How would you rule...? (1 Viewer)

[Trihonda]

Situation:

Playing double board PLO.

3 players. I don't recall every detail of the hand, other than some generalizations, so the hand shown is merely representative (don't kill me on the exact details):

I hold

Unsure holdings of other players. Healthy betting pre (3-handed to the flop)

Dealer runs two boards (dealing top row first, then second). Lots of betting.




The dealer runs out the turn (I had my back turned for a second, assisting another player reloading).

Healthy betting, pot is in the range of $2-300. Dealer runs out the first river card, and it's a...


​

I stop action and explain he's dealt the river card to the bottom row. He explains that how he dealt the turn, and several other people confirm... Before the second river card is dealt, there's a lot of discussion on how to proceed. I have my feelings, which I'll reserve for later, but there are two questions...

1- Do we, can we, address the incorrect turn order? If so, how? I think would be a major issue/challenge since action has progressed.
2- Now that the turn has been dealt in reverse order, do we leave the river in that same order, or revert back to the correct flop order (top board first)?

I'm obv biased, because if it were dealt correctly, I'd have the nutz on the top board, and 2nd nutz on the bottom. So during the discussion, I make my case, which I think is agreed upon by the table, but on decision 2, I ultimately I defer to someone close in experience (not in the hand), and allowed them to make the call on where the 9 should go....

Not that is should matter, but I was frustrated at the time, as this was a several hundred dollar pot, and had the turn been dealt correctly, I means a certain scoop. Can't be mad at the dealer, it was an honest mistake.

The table was cordial during the hand, and everyone agreed that posting the hand (online) might be beneficial, since it's a situation we've never encountered before.

 

[Pokerdweebz]

I would rule that the turn cards stand because action has already happened. I would move the first river to the top because this is something we can actually correct.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Too late to correct the turn cards since there has been significant action. However, if I was making the call, I would put the river 9 up top where it belongs since there has been no betting yet on the river.

 

[BGinGA]

I would rule that the turn cards stand because action has already happened. I would move the first river to the top because this is something we can actually correct.

Too late to correct the turn cards since there has been significant action. However, if I was making the call, I would put the river 9 up top where it belongs since there has been no betting yet on the river.

^^ Exactly this.

1- Do we, can we, address the incorrect turn order? If so, how? I think would be a major issue/challenge since action has progressed.

No. Action has occurred, those cards are frozen.

2- Now that the turn has been dealt in reverse order, do we leave the river in that same order, or revert back to the correct flop order (top board first)?

No. The river card should be placed where it belongs.

I'm obv biased, because if it were dealt correctly, I'd have the nutz on the top board, and 2nd nutz on the bottom.

If I were the designated decision-maker and involved in the pot, then I turn over the ruling duties to somebody else capable of making the right decision.

 

[WedgeRock]

Turn stands because "Healthy betting" occurred.

Correct the river.

 

[v1pe]

Agreed, the turn decision can't be reversed since action has already taken place.

We can correct the river since action hasn't occurred. As someone who is out of the hand my argument would be that the cards are "random" regardless of if they are dealt to the top or bottom, so really it shouldn't matter which card goes where.

Yeah it sucks that you could have had the nuts but alternatively the cards could have also been in the reverse order and dealt correctly and the action still plays out the same.

 

[BGinGA]

I had my back turned for a second, assisting another player reloading

Biggest mistake of the hand, imo. Re-loads should occur between hands.

 

[krafticus]

Biggest mistake of the hand, imo. Re-loads should occur between hands.

I would assume this from from another table..

 

[Milo013]

Still applies. Wait until you are done with "your" hand, then take care of reloads . . . or rulings on the other table, for that matter. You might have to sit out a hand or two, but that is the price of "running the game".

 

[Trihonda]

Yup, I agreed with others here, The ruling of leaving the turn was against my personal interests, However, it was the best interest to the game (which is why I advocated for leaving it as is). I commented that the river should go in its correct spot, but the rest of table (not in the hand) agreed to leave it on the bottom... meh. I lost $$80 from my stack, but didn’t commit any additional chips to the pot...

The river didn’t affect anything. The hand check down, and the other players split the pot.

As for turning my back, I have the chips directly behind me, and only reached behind me to grab a rack of reds. I didn’t dish out the reload in the middle of the hand, just reached back for the rack,

Besides, I’m not usually one to stare at the cards as they hit the board... easily exploitable tells can result. I generally watch the board from the peripheral, while watching reactions of the other players who ARE staring at the card reveal.

 

[Forest@Farmington]

Guess I would like to know if the flop was top and then bottom. Assuming it is then correct the river and the turn is frozen. Another option would be leave the river on the bottom to stay consistent
with the turn card. Probably less likely to be correct but a possibility

 

[Trihonda]

Guess I would like to know if the flop was top and then bottom.

It was.

 

[upNdown]

Besides, I’m not usually one to stare at the cards as they hit the board... easily exploitable tells can result. I generally watch the board from the peripheral, while watching reactions of the other players who ARE staring at the card reveal.

Maybe I’m just bad at making those particular reads, but I usually try to watch my opponents as they watch the turn and river, and I rarely learn anything.

 

[v1pe]

Maybe I’m just bad at making those particular reads, but I usually try to watch my opponents as they watch the turn and river, and I rarely learn anything.

Same - when I'm not dealing I generally try not to look at the cards as they are dealt out...mostly for fear of my own tells though.

 

[upNdown]

Same - when I'm not dealing I generally try not to look at the cards as they are dealt out...mostly for fear of my own tells though.

Ha. I just remember a recent hand in a tournament in a card room where I was heads up with a guy, either on the turn or the river, and as the card was turned, I was watching him and he was watching me. And we stared each other down for probably 2-3 seconds, both of us refusing to look at the card. Finally he said “what” to me, and since it was my turn to act, I had to break the stare.
I think I looked and checked simultaneously and I can’t eveb remember how the hand ended.

 

[Chris Manzoni]

I would rule that games like this are absurd and we should go back to regular PLO.

 

[Jambine]

I agree with those above. Can't change the past actions but you can fix it on the river

 

[BSteck]

Just curious what the opinions are...

What if there had been no betting on the turn? Would you still rule not to change the turn cards because the check-around counts as action?


Thanks... (still learning and love these kind of threads)

 

[Jambine]

What if there had been no betting on the turn? Would you still rule not to change the turn cards because the check-around counts as action?

Yes. Turn is done

 

[WedgeRock]

Just curious what the opinions are...

What if there had been no betting on the turn? Would you still rule not to change the turn cards because the check-around counts as action?


Thanks... (still learning and love these kind of threads)

Agree with @Jambine. Although there is no betting, action (checks) occurred. Changing the order of the cards may speak to hand strength in an unfair way. The action (not the betting) is what makes the turn over and the mis-dealt cards to stand.

 

[BGinGA]

Just curious what the opinions are...

What if there had been no betting on the turn? Would you still rule not to change the turn cards because the check-around counts as action?


Thanks... (still learning and love these kind of threads)

Correct: check-check-check is three actions.

 

[DJ Mack]

Correct: check-check-check is three actions.

No More! No! Not tonight! This son of bitch, all night he, "Check. Check. Check." He trap me!

 

[DoubleEagle]

Just curious what the opinions are...

What if there had been no betting on the turn? Would you still rule not to change the turn cards because the check-around counts as action?


Thanks... (still learning and love these kind of threads)

From TDA rules:

36: Substantial Action

Substantial Action is either A) any 2 actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds) or

B) any combination of 3 actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, fold).

 

[BGinGA]

So..... turn cards are dealt (incorrectly), action is check-check, and then somebody yells, "hey, those turn cards are in the wrong location!" Ruling is "no substantial action" and the cards are reversed, and turn action starts over?

 

[BSteck]

So..... turn cards are dealt (incorrectly), action is check-check, and then somebody yells, "hey, those turn cards are in the wrong location!" Ruling is "no substantial action" and the cards are reversed, and turn action starts over?

Glad you asked that cause I saw the same thing.

Or two players are heads up at the turn. Check-Check. Hey - wait a minute! Still no substantial action?

 

[BGinGA]

Or two players are heads up at the turn. Check-Check. Still no substantial action?

I think that's different, just because action for that betting round has concluded, and ~something else~ is about to occur. Could be the river burn card, or some type of dealer error. But I think either locks in the prior turn actions.

 

[upNdown]

So..... turn cards are dealt (incorrectly), action is check-check, and then somebody yells, "hey, those turn cards are in the wrong location!" Ruling is "no substantial action" and the cards are reversed, and turn action starts over?

It doesn’t feel right, does it. And that’s why I’m not entirely comfortable with moving the river card from the lower board to the upper board. That doesn’t feel quite right either. I mean, unless somebody can show me some rules to double-board Omaha which specify the order in which the cards should be dealt to the two boards.
Yes, presumably whichever order is used first should be used throughout the hand. But it wasn’t.
I’m not sure moving the river card from the lower board is o the upper board isn’t a worse violation than putting random cards down in the wrong order.

 

[BGinGA]

Maybe just deal two river cards face-down, wash 'em around a bit, and have the first player after the button who's not in the hand pick one and put it where he wants? :

Gotta have rules, dude -- random-is-random doesn't always apply well.

 

[upNdown]

Gotta have rules, dude

I agree. If you have a chance, please share with me the applicable rule regarding the order the cards are deal onto double board boards.

 

[BGinGA]

Well, logic would dictate that it follows the normal rules for dealing a flop, turn, and river..... with a burn card before each betting round deal. Dunno how else one could interpret it.... UNLESS.... there are written rules in place dictating otherwise.