Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

The 3 main people in this hand from left to right are asian lady, crazy russian, and stripper/whore
Russian has like 300 to start the hand with the asian at 850-900 and stripper at about 1500
theres a pf raise and a bet and 2 calls on the flop of
qj7 rainbow
the turn is another q
board:
qqj7 rainbow
asian lady bets 125 russian moves in for 198 total and the stripper calls the 198
Now the asian says Im all in which the stripper immediately calls with the monster know as q5 (the asian has q7 for the boat, and the russian has 3 pair with j7)
The dealer immediatly burns and turns a river blank and is ready to push the entire pot to the asian when somebody says that the all in shouldnt have been allowed (which delights the stripper)

The floor is called over and rules that the asian was not allowed to raise over the top of the russians all in. She would be allowe dto go all in on the river but the cards were exposed so obviolsy the stripper wouldnt call another 600 or so.

What is the correct ruling?

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

Ugh, what a mess. If I were running the game I'd let it stand, since it's clear the action on the river would have been the same.

I have a feeling the "correct" answer probably returns the extra bets, shuffles the river card back in, deals a new river, and cheats the Asian lady out of a well deserved $650.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

wow, that's gross. Like Aristocrats kind of gross. I'll just bump poco and call it good.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

If I get it right asian lady was first to act and striper had to act just after.

Then she moved all in in the dark (on the river) and got called in the dark.

100% legal.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

Action offered and accepted?

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I get it right asian lady was first to act and striper had to act just after.

Then she moved all in in the dark (on the river) and got called in the dark.

[/ QUOTE ]

No she didn't. She tried to move all-in on the turn. You can't call a play "in the dark" for a future street when you haven't even acted on the current street. She has to call the current bet first (she could have folded). The fact that she said "all-in" is 100% clearly to be taken as current action, which isn't a legal play.

The river is shuffled back into the deck and Asian lady, must call or fold. Then play proceeds.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

Action offered and accepted is fair. Too late to decline Asian lady's all in after river has been dealt, and seeing Asian lady's hand.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

the asian lady moved in on the turn not in the dark for the riv

I wasnt sure if you're supposed to be allowed to reraise if someone goes all in for less than a legal raise over your bet (i have heard it its more than half you can-amazingly the exact turn bets were 125 and 198 so it would be a 63 dollar raise and over half a raise)
Then the fact that it was accepted action on the turn leads me to think that the asian lady was cheated. She didn't even seem mad about the ruling. I wouldve thrown a shitfit (but also asked the dealer if i was allowed to reraise and if she said no then waited to shove the river)

Although this as nothing to do with the ruling,less than an orbit later, 2 hands apart the stripper had KK vs 95 on a 9944 turn all in and 95 vs my friends jj on a j992 turn all in and won BOTH hands)

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

This was heads up cash; the players could have bet on the side whether the house liked it or not. They could have started betting cars, boats and houses, what the hell you going to do? I don't think you can go back here after the river card was dealt.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I get it right asian lady was first to act and striper had to act just after.

Then she moved all in in the dark (on the river) and got called in the dark.


[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad they didn't explain it this way, I'm guessing.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

KITN for dealer for not running the game properly. Not sure about ruling though, where's RR when you need him

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
KITN for dealer for not running the game properly. Not sure about ruling though, where's RR when you need him

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll give ya 6:1 odds RR says "action offered and accepted" (or some variant).

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KITN for dealer for not running the game properly. Not sure about ruling though, where's RR when you need him

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll give ya 6:1 odds RR says "action offered and accepted" (or some variant).

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to accept the action because I'm a degenerate but I think that's the correct ruling.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

If the river hadn't already come out, and one of the involved players hadn't already tabled his hand, you can roll back. But you don't get to wait until the flush hits the river and the player tables his nut flush, and then say "haha, that wasn't a legal all-in so I get a do-over".

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KITN for dealer for not running the game properly. Not sure about ruling though, where's RR when you need him

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll give ya 6:1 odds RR says "action offered and accepted" (or some variant).

[/ QUOTE ]

I already said that. RR, just quote my post with a "QFT" and we'll call this matter closed. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

In a lot of places a raise is possible if the previous raise was >= 1/2 of the first raise. Here russian raises 63 to 198 which is >= (125/2 = 62.5), and hence a raise should be allowed under these rules. Most dealers I've encountered cannot add/divide properly. But again, some places don't follow this 1/2 rule.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
KITN for dealer for not running the game properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 11 people at the table, nobody notices the problem until it's too late...but let's blame the dealer.

Actually, we shouldn't even use the word "problem". Asian Lady wanted all her chips in, Stripper wanted all her chips in. What's the problem?

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KITN for dealer for not running the game properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 11 people at the table, nobody notices the problem until it's too late...but let's blame the dealer.

It litlerly took less than 3 seconds for the asian to go all in get called and have the dealer burn and turn the river.

Actually, we shouldn't even use the word "problem". Asian Lady wanted all her chips in, Stripper wanted all her chips in. What's the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

I realize its more fun to think that the raise is $63 because it is just over half of $125 (which is also the wrong number to look at because you have to subtract the $2 big blind to get the net raise). But the raise was actually $73.

Carry on.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
I realize its more fun to think that the raise is $63 because it is just over half of $125 (which is also the wrong number to look at because you have to subtract the $2 big blind to get the net raise). But the raise was actually $73.

Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big blind is 5 not 2 not sure how thats relevant. But you are right i do retard math in the morning.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
I realize its more fun to think that the raise is $63 because it is just over half of $125 (which is also the wrong number to look at because you have to subtract the $2 big blind to get the net raise). But the raise was actually $73.

Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

This action wasn't pre-flop. The level of the blinds are irrelevant.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KITN for dealer for not running the game properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 11 people at the table, nobody notices the problem until it's too late...but let's blame the dealer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, last time I checked the dealer was the only one that was being paid to maintain the accuracy and legitimacy of the game, so yea, I would say that it is the dealer's fault.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

Guess I can't add either. But yea, 73>63 so it doesn't matter here.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KITN for dealer for not running the game properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 11 people at the table, nobody notices the problem until it's too late...but let's blame the dealer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, last time I checked the dealer was the only one that was being paid to maintain the accuracy and legitimacy of the game, so yea, I would say that it is the dealer's fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

The dealer's job is to deal the cards and call the floor if there is a dispute. I would say the dealer should keep his mouth shut if a pot is heads up (heads up on the side counts as heads up) and the two players involved want to bet their money. It would appear the dealer is the only one that got it right. But hey, let's blame the dealer because he is the one sitting there that isn't allowed to defend themselves.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KITN for dealer for not running the game properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 11 people at the table, nobody notices the problem until it's too late...but let's blame the dealer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, last time I checked the dealer was the only one that was being paid to maintain the accuracy and legitimacy of the game, so yea, I would say that it is the dealer's fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

The dealer's job is to deal the cards and call the floor if there is a dispute. I would say the dealer should keep his mouth shut if a pot is heads up (heads up on the side counts as heads up) and the two players involved want to bet their money. It would appear the dealer is the only one that got it right. But hey, let's blame the dealer because he is the one sitting there that isn't allowed to defend themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but am I wrong in my opinion that the dealer's job is to run the game properly?

I agree that the money should have went into the pot since the two players heads up wanted to put all their money in, my point was the dealer should have taken the time to make sure that a raise is allowed in that situation (which it wasn't). If the dealer had done that, they obviously would have got all the money in on the river anyways and there wouldn't even be this discussion.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

the dealer should know the rule and not have dealt the river and he mistake cost someone 600 dollars which doesnt suprise me since I had one good dealer in 3 days.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
the dealer should know the rule and not have dealt the river and he mistake cost someone 600 dollars which doesnt suprise me since I had one good dealer in 3 days.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't make a mistake and a poor decision by the floor cost someone $600. If there are two players left and they want to bet that is their business. The dealer interfering in the player's business would have been a mistake.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but am I wrong in my opinion that the dealer's job is to run the game properly?


[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the room. I would say absolutely not if the players are allowed to tell the dealer to STFU. I know when I was dealing I was once "written up" for answering "it's up to you" when a player asked "why the f are you looking at me?" The player called for the floor and I was instructed by the floor not to look at the players. This took place in the top section of a well known casino.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
The dealer immediatly burns and turns a river blank and is ready to push the entire pot to the asian when somebody says that the all in shouldnt have been allowed (which delights the stripper)

[/ QUOTE ]

How about kicking this person in the nuts, for speaking up after the action is complete and the hands are tabled?


Also if this was the correct ruling, someone could illegally move-in to isolate. If they get called, just speak up and say "Wait, that bet wasnt legal...blah, blah" and just like that you dont have to make the bet.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

id let the bet stand here. action was offered and was accepted. only chips that were involved in the bet were chips on hte table. id let it stand

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the dealer should know the rule and not have dealt the river and he mistake cost someone 600 dollars which doesnt suprise me since I had one good dealer in 3 days.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't make a mistake and a poor decision by the floor cost someone $600. If there are two players left and they want to bet that is their business. The dealer interfering in the player's business would have been a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy is 100% correct, as always. This is a decent-sized game and the players should run the game. At lower limits, this isn't the case, but not here.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]

He didn't make a mistake and a poor decision by the floor cost someone $600. If there are two players left and they want to bet that is their business. The dealer interfering in the player's business would have been a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this at all. What if stripper didnt want to call an all in? The ILLEGAL all in action is to her and now she is forced to point out it is not legal, potentially showing weakness. She could have been in a situation that she didnt want to be in and this is precisely why it is the dealers job to uphold the house rules. Just because in this situation she turned out to be a willing particpant doesnt make it correct for the dealer to ignore the rules.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

lol @ players runnning this game
when the stripper rivered a king for a final board of
9944k 3 clubs
the crazy russian got up and did a dance thinking his flush won the pot and the guy with the 9 didnt understand why he lost at first.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

that reminds me of the one genius who told me the casino cheats
for example he said the casino puts different sized studs on the back of the cards in BJ so if the dealer needs a 6 for instance they can feel for one.
He also thought the dice were magically fixed in craps. He "proved" this by saying one time he bet on every number hitting but 6 and 6 hit.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
the dealer should know the rule and not have dealt the river and he mistake cost someone 600 dollars which doesnt suprise me since I had one good dealer in 3 days.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Randy is 100% correct, as always. This is a decent-sized game and the players should run the game. At lower limits, this isn't the case, but not here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that TT and JA'a above statements might seem totally absurd to some of you, but this is pretty commonly the case.

Regarding NL200 and smaller donkaments, dealers have to be more take charge and really manage the game. But as games get bigger this becomes less necessary. At some tables, your entire function is pretty much reduced to the more mechanical duties of dealing, and a dealer certainly has no place running the game. It's just the opposite - in fact, a dealer sticking his ir her two cents in as if it was 1/2NL will often be met with some form of "STFU".

When disputes arise that aren't settled between players, the floor is called.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

2-5 NL is a game often with larger egos than intellects that needs a dealer that is in charge. This isn't 200/400 HORSE in Bobbys room.

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
that reminds me of the one genius who told me the casino cheats
for example he said the casino puts different sized studs on the back of the cards in BJ so if the dealer needs a 6 for instance they can feel for one.
He also thought the dice were magically fixed in craps. He "proved" this by saying one time he bet on every number hitting but 6 and 6 hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of a buddy of mine who wont play roulette at the tables where the sections of table that win light up when the ball finally comes to rest at a certain number..he says that if the table can light up where the winners are then there must be some kind of magnetic force on the table which weighs the chips so the ball knows where not to land roflmao

Re: Taj floor decision 2/5 nl
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that reminds me of the one genius who told me the casino cheats
for example he said the casino puts different sized studs on the back of the cards in BJ so if the dealer needs a 6 for instance they can feel for one.
He also thought the dice were magically fixed in craps. He "proved" this by saying one time he bet on every number hitting but 6 and 6 hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of a buddy of mine who wont play roulette at the tables where the sections of table that win light up when the ball finally comes to rest at a certain number..he says that if the table can light up where the winners are then there must be some kind of magnetic force on the table which weighs the chips so the ball knows where not to land roflmao

[/ QUOTE ]

this is true. but you get around it by betting a lot of low demoniation chips near your high denomination single chips. fixed games are ez