Ruling in NLHE cash game (1 Viewer)

[Headhunter13]

This hand happened in a card room:
Playing NLHE, player A opens to $50. Player B makes it $100. Folds back to A who shoves his stack all in.

Dealer assumes that the amount A shoved was less than $100 and he runs an entire board. Once the river hits, the players realize that A actually shoved for a total of $135. B's bet was $100, but was never asked to fold or call the extra $35.

What should happen at this point?
A. hand stands with both players all in for $100 each
B. make B call the extra $35 and the hand stands
C. wipe the entire board, back the action to preflop, give B the option to call or fold the extra $35, and then reshuffle the deck and run the board
D. something else

 

[Tonystark137]

If the all on player tabled their hand. I think it's D hands dead , return money to players.

 

[Headhunter13]

Neither hand was exposed. But even if it were exposed, it shouldn’t be a dead hand.

 

[Tonystark137]

If not exposed, C ; if exposed it has to be D cause player B would have player A's hand information.

 

[Mojo1312]

I vote A. Next hand.

 

[WedgeRock]

B. make B call the extra $35 and the hand stands

No chance. Can't commit $35 out of B's stack when he never put it at risk.

C. wipe the entire board, back the action to preflop, give B the option to call or fold the extra $35, and then reshuffle the deck and run the board

If the hole cards were exposed, you can't do this. If hole cards weren't exposed, this is a viable option, but be prepared for hurt feelings if the other person wins the re-ran board.

A. hand stands with both players all in for $100 each

This is also a viable option, but potentially robs the hand winner of an extra $35.

I'd ask both players what they want to do, Option A or Option C. If they agree, I do that. If they do not agree, I rule Option A and send the dealer for an early break.

 

[upNdown]

Isn't that what they call "action accepted?" I'm not sure. But I say that B is in for the full amount.

 

[ChipFinderSK]

A seems like the fairest option

C seems like what most casinos would rule

 

[casinochipper22]

option A all day. Option B seems pretty bad, I can't think of any times you can force a player to put money in the pot, this is definitely not one of them. C is just a crazy option.

and I agree with @WedgeRock dealer is on break and signing a write up. haha.

 

[Mojo1312]

A good dealer would grin over his mistake and give both players the option of running a second board for $35.

 

[WedgeRock]

Option B seems pretty bad, I can't think of any times you can force a player to put money in the pot, this is definitely not one of them.

If the dealer looked at Player B and gave player B enough time to act (and especially if Player B said something like, "run 'em!"), I can see forcing Player B to call the bet, similar to @upNdown's ruling based on "action accepted."

 

[Anthony Martino]

Option A, there's been significant action at this point and we've arrived at showdown

To try to back it up now would allow one player to freeroll the other based on the results

And you can't force B to call the extra 35

Seems like this falls under a "best interest of the game" clause, since no one spike up until the river. Errors happen, we're all human

 

[TheOffalo]

Option A does seem the most "fair" for the situation as described, but what if Player A had an extra $100 chip in his stack that the dealer (and Player B) didn't see, so the difference isn't $35 but $135. Or more? Seems less fair now.

 

[TheRealTeddyKGB]

All 3 need a break. How do both players not say something as soon as the dealer burned the first card?!?

I like C

 

[upNdown]

If the dealer looked at Player B and gave player B enough time to act (and especially if Player B said something like, "run 'em!"), I can see forcing Player B to call the bet, similar to @upNdown's ruling based on "action accepted."

Right, I'm not even sure this is what action accepted is. But if it is, yeah, context matters. If he did anything to indicate he was in, and interested in waiting for that turn card, I think it's a good argument. But If A jammed his stack and the dealer just whips out the turn without looking up, I can't imagine anybody would hold B accountable for the extra $35. But in that case, I think it's just a premature turn, it gets shuffled back into the stub, and then action is on B - call or fold.

edit - oh shit, all that action was preflop?
I dunno - I guess option A?

 

[WedgeRock]

In what world is Player B not calling $35 to win $270 (7:1 on the call)? He wasn't bluffing with a barely more than min. raise, but even if he was, he's still calling the extra $35.

Suddenly, Option B doesn't seem so crazy.

B. make B call the extra $35 and the hand stands

But if Player B objects, it becomes an issue.

 

[casinochipper22]

Option A does seem the most "fair" for the situation as described, but what if Player A had an extra $100 chip in his stack that the dealer (and Player B) didn't see, so the difference isn't $35 but $135. Or more? Seems less fair now.

I was thinking about that too, but players have the responsibility to protect their own action. He should know the ballpark of his chip stack, if he sees the dealer starting to deal, knowing B has to call more, that's on him, and could even be an angle. And on the flip side, B should eyeball the stack and hopefully stop the dealer from putting out more cards. Its a fail for the entire table. Even if there is a hidden 1k chip in there, I don't see a way to force either player to put more money in the pot. I've heard of a situation like this and it was ruled that way. You can only risk/award accepted action. Which was just the original $100 bet in this case.

 

[CraigT78]

Option A all day.

The dealer didn't confirm additional funds were needed.

Take $100 and get that man some chicken Wingers

 

[Headhunter13]

Option A all day.

The dealer didn't confirm additional funds were needed.

Take $100 and get that man some chicken Wingers

Option A was what the floor ruled (and a long talk with the dealer)

 

[CraigT78]

Option A was what the floor ruled (and a long talk with the dealer)

Good decision. Bad dealer.