Call the Camera

[Mr Rick]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, if Player C was knowledgable and knew that player A had bet in the dark, he might have not called what he believed was player B's bet. There are many times I am willing to call a bet that I believe will be heads up but not overcall in a three way pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an argument for Player C reimbursing Player A $132, not walking away scot free.

[ QUOTE ]
It's like the subsequent action rule, you usually can't unwind the action in the middle of a hand once there has been subsequent action (like when the dealer believes a player has called but actually said raise). Here, there has been subsequent hands relying on the decision (or lack of decision of the floor). It is prejudicial to Player C to unwind the action now and require him to pay Player A unless you are going to force the people who later won the chips from Player C to return them to him.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am with Steamboatin on this one. At the time the hand went in for review - everyone at the table has become aware that there is a protest that can reverse the results of the fateful hand. Even though the Floor blundered by not setting aside the pot - Player B and Player C have both been aprised that they may have to relinquish their respective wins.

I believe Player C is a scumbag and should not be allowed to play again at the casino unless he makes good on the $144. I also think that the casino should reimburse Player A the $144.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, if Player C was knowledgable and knew that player A had bet in the dark, he might have not called what he believed was player B's bet. There are many times I am willing to call a bet that I believe will be heads up but not overcall in a three way pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an argument for Player C reimbursing Player A $132, not walking away scot free.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's like the subsequent action rule, you usually can't unwind the action in the middle of a hand once there has been subsequent action (like when the dealer believes a player has called but actually said raise). Here, there has been subsequent hands relying on the decision (or lack of decision of the floor). It is prejudicial to Player C to unwind the action now and require him to pay Player A unless you are going to force the people who later won the chips from Player C to return them to him.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am with Steamboatin on this one. At the time the hand went in for review - everyone at the table has become aware that there is a protest that can reverse the results of the fateful hand. Even though the Floor blundered by not setting aside the pot - Player B and Player C have both been aprised that they may have to relinquish their respective wins.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that? That is not in the original story.
OP says that Player A asked for them to check the cameras and that the floor came back 30 minutes later to inform them that Player A was right. There was no indication that anyone was on notice of what could happen. The floor did not ask for the pot to be set aside and Player A did not request it either. Why must everyone read things into the story?

There are many times that a floor will check on a rule or an issue. I have also seen floormen agree with a player that a mistake was made but not correct it because it was too late to do anything about it. If the floor was called before the pots were shipped, the action could have been recreated WITHOUT GOING TO THE CAMERA and the players would have known whether Player A's chips were in the pot.

Once again, returning the money may have been "the right thing" for Player C to do, but he cannot be obliged to do it based on mistakes made by Player A, the dealer and the floor that effected his subsequent actions in the hand in question and in subsequent hands.