanding part. The dealer has misinformed him. Another example might be for example a stack of reds pushed forward with a purple in the middle. Obv the td needs to judge whether to grant the protection the rule offers. In this instance I believe we should.

I disagree with handing the 5k back. You can't have situations, esp in tournaments, where bets are taken out of the pot. That's setting a dangerous precedent IMO.

It certainly is a general rule, so covers all poker games.


Your quoted rule has nothing to do with this situation???

The general rule that I quoted, is specific to this situation and is designed to eliminate the "hang on the pot is xk short" which is also a dealer error etc.

We know which player is short in this instance, is it the players fault?

We can now even the pot so everyone is in for the same amount, which we shouldn't do as it contradicts the rule, but a TD can rule over any other rule in the interests of fairness and spirit of the game (which some can argue that "That's setting a dangerous precedent ") .

Change the amounts to the extreme rather than 10k/15k and put yourself in both situations.

There is no right or wrong in this situation, it is a TD's interpretation of fairness that determines what will happen.

In the dealers eyes the betting is complete, it is just wrong. This rule is for players that have been missed, hence the cards will not play as the missed player now has the advantage, and they will have all options open to them.

In the example given by me xx v AQ on an A,A,A flop knowing that no one else has an ace and know that in the next 31 cards of which 5 will be live imo is too much of an advantage to give AQ player to reshuffle the flop and reopen their options. Some TD's may disagree?

that RR rule is ridic. to talk about grossly misunderstanding the amount and then set the line at 80% is lol

Thread does what it says on the tin, twice! Not only is it a tedious ruling, but a tedious thread also.

I don't see how my quoted rule has nothing to do with the situation?

Let's put it this way and change the scenario slightly.

A raises as in this thread. C calls. B makes it 15k more. The dealer tells A it's 10k more and he calls. Action is now on C who ponders it for a second then someone at the table points out that A's call is 5k short. How do you rule?

I think in that situation you apply the above rule and let A reconsider his action.

What we have here is the same situation imo only muddied a bit by the fact we have a flop dealt - I don't really see how the premature flop rule doesn't apply. You say that's for when a player has been missed. Well, that's sort of what's happened here. I guess it comes down to was the betting round completed? Obviously in the case of a player being missed it wasn't. But I would argue it wasn't completed here either. A hasn't put enough chips into the pot - this is something we need to deal with. He has been misinformed about the bet amount. What do we do to fix this? We refer to the specific NL rule, which to me takes precedent over the general rule. So as we've now decided the betting round wasn't complete this means the flop was dealt prematurely. So we redeal it.

We could just always say the player has to make the amount up but this is unnecessarily harsh imo. I'm all for players paying attention to the game. But there's scenarios I can think of where a player will quite legitimately misunderstand the size of the wager. To make players always call in these situations is a bit unfair - and the raiser might also think that too! I remember once raising as a bluff and someone misunderstood how much - he was given the option of sacrificing the call amount and folding or calling. Sigh, he called cos he didn't want to sacrifice his call. Let him take it back!!!

The problem with your AQ AAA flop example is it isn't specific to this situation. You're taking issue there more with the redealing flop rule rather than the situation in this post. It just so happens that invoking the redealing flop rule is a solution to our problem. Take the more general case of there being a preflop raise and the BB has AQ and doesn't call before the flop (AAA) is dealt. Ruling here is pretty clear cut. Redeal.

It does say "possible rule-of-thumb", both words implying this is just a rough idea, don't take it as an absolute figure. I guess the point is if someone puts in say 50% of the amount then there's a misunderstanding. Whereas if someone puts in 80% plus then they've prob just miscounted. I dunno. Very much a TDs discretion area.

Have you considered extremities?
Player A bets 15100, dealer makes a mistake and guesses 3 x 5k chips tells player B 15k, you still redeal?
Cut out possible strokes, keep original lol

Betting hasn't been completed before mistake noticed and I make the same ruling??? (If A has asked how much and got duff info from dealer options are open however if he says call or just puts 10k in he has to make up!
Dealing the flop completes it.

Btw Ian bryan I think it is made the ruling

How would you rule George, if you was TD?

I guess this is where "gross misunderstanding" comes into it, and the 80% rule of thumb idea. In this case there's clearly been a misunderstanding, but it's only 100 chips. He just has to put it in. Easy.


But dealing a flop doesn't complete a betting round. Take the classic example of BB not calling a preflop raise and the flop being dealt. We redeal the flop because the betting wasn't completed. The flop being dealt doesn't signal the end of the betting round. As for what does I'm not sure. I would assume when first action has been taken on the subsequent betting round we can deem the last to have ended.

A player has been missed FFS that is why betting has not completed. It is not gross misunderstanding!

What job do you do Nana?

Nothing to do with poker ;) I'm a post grad student.

The point I was making though was the fact that because a player has been missed the betting wasn't completed. The fact a flop was dealt has no bearing on whether the betting was completed or not.

My argument in this scenario is that because of the gross misunderstanding, and the fact that there has been no action after him, player A can have his options reopened. The fact that a flop was dealt doesn't matter, as as we can see this doesn't signal the end of a betting round. The gross misunderstanding rule is designed to offer a certain amount of protection for certain situations where a player misunderstands the size of a wager. This is one of them imo. It just so happens in this case we have to redeal a flop.

ian aint my cup of tea coz he is told me the poker fairy must have taken my chips in blackpool gukpt last year.he gave a ruling on our table. dealer deals the river and its bradshaw to act. in true bradshaw fashion he opens his hand ace high over the useless line on the table. other player in the hand mucks a claimed set of sixes assuming bradshaws hand was dead. the pot is pushed to andy who puts the chips on his stack and the lad kicks off. ian bryan gives the ruling to the lad and recreates the hand to find out how much was in the pot. andy then without arguement to be fair gives back the chips. the cardroom managers decision is always final but later on we asked both dena and toby for a theoretical ruling and they gave the same but different ruling to ian

I honestly don't know. Its a tough situation. I have no idea why it wasnt spotted before the flop. I wasn't paying attention.

Think he just has to Flick the extra 5k in and get on with it.

I'd have to be there to see exactly what happened but 6s should be getting the pot here. As it wasn't showdown I'd most likely be taking the A high as a fold if it has been pushed over the line as throwing cards forward is a sign of folding - but i'd need to see it. The fact the hand was exposed doesn't in itself constitute a fold. It's a grey area, and i'm not comfortable with punishing 6s here because someone else is trying to pull a stroke. My general rule of thumb in these situations is if in doubt the best poker hand wins.

common sense ruling ftw

With all due respect, and please don't take offence! But sometimes I would like to roll Roberts Rule of Poker up and force it down ya neck lol (This is said in jest btw)

IT IS NOT A GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING BY A PLAYER, IT IS A DEALER ERROR!

That Gross misunderstanding rule is bollox anyway, if someone has raised at DTD and someone puts the original bet in without realising. That stays in the pot and they have the option to call, tough shit on the player ... they should have been following the game :)

he mucked his hand and only said he had a set of sixes. could have been a stroke by andy but said at the time if you never knew andy it looks like a stroke. but as he never complained i dont think he was at it

If the 6s were in the muck and unidentifiable then it comes down to whether the A high hand was threw forward in a folding motion or not. If it was then 6s get the pot as last live hand. If not A high gets it, along with some sort of penalty ofc.

Maybe we just need to agree to disagree. Personally the way I see it the total wager is 15k. The player believes it to be 10k. If this doesn't count as gross misunderstanding of a wager then I don't know what does.

As for the DTD rule of having to call the full amount or sacrifice what was in there - I don't like that. In fact I'd go as far to say it's an awful rule. Rules should exist to allow a game to play naturally. Your rule artificially changes the outcome of the game. The easy case is say the blinds are 100-200 and someone makes it 600. A player doesn't realise and puts in 200. DTD state that he either folds and loses the 200 or calls the 600. Even if the player would not originally have called the 600 most people now call here - partly out of stubborness of not wanting to lose their 200, but they're also getting better odds due to the 200 they can't have back. This may result in the players behind thinking they're getting value and calling. In short - the hand plays out completely differently than it would have done had we not had this rule. I'm all for players paying attention - but this form of punishment affects other people too and I don't like it.

andy turned them over as you would at show down. my thoughts on the hand went back to ept dortmund where de wolfe showed a king and mucked the oher card..german with queen high awarded the pot. this sprung to mind because ian came up with an excuse about gukpt rules being different to ukipt rules

As I previously said, there is no right or wrong rule here. Simply a TD's decision as to the fairest way of dealing with the situation.

Do you have an account on that TDA blog site? Might be an interesting one to post on there...

I am a member, can't remember password lol. Will try in a bit to post there and pm you the link. Need sleep first :)

rofl jason that blackpool ruling sounds like the worst thing ever.

could play online where this doesnt happen :p

lol. made day 2 5th in chips. opened the bag up and was a couple of grand light. both dena and myself counted em the night before so was sure  of the amount. i assumed ian was from newcastle area but mallu told me he was card room manager in his home town of bolton. offered to get me his home address but politely declined his offer.

I was at DTD about 3 weeks ago, and kind of fell foul of this, although maybe I should have asked - at 50/100 seat 8 raises to 400 (I thought), I call (said "call", put 400 in) from button in seat 2 with something iffy like 89o (about 7 feet from seat 8 ). Turns out he's raised 900 and the 500 chip is hiding. Because I thought I knew the DTD rule, I assumed if I folded there my 400 would be forfeit. So called the rest (good after bad, I know) and sigh-folded to a big bet on the useless flop.

Should I have asked what my options were there? Could I have had the 400 back? There was no action after me, I was corrected immediately.

Oh, and LOL at CF answering "student" when asked what his job is. He said 'JOB'.

;)

Rex ..... If you said call then you have to call the 900, If you just put 400 in the pot assuming the call, and was told it was 900 then you have the option to forfeit the 400 and fold.

CF I cannot remember my account details to TDA Forum and it wont let me reregister. I have searched the forum for relevant posts but can only come up with 2 similarish scenarios. Both give chips back to a player.

http://appservicesonline.com/PokerTDAForum/index.php?topic=99.0
http://appservicesonline.com/PokerTDAForum/index.php?topic=118.0

If I remember correctly Chet seemed to have his head screwed on, on other threads I have read, as opposed to the majority of uk td's on there. I know it isn't the same scenario but you get the gist.