Another tedious ruling thread

[dik9]

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.

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.

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?

[Cf]

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.

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.

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.

[dik9]

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?

[Cf]

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.

[dik9]

"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.

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

16. All wagers and calls of an improperly low amount must be brought up to proper size if the error is discovered before the betting round has been completed. This includes actions such as betting a lower amount than the minimum bring-in (other than going all-in) and betting the lower limit on an upper limit betting round. If a wager is supposed to be made in a rounded off amount, is not, and must be corrected, it shall be changed to the proper amount nearest in size. No one who has acted may change a call to a raise because the wager size has been changed.

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.

[Cf]

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.

[dik9]

16. All wagers and calls of an improperly low amount must be brought up to proper size if the error is discovered before the betting round has been completed. This includes actions such as betting a lower amount than the minimum bring-in (other than going all-in) and betting the lower limit on an upper limit betting round. If a wager is supposed to be made in a rounded off amount, is not, and must be corrected, it shall be changed to the proper amount nearest in size. No one who has acted may change a call to a raise because the wager size has been changed.

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

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.)

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.

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 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?

[gatso]

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

[AlrightJack]

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

[Cf]

16. All wagers and calls of an improperly low amount must be brought up to proper size if the error is discovered before the betting round has been completed. This includes actions such as betting a lower amount than the minimum bring-in (other than going all-in) and betting the lower limit on an upper limit betting round. If a wager is supposed to be made in a rounded off amount, is not, and must be corrected, it shall be changed to the proper amount nearest in size. No one who has acted may change a call to a raise because the wager size has been changed.

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

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.)

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.

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 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?

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.

[Cf]

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

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.

[dik9]

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

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?

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.

[George2Loose]

Btw Ian bryan I think it is made the ruling

[dik9]

How would you rule George, if you was TD?

[Cf]

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

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.

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?

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.

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.