Ruling - yawn.. but I need to know!

[mouth]

Cash game at a North West casino last night.

Blinds 1/1 but that means nothing here.

Player 1 raises UTG to £6.

Player 2 calls mid position

Player 3 raises to £21 in cut off

Player 4 goes all in for £31 on button.

Player 5 goes allin for £41 in BB. 

Player 1 reraises again another £50 on top of the £35 more. Player 2 folds Player 3 calls the total amount.


So Pot 1 is in front of Player 4 on button as he was the shortest stack, pot 2 in front of player 5 on the BB. side pot between players 1 and 3.

Money still in play between players 1 and 3.

Dealer starts to deal and deals Q A 3 then deals a Q on turn and a 4 on river.

Dealer asks players to show and take, no oneis in a rush as usual until Player 5 on BB turns over A10. Player 4 turns over A9.

Player 3 suddenly goes mental and starts shouting money still in play, money still in play, which is correct - for some reason the dealer has dealt all 5 community cards without giving Players 1 and 3 the opportunity to bet or check the turn or river. Player 3 (an experienced card player and "character") demands the turn and river are mucked and reshuffled to allow him to bet. Player 5 (holding A10) asks for a ruling from the manager before the flop is changed.

Does anyone know what the correct ruling is here please?

[outragous76]

I think the guy is shooting a little angle or 2!

Action has been completed on both turn and river (and post river at showdown). He has had his "reasonable time" to correct the dealer - hand stands as complete IMO

But CF will probs tell you otherwise (or will at least be correct!)

[smashedagain]

Smack the dealer.

[George2Loose]

Sack the dealer. Use his wages to pay everyone back.

As I see it with both cards already being dealt they do not reshuffle. Player 1 or 3 should have said something when the dealer dealt the turn

[MC]

I think the guy is shooting a little angle or 2!

Action has been completed on both turn and river (and post river at showdown). He has had his "reasonable time" to correct the dealer - hand stands as complete IMO

But CF will probs tell you otherwise (or will at least be correct!)

Agree with this

[smashedagain]

Sack the dealer. Use his wages to pay everyone back.

As I see it with both cards already being dealt they do not reshuffle. Player 1 or 3 should have said something when the dealer dealt the turn

Did you just fyp me. If so it did not need fixing.

[cambridgealex]

Hmmmmmm, interesting. The players with money in play have to be given the chance to act. The allin players are unfortunate but the turns and rivers have to be reshuffled and the two players with money get the advantage of knowing what the allin guys have.

Its a dealer error ofc, but also the players responsibility to follow the action and alert the dealer when something is wrong. Dealers have to tap the table before dealing any flops, turns or rivers to help avoid this sort of thing.

[George2Loose]

Hmmmmmm, interesting. The players with money in play have to be given the chance to act. The allin players are unfortunate but the turns and rivers have to be reshuffled and the two players with money get the advantage of knowing what the allin guys have.

Its a dealer error ofc, but also the players responsibility to follow the action and alert the dealer when something is wrong. Dealers have to tap the table before dealing any flops, turns or rivers to help avoid this sort of thing.

Disagree. Let's assume dealer didn't tap table and they weren't given a chance why wait for showdown? I suspect the player who know has an even shittier ace thinking he might have scooped wants a redeal so he can spike two pair. Too late imo.

[mouth]

Firstly, Player 3 who demanded the cards be reshuffled very very loudly is capable of an angle or 23... General opinion was he knew he had lost and so wanted the chance to try and scoop. Player 1, the other player with money, couldnt win and was quite happy for the board to stay as it was, despite knowing he had lost both the main pot and the side pot.

Player 4 who had A9 was happy for the board to stay, despite knowing he had lost with his kicker, Player 5 obviously was happy with the board. The floor manager didnt actually know the answer and a player not involved in th epot then told him the last two cards should be reshuffled. The manager was happy enough to take the player's word for it.... until someone else (me lol)  told him if he didnt know the answer himself he should hot foot it to find either a rule book or someone with a tad more knowledge than himself.

He came back with a 14 year old dealer, who listened to the tale of what had happened and then said he thought the board should stay as it was as both players had had time to act or speak up.

So the board stayed. Player 5 won with AAQQ10, Player 4 lost with AAQQ9.
Player 1 mucked K9.

Player 3 had JJ and also lost.

[cambridgealex]

Whether or not the players are "happy with it" is or should be completely irrelevant. Ridic for the floorperson to admit to not knowing the ruling and take a players word for it. Good for you for speaking up about that.

[celebspec]

Lol comedy, reminds me of glasgow alea where nobody actually knows the rules. 

I think its something the GC should look into, because as long as casinos are raking from the games then they need to familiarise themselves with the rules. 

Its not like this is a one off situation.   Every other week on here and on other UK poker forums I see similar posts about rulings.   

[dik9]

1) players should have spoke when table tapped
2) players should have spoke when burn dealt
3) players should have spoke when turn dealt
4) players should have spoke when table tapped
5) players should have spoke when burn dealt
6) players should have spoke when river dealt
7) players should be in uproar when dealer says showdown

GTFO hand stands

If player 3 has history and is the only one not accepting that the hand should stand. He can GTFO out of the card room too.

[77dave]

Did the dealer tap the table at each point before burning and turning?

[dik9]

Did the dealer tap the table at each point before burning and turning?

Should have, but probably not. Irrelevant really still 5 opportunities minimum to say wtf! lol

[TopTen]

I know it's not relevant (I don't play that much cash tbh) but can player 1 re-raise? (£50 on top of the £35) Isn't players 4 & 5 an under raise?

Anyhow, to me it's obvious player 3 is trying to have two bites of the cherry. If he connects at any time, Im sure he would have spoke up.

People may say that action as taken place, re: player 5 declares his hand 1st. (has player 5 acted out of turn?) Surely it is down to players 1 & 3 to show 1st to claim pot 2?

2 bites of the cherry is my conclusion and its bad ettiquette of player 3. The hand should stand!!!