Cash Game Is This Ruling Correct? (2 Viewers)

[JustinInMN]

The bet was 100, villain put in 50. Them folding is probably due to the 100, not the 50.

Players folded that I believe are right to assume the 50 will be corrected to a full call. Which means anyone that might have called one opponent but not two was damaged by this decision. In no limit games players firing one chip forward are deemed to have called with the assumption it will be corrected.

 

[upNdown]

the dealer never mentioned the out of turn bet while I was confirming what the pot sized bet is

Actually, that’s significant, because even if he thought you heard the verbal raise, he should have calculated that into the pot.

 

[upNdown]

The dealer is beginning to smell bad

 

[JustinInMN]

The dealer is beginning to smell bad

Yeah, kinda feeling like cya.

 

[Rakrul]

Players folded that I believe are right to assume the 50 will be corrected to a full call. Which means anyone that might have called one opponent but not two was damaged by this decision. In no limit games players firing one chip forward are deemed to have called with the assumption it will be corrected.

If they were considering, they should point out the error to get clarification. In reality, they were done with the hand when hero raised and didn't notice the error themselves.

If there's talk of out of turn action from villain here though (?), he no longer receives the protection I quoted.

 

[JustinInMN]

If they were considering, they should point out the error to get clarification.

What error? Dude put chips out facing action, that's a call.

 

[Rakrul]

What error? Dude put chips out facing action, that's a call.

I might misunderstand something but bet was 100 + change, villain puts out 50 and that seems like an error to me.

 

[TheDuke]

After further details on how the hand played out I'm doubling down on the dealer sucking big time.

He had plenty of opportunity to correct the situation at multiple times. The idea he let action follow the incorrect $50 bet is mind boggling. This dealer must have been a total noob.

I would have been pissed too. Especially if I was stuck too.

 

[Anthony Martino]

After further details on how the hand played out I'm doubling down on the dealer sucking big time.

He had plenty of opportunity to correct the situation at multiple times. The idea he let action follow the incorrect $50 bet is mind boggling. This dealer must have been a total noob.

I would have been pissed too. Especially if I was stuck too.

The dealer is also a floorperson lol

 

[TheDuke]

The dealer is also a floorperson lol

Omg. That's probably part of the reason it was ruled that way. Give that guy a way to save face and not be overruled by another floorperson.

Damn, I'd probably go grab a bite or go for a walk every time this guy had a rotation at the table. Most dealers are very competent and are great at their jobs. It's these shitty ones that can really derail a session.

 

[JustinInMN]

I might misunderstand something but bet was 100 + change, villain puts out 50 and that seems like an error to me.

If he's facing action if he puts out anything short of a raise, he's obliged to correct it. It's not uncommon for a player in big bet to indicate the call by putting a couple chips out so action may continue and correct when he gets a precise count.

This is absent the "gross misunderstanding" protection, but the only time to use that is BEFORE anyone else acts.

 

[Rakrul]

So if noone acted behind him, you'd be fine with villain taking the 50 back?

 

[WedgeRock]

if the guy really made a verbal declaration before you bet, this is the correct ruling. i personally don't like it, but it falls within the rules.

If the guy made a varbal declaration *before* @Anthony Martino bet, then fine, action changed.

What about throwing out two green chips *after @Anthony Martino bet?

*If* Seat 1 announced $50 out of turn and *if* Seat 1 thought @Anthony Martino's single chip was just a call so he threw out his raise, the dealer has to stop action right there before anyone else acts. Inform Seat 1 that there was a raise before him, let him act based on that information (which includes the option to fold), then proceed to the next Seat.

Dealer fucked up. Subsequent action had to assume the $50 call was a $100 call.

@Anthony Martino has a legitimate bitch

 

[JustinInMN]

So if noone acted behind him, you'd be fine with villain taking the 50 back?

I would be fine, yes. Unless he's a frequent flyer on the miss the action plane, then I might rule more harshly.

 

[ChaosRock]

It sounds a bit fishy to me.

So Villain not only missed Hero announcing a pot bet, throwing a black and a few reds on the table but also the dealer calculating the actual pot bet?!?!?

So he fucked up verbally announcing a bet out of turn but also much later (after all the actions above) by throwing two greenies?

I don't like it.

Maybe by the rule book there's some room for allowing him to take his bet back, but again, I don't like it.

I'm fine in a home game where people are just fucking around to just take a bet back but in a casino, I'm more in favor of "next time, pay more attention" and the chips stay in the pot. That way, maybe some players would learn, having consequences to their actions.

Also, wtf is this dealer doing?!?!? He should have been paying attention to the hand. The minute the OOT bet was announced, he should have said "not your action, sir". That would have prevented Villain to throw the two quarters on the table later on and make the ruling a bit easier.

 

[Mr Winberg]

The fact that there were two folds after him puts me firmly in the binding camp.

Had it just been the two of you (or if the situation was resolved before the others acted) I would have been ok with him folding for free. In that scenario, there would have been no angle for him to shoot (unless he got some kind of soul read on me when throwing in the two greens, in which case: I'm still fine with it since soul reads are cool).

 

[JustinInMN]

Also, wtf is this dealer doing?!?!? He should have been paying attention to the hand. The minute the OOT bet was announced, he should have said "not your action, sir". That would have prevented Villain to throw the two quarters on the table later on and make the ruling a bit easier.

Based on @Anthony Martino 's narrative, it seems like the dealer was too engrossed in a convo with the villain. Possibly to the point he didn't even remember there were subsequent players in this hand and their folds may have gone unnoticed and unmentioned when the floor came over.

That's why I am leaning toward that some CYA was the motivation for the ruling.

Had it just been the two of you (or if the situation was resolved before the others acted) I would have been ok with him folding for free.

I would agree, but I think given the dealer seems to be demonstrating a lack of attention here, he probably would have burned and turned, at that point there's no going back. If the same ruling were made after that, it would be horrifying.

Just as an aside, to engage in shameless results-musing, for all we know if villain is forced to call he catches a sick card to beat our hero to make the session even worse. But that's why consistent rules application is important.

But still, I think at the very least this dealer is on the no-tipping list for a while. (And his floor buddy too.)

 

[Rakrul]

Am I missing something here? OP says;
I explain that after I put out my bet there was a significant delay (like 5-10 seconds) before the guy put out the two green chips
What's this talk about out-of-turn action?

 

[Rakrul]

In fact there are several things I don't understand in this thread. If you think villain was angle-shooting somehow, I would like to hear the angle. If you're not suspecting villain of angling, you're playing "Gotcha!" not poker.

 

[ChaosRock]

Am I missing something here? OP says;
I explain that after I put out my bet there was a significant delay (like 5-10 seconds) before the guy put out the two green chips
What's this talk about out-of-turn action?

Dealer mentioned Villain announced a raise out of turn, before Hero acted. That is considered an action.

 

[JustinInMN]

In fact there are several things I don't understand in this thread. If you think villain was angle-shooting somehow, I would like to hear the angle. If you're not suspecting villain of angling, you're playing "Gotcha!" not poker.

I do agree to a point, it's impossible to see how this action benefits villain, so I wouldn't call it an "angle." But Villain's action, even if it is in error does potentially harm hero and possibly the players that acted after (rightfully) assuming this is a call, and that action even if accidental is a case of not taking the responsibility players have to know the action and act in turn.

What should have happened: Dealer should have called "time" as soon as he realized villain acted out of turn (which should have been any moment between hearing the out of turn verbal bet and realizing he needs to confirm the pot size for hero) to prevent the subsequent players from acting, and made it clear to villain he has an opportunity to act after correcting the understanding hero's action. That's how "gross misunderstanding" protection is supposed to work, and that is the sliver of truth in the ruling as made. However, the opportunity for that protection passes as soon as other players act based on the action as it happens.

That is the floor's failure here, and it is starting to look like the floor may have been protecting the dealer for the dealer's initial failure to stop the action immediately. Or possibly, the floor was never made aware of the subsequent folds. (Either forgotten or deliberately omitted from the dealer's explanation.) In which case the floor's ruling is somewhat defensible here, though wrong due to the exclusion of important fact.

Now all of that said, I would concede that if the dealer had done the right thing, the outcome is likely the same. Obviously villain wanted to fold given the opportunity, (but then again, villain wasn't entitled to the knowledge of subsequent folds before pulling his bet back either, so I guess he benefitted in that regard, but I doubt a player would make this error expecting that benefit) Also, the folders more likely than not had folding hands in either circumstance, otherwise we may have heard a protest from one of those players. But those folders were denied the chance to act with knowledge of the actual action, and hero was possibly denied the benefits or consequences of that due to that damage.

 

[grebe]

Can this have happened?:

-Hero puts out bet talking with dealer. Dealer gives Hero his attention
-Villain puts out incorrect bet
-Dealer corrects him (convo Hero cant hear) explaining bet had already been put out....dealer now directing his attention to V.
-Villain pulls back incorrect bet and folds

If so, this seems like correct call to me.

 

[JustinInMN]

Can this have happened?:

-Hero puts out bet talking with dealer. Dealer gives Hero his attention
-Villain puts out incorrect bet
-Dealer corrects him (convo Hero cant hear) explaining bet had already been put out....dealer now directing his attention to V.
-Villain pulls back incorrect bet and folds

If so, this seems like correct call to me.

Important omission, multiple players fold following villain putting out incorrect bet.

(See my post #24, that was my initial conclusion as well before considering the other players in the hand.)

 

[Jimulacrum]

Dealer really fucked up on this one.

Villain makes an out-of-turn verbal bet of $50.

Communication failure #1: Why did the dealer not stop the action and say something between the OOT bet and explaining the pot size to Hero? Both Hero and Villain need to know WTF is going on. But sure, let's treat it like a normal OOT bet where everyone has been informed.

Then Hero bets pot. This changes the action, even if it's not what Hero intended because dealer didn't make it clear what's going on. The $50 OOT bet no longer stands.

Now, after Hero has bet $100+, Villain throws out two $25 chips. This is not a fold, obviously, and it's not a raise either, but it's a very weird way to carry out a call, and it seems related to the OOT bet.

Communication failure #2: Dealer needed to stop the action here to clarify Villain's action, before anything else happened. This shouldn't even be necessary, because dealer should have communicated this at an earlier stage (e.g., when Hero verbalized his bet). But sadly, again, he dropped the ball.

Assuming dealer had stopped the action before other people folded, this could be a case to apply the "gross misunderstanding" rule, if not also Rule #1 (fairness). Villain seems not to understand the action, so you take a moment to ask him to clarify it. That may mean that he gets to take his $50 back and fold, or call the pot bet (no raising).

But once that weird call goes out and two other people fold behind Villain, the time for clarifying the action is over. You can't undo something that happened three actions ago. Even somehow letting the folded players get their cards back and reconsider their action after Villain's is clarified would be unfair (because both Hero and Villain have gained improper information from the folds).

At this point, it's too problematic to allow Villain to decide whether his bet will stand after seeing two other players act behind him. (Imagine how a skilled player could set up situations to exploit this.) It's a shame to have to make him pay if it was an honest mistake, but the alternative is too open to exploitation by angle-shooters. It's a sucky outcome either way, but this is what happens when players act stupid and the dealer lets things devolve into amateur hour.

Through no fault of their own, Hero and two other players got put into a weird spot where they were misinformed about two separate actions that were potentially relevant to their own actions, and this misinformation was entirely the fault of Villain and the dealer. No one else should have to eat even a theoretical loss for that. Someone has to eat the cost of this in one way or another, and if it's going to be anyone, it should be the people who caused the mess.

Spoiler: Also

I'm probably never tipping this dealer/floorperson again.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

To be fair, we’re only hearing things from Anthony’s POV, and it is very easy for seat one to miss the action from seat 8 with the dealer in between them. I’m sure it was an innocent mistake, and not an angle, and Anthony’s just bitter because he was already stuck.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Could this be what happened?

@Anthony Martino bet 50.
Villain called with two green chips.

Subsequent hand:
Anthony bets 100.
Villain has some friendly conversation with the dealer and folds. The other two fold. Anthony makes a big fuss about it and calls two floor persons.

Anthony was really, really drunk that night and is remembering it wrong.

 

[Anthony Martino]

To be fair, we’re only hearing things from Anthony’s POV, and it is very easy for seat one to miss the action from seat 8 with the dealer in between them. I’m sure it was an innocent mistake, and not an angle, and Anthony’s just bitter because he was already stuck.

I don't think seat 1 was angling at all

I do think the dealer fucked up

 

[CrazyEddie]

Communication failure #2: Dealer needed to stop the action here to clarify Villain's action, before anything else happened. This shouldn't even be necessary, because dealer should have communicated this at an earlier stage (e.g., when Hero verbalized his bet). But sadly, again, he dropped the ball.

Assuming dealer had stopped the action before other people folded, this could be a case to apply the "gross misunderstanding" rule, if not also Rule #1 (fairness). Villain seems not to understand the action, so you take a moment to ask him to clarify it. That may mean that he gets to take his $50 back and fold, or call the pot bet (no raising).

But once that weird call goes out and two other people fold behind Villain, the time for clarifying the action is over. You can't undo something that happened three actions ago. Even somehow letting the folded players get their cards back and reconsider their action after Villain's is clarified would be unfair (because both Hero and Villain have gained improper information from the folds).

I don't disagree with your analysis, but... The players after Villain were going to fold no matter what Villain did. They had garbage hands and knew it. They were planning to fold as soon as they saw the flop and were simply waiting for someone to bet ahead of them and have the action get to them. (Granted, I'm speculating here, but I think this was probably the situation.)

After Hero made his bet, as soon as Villain did anything that looked like action, up to and including scratching his nose, they're going to throw their hands at the dealer.

Can the dealer be faulted for not stopping the action quickly enough to prevent a couple of insta-folders from insta-folding before he can even talk to Villain to clarify his bet?

 

[Rakrul]

I think no-one is contesting that dealer fucked up, I'm concerned about floor's decision.
So IF villain raised to 50 out of turn, he's fucked and chips stay. He can elect to call or fold, not raise. He lost that right acting out of turn, that's the player's responsibility. However, OP's story doesn't seem to indicate this as Hero waits for villain, villain puts 2 greens and then the others fold.

IF villain didn't act out of turn, then he can take it back under gross misunderstanding clause, IMHO.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Can the dealer be faulted for not stopping the action quickly enough to prevent a couple of insta-folders from insta-folding before he can even talk to Villain to clarify his bet?

I agree,I don't think dealer had enough time to stop the insta-folders

But there was enough time for him to notify me of the out of turn verbal bet if it indeed happened before I made my bet

And plenty of time to update the player in seat 1 BEFORE he took 5 seconds AFTER my bet was made and then tossed in the 50

This was the dealer covering his ass, and the floor backing him up despite my explanation afterwards and my request to check the tape to see the delay in action

But that's ok, the dealer will pay back that $100 I lost with interest in lost tips