Once the turn card is dealt it's too late to reconstruct the flop, otherwise there is a chance of an each way situation. If the whole board is dealt incorrectly and a player decides to object at this point to a mistake made before the flop, they are essentially getting two chances of winning if nobody else notices the error. Interesting that the whole board was dealt before anyone said anything.

I've been arguing this topic back and forth with some very respected TD's and players and no one can get their story straight. The argument is around the criteria for reopening the raising option for players who have already acted in complex situations.

Example 1: 4 players A-D

A: bet 800
B: call 800
C: under-raise all in to 1100
D: under-raise* all in to 1700
A: .....

Q1- Is the 1700 all-in from player D an under-raise? I would say yes as the minimum full raise for player D would be 800 more for a raise to 1900. The counter argument I am hit with from the almighty is that you ignore the 1100 and just treat it as a call. If you think this is the case then player D is making more than a full minimum raise by making it 1600 or more. I have problems with this rule theory as shown in example 2.

Q2- Can player A now re-raise player B? I would say definitely not as no player has made at least a full minimum raise to reopen the option to players A and B and as such they can only call the 1700. It is irrelevant that the bet now facing player A is 1700 which in isolation without player C going all in for 1100 would unlock the raising option for A and B.

Example 2: 4 players A-D

A: bet 800
B: call 800
C: under-raise all in to 1575
D: wants to raise to 1700 with a stack of say 10000 behind

Q3: Can player D do this? I would say definitely not. However this is what is allowable under the 'ignore the under-raise version rule 1.0', I say its total nonsense. The minimum raise for player D has to be 800 more to 2375. Each bet amount including all in under-raises have to 'act' with the action adjusted accordingly for the subsequent players.

Am I losing it, probably. Opinions would be appreciated. Please, no 'Irish style double the last raise' minimum raise requirements.
 

surely if someone mucks his/her hole cards stating "play the board" then anyone still left in could state "all-in", then the origonal "mucker" must call the bet or "fold the board".  I would do this as at worst it's a split pot - yes 

No reputable card room will let you play the board without cards, or call a bet without any cards. Any players(s) left with hole cards and play the board for the best hand after action has been completed take the pot/part pot and cannot split with a player who has mucked. Some cardrooms will let you play the board with no cards but they are frankly donktastic.

As for the original debate, I can't believe that most of you believe that you should be able to win the pot after action has been checked round on the river without a showdown. To clarify, with two players left the first player to act open mucks, the second player can muck and take down the pot. But if the action goes check, check and the first player mucks, then the second player has to show to win the pot. After the action goes check, check it is an automatic showdown. In addition the losing player mucking may do so unless requested to show by any player at the table. Any cardroom that does not enforce these rules is behind the times, not having to showdown promotes soft play, chip dumping and yes a hand can be mucked that would otherwise be ineligible to win a pot through having a duplicate card, the incorrect number of cards etc. The Aviation, Concord, Crown AUS, and virtually every Vegas Cardroom including the Bellagio all rule this way. Sorry to go against the flow of guys particularly Ironside, but I believe that you are looking at this rule from the point of view of a player not wanting to give away unnecessary information, rather than a TD trying to run a quality setup.

Mels ruling is correct but she did not explain it properly.

The flop is destroyed and put to the side WITHOUT burn card.
Card burnt, TURN face down. card burnt, RIVER face down.

All options are now open to your opponent regarding the raise.
If a flop is required the remaining deck along with the ORIGINAL flop cards will be shuffled and the flop dealt. Betting will continue as normal.
The original flop cards must be given an 'opportunity' to come back into play.

Shah

Sounds OK for a cash game but not for a tourney..

The players in the hand gain more knowledge of what will or won't come on the turn and river. So there maybe less chance of one of the players busting out..The ruling could change the outcome of the tourney for the folded players. I feel the correct way would be to reshuffle and re-deal the whole board.

Even though the turn and river cards are dealt face down and are not intended to be revealed in the procedure Shah describes. Most reputable cardrooms do not preseve the original turn and river face down in the middle of the table. The reason being is that it is not 100% secure and negates the very purpose of why cards are burned. Re-deal the whole board and bitch slap the players for the all the min raise malarkey.

This is what should happen. If a dealer prematurely deals the flop with pre-flop action pending the flop is not allowed to stand. The flop is taken out of play and Utg+2 is given all options (fold, call the 600, or re-raise). When all pre-flop actions are complete the dealer reshuffles and deals a new flop, game on.

It's a $500,000 minimum buy in game for the rest of season 4. Should be fun, they've invited some billionaire amateur to play. Even though most of these top pros aren't short of a few quid I would imagine that some will be getting staked.

Calzaghe v Kessler, should be a good match up Calzaghe at 1.77 Kessler at 2.5 at the min. I'm backing Joe by decision at 2.52

Absolutely not. I hate extra cash being put aside in regular tournaments for things such as 'tournament league' / 'satellite tickets' / get this a  'tournament bad beat jackpot' yes Cool Hand Luke's aka the Merrion, aka pubpoker@Dublin.com has done this. To see the small amount of method behind the madness I suppose you have to consider the angle which the casinos are shooting, which is to retain regulars as prisoners of value each day of the week wether fair or unfair to occasional / nonlocal  players. I probably fall into the category of a player getting value for all the additional funds other people are putting into these various side pools from all the tournaments I play. However I still think its bad form on the casinos part and cringe when I hear the prize breakdown of 2000 for 1st + a 500 ticket without as much of a sniff of the house declaring that 500 of the pool was a satellite deduction before the final table starts. I mean come on, just give me 2500 and let me decide if I want to enter the next 500 game or not. Even in England now its much easier for TDs to mess around with prize pools with the removal of the infamous 'Guidelines 3' which wasn't perfect but served a purpose at least to keep cardrooms from completely freestyling things. If a casino wants to run leagues with additional prizes and incentives then this should be totally separate from any funds paid into the individual tournament prize pools.

I heard about this as well in one of the monthly mags cant remember which one. Various other games on the cruise as well including monopoly backgammon and blackjack tournaments for high stakes.

The first time I heard he was gonna do this I thought your having a laugh, not so sure now. He's weighing 265 and cut at 6'3. Give him a few fights and I reckon he's got a real chance of making it in the UFC, after all he was an amazing amateur wrestler. They're more than likely going to give him a few Muppet's he can manhandle to start off his career there. The UFC have given him a 2 year contract so they wont be wanting him losing in his first few fights for fear of losing the ticket sales he's gonna bring in. Can't wait to see a match with him against one of the UFC's name heavyweights.
Who's next John Cena, now that would be

No I'm not gonna start talking g about WWE don't worry. This former wrestling star has decided to blank the pretend stuff and do the real thing, He's joining the UFC. Brock has already had MMA fights and has battered all. Maybe worth a punt on being the next UFC heavyweight champion. He weighs 300lbs, can bench 650lbs, run the 100m in 10.6 seconds and has one of the hardest strikes on the planet, quite scary.

Angle shooting is effective and shouldn't confused with out playing people.

I think you have no idea of what quantifies angle shooting/stroking. Counting chips out behind an action line then checking is not even close to falling in the category of questionable behaviour.

Have you ever seen a correct penalty dished out for soft play in England? In most places staff are too afraid of upsetting regulars and will either not know what to do or turn a blind eye. In a proper tourney its a sit out penalty of 1-4 rounds of play. In order to give such a penalty the staff need to have good knowledge with a proper set of extensive rules in place. In an ideal world the stakes wether a $5 re-buy or $1000 freeze shouldn't matter. I would however in the real world give a bit of leeway in a complete donkament if I was sure the player was not aware they were checking the nuts.

I wouldn't let it get to this point. I suppose you can stop the clock, however I do not like the players dictating to me when to have a random break. They would be told that they would be subject to disqualification if they do not return, then watch how fast they run back to the table. I wouldn't want to start moving players around as technically you are not balancing the tables.

I agree that not raising on the flop posed you this problem. The chances of a set depend on his tendencies to limp with small pairs. Most players at $3/6NL 5 handed would be open raising with any pair. I think you can pretty much dismiss 8,8-Q,Q as possible holdings. He could have 6,7 for 2 pair or 5,6 for a reasonable semi bluff. It could also be a total air shot Brad Booth special, with him putting you on exactly what you have and knows you are good enough to pass. All depends on how you view the overbet from such a player, is he the kamikaze with no helmet type. I regularly make overbets when I hit and think my opponent cannot get away from a big pair. Having said all that I would find it hard to call in your spot and wait for a better opportunity against someone making such huge overlays.