gaming gets one right

[RR]

Here is a hand that happened tonight. This would not be note worthy except it took place in a jurisdiction where gaming is frequently called to settle disputes and was ruled correctly at every step.

A player in early position moves all in for about 18k. The player to his left states "raise" and puts in $5K. The dealer then points out that the player in front of him is all-in for $18k. The "raiser" then says "oh, I didn't see that" picks up his chips and throws his cards in the muck. The floor is then called. The floor rules the "raiser" does not have to put any chips in the pot and the action should continue to the next player. The all-in player was upset and eventually asks that gaming be called. Gaming comes over to the casino, watches a tape of what happens and then explains to the player that the floor ruled correctly.

There are a couple of notes here. The all-in player is clearly shooting an angle. If the "raiser" had merely asked if he could fold the all-in player would have been happy to have this player fold. It was only after he had no cards that he wanted him to be forced to put money in the pot. Gaming was actually called over an hour after this occurred. The all-in player's first move was to wait a while and approach a floorperson that didn't make the ruling and try to get him to say that the player should have been forced to put his chips in. The player then said he was upset that he "got [censored]" adn the casino wasn't giving him a free buyin or anything.

[killsadie]

yay for casinos not giving free buyins!

[Photoc]

Randy, I've now concluded this is not in Nevada where this hand takes place as gaming would not go through all of this for what I assume is a tournament. Based on what was said above, I have no other choice but to believe it was a tournametn as I dont believe the buy ins or bets are allowed this large in a cash game.

As for the ruling, I think it's a little drastic that gaming commission needs to get involved in a poker dispute and go to the cameras. How many casinos have cameras with audio to determine what was said and whom actually said it?

Now onto the rules Robert's Rules chapter 3 :
[ QUOTE ]

9. A verbal statement denotes your action and is binding. If in turn you verbally declare a fold, check, bet, call, or raise, you are forced to take that action.


[/ QUOTE ]
Now this part contradicts:
[ QUOTE ]

13. A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action and must make the amount of the wager correct. (This also applies right before the showdown when putting chips into the pot causes the opponent to show the winning hand before the full amount needed to call has been put into the pot.) However, if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you. At pot-limit or no-limit betting, if there is a gross misunderstanding concerning the amount of the wager, see Section 14, Rule 8.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's where it gets confusing. The player verbally said raise and didn't just release chips. He announced his action verbaly (see rule 9 above), so is he now required to raise since he did not pay attention to the action or does he get to go with rule 14 above and get his chips back?

Here is a rule from Bob's section 2: House Procedures
[ QUOTE ]
25. A player is expected to pay attention to the game and not hold up play. Activity that interferes with this such as reading at the table is discouraged, and the player will be asked to cease if a problem is caused.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now we all know the player isn't going to be asked to "cease" but it his responsibility to pay attention to the action in front and behind him. Said player has now held up play because he didn't pay attention to what was going on and tried to make a bet that wasn't a legal bet.

edited to add source/link for rules

[BBMW]

Why would "Gaming", which I'm assuming is the local/state gaming control board, be involved? Whether or not the bet would be committed would be a matter of house rules, not state regulations. I would think that the floor's decision, especially if backed up by the room manager, would be final.

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would "Gaming", which I'm assuming is the local/state gaming control board, be involved? Whether or not the bet would be committed would be a matter of house rules, not state regulations. I would think that the floor's decision, especially if backed up by the room manager, would be final.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gaming is there to ensure teh house runs a fair game....That's what they do

[sirtimo]

I guess I'm dense today but I don't understand why the second player's action is not binding, or how the first player is considered to be angle shooting.

[ QUOTE ]

A player in early position moves all in for about 18k. The player to his left states "raise" and puts in $5K. The dealer then points out that the player in front of him is all-in for $18k. The "raiser" then says "oh, I didn't see that" picks up his chips and throws his cards in the muck. The floor is then called. The floor rules the "raiser" does not have to put any chips in the pot and the action should continue to the next player.

[/ QUOTE ]


I really don't get it. If the guy to my right moves all in and puts his chips in and I'm next to act, say "raise" and put chips in then how in the hell am I not bound to that action? Cause I claim I didn't see his raise? What if I had the original raiser covered?



[ QUOTE ]
The all-in player was upset and eventually asks that gaming be called. (snip) The all-in player is clearly shooting an angle. If the "raiser" had merely asked if he could fold the all-in player would have been happy to have this player fold. It was only after he had no cards that he wanted him to be forced to put money in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you wrote it, the floor was called over right away and rules the second guy could take his chips back, and the first guy is upset. Hell, I'd be upset if I pushed AA for 18k and got another guy in with me covered or not. How is this angle shooting?

Ok, calling Gaming an hour later or asking the house for a buy-in is a douche move but up to that I don't get it.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's where it gets confusing. The player verbally said raise and didn't just release chips. He announced his action verbaly (see rule 9 above), so is he now required to raise since he did not pay attention to the action or does he get to go with rule 14 above and get his chips back?

[/ QUOTE ]

He stated "raise" but did not have enough chips to raise so it is clear there is a gross misunderstanding as to the amount wagered. And for completeness another excerpt from Robert's Rules.

[ QUOTE ]
12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action.

[/ QUOTE ]

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A player in early position moves all in for about 18k. The player to his left states "raise" and puts in $5K. The dealer then points out that the player in front of him is all-in for $18k. The "raiser" then says "oh, I didn't see that" picks up his chips and throws his cards in the muck. The floor is then called. The floor rules the "raiser" does not have to put any chips in the pot and the action should continue to the next player.


The all-in player was upset and eventually asks that gaming be called. (snip) The all-in player is clearly shooting an angle. If the "raiser" had merely asked if he could fold the all-in player would have been happy to have this player fold. It was only after he had no cards that he wanted him to be forced to put money in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you wrote it, the floor was called over right away and rules the second guy could take his chips back, and the first guy is upset. Hell, I'd be upset if I pushed AA for 18k and got another guy in with me covered or not. How is this angle shooting?

Ok, calling Gaming an hour later or asking the house for a buy-in is a douche move but up to that I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The floor was not called over immediately. The floor was not called over until the cards were in the muck. If the raiser wanted the chips to stay in the pot, the time to ask for that ruling is before the player's hand gets mucked, not after.

2. Since RR writes that the raiser "would be happy to see this player fold", I'm guessing that nobody held AA here, or anything close to it.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
Randy, I've now concluded this is not in Nevada where this hand takes place as gaming would not go through all of this for what I assume is a tournament. Based on what was said above, I have no other choice but to believe it was a tournametn as I dont believe the buy ins or bets are allowed this large in a cash game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I think in this case "gaming" was the host for a home game. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]