Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike

[ncskiier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I totally agree w/ OP that this was an AWFUL decision by the floor, who used to be very friendly as dealer but is now the biggest bitch in the poker room as a floor supervisor.

[/ QUOTE ]


She's not a bitch (if it's the one I'm thinking of!!!). She's actually very nice, but I have seen her get stressed out sometimes like we all do. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Maybe you caught her on a bad night. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. I've seen her be very nice, as a dealer. But if she was stressed out, it wasn't just this nite, it was all weekend.

[ncskiier]

*EDIT*

Oops, ncskiier was still logged in on my computer while visiting. I will post under my account.

-SirPsycho

[SirPsycho]

This went down exactly as I described. The entire table was stunned by the ruling.

Rottersod and youtalkfunny: you seem to either misunderstand or are being results oriented. You say that "the results would have been the same" or "all the chips got in anyway", but that is not necessarily the case if the hand was played right. Without even considering what happened after the flop came down, the action may not have even continued to the flop.

First, if the kid knew that there was another $115 after the $35 now in the pot, he most likely would not have went all in. He was loose, but not completely reckless. Since he verbally declared an all-in raise he should have been either forced to follow through with his declaration and go all-in before the flop (again, I would have agreed to this no matter the outcome of the hand) or have the decision to surrender the flop at the previous raise of $35.

I definitely do not think that the betting should have been completely cut off and the flop shown without any action. I guess the other option would be to hold the kid to a min-raise ($25 since $35 is a raise of $25 over $10), which would then give AA the opportunity to push preflop. This would mean that the kid would have to put a total of $60 into the pot and then AA would push for an addition $90. Whether you think the kid would call with AJo for the additional $90 is moot. Without even thinking of the hole cards or the outcome, what is the correct way to have the hand play out?

*edit* my numbers at the end weren't quite right. I said the kid would have $70 in the pot after a min-raise, but it would be $60 = $35 + $25. He would have $60 in the pot and would have to call another $90.

[SirPsycho]

Brad1970: Yes, this did happen as described. It was on a busy Saturday evening so the floor was a little frazzled, possibly why she made a snap decision and immediately left the table.

The entire table heard the "all-in" from the kid. I was on the other end of the table and heard it and was happy for my friend since I knew he had AA. The dealer heard it, so the floor was called.

I have been in the Gold Strike on more than one occasion where the EXACT same thing has happened - the damn phrase "I put you all-in" being said, without realizing that, yes, that entire stack of bills under/behind the chips IS in play. And every other time I have seen this, I have seen the floor rule that the player that said "I put you all-in" has to either be all-in or match the other player's money on the table, whichever is less.

If it was any other way, this would be too easy for angleshooters. Your opponent has a few chips but a stack of bills. Say, "I put you all-in" and see your opponent's reaction. If the opponent immediately calls say that you "didn't know the cash played".

I just don't see any positive reason for the ruling that we saw on the last visit.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
If it was any other way, this would be too easy for angleshooters. Your opponent has a few chips but a stack of bills. Say, "I put you all-in" and see your opponent's reaction. If the opponent immediately calls say that you "didn't know the cash played".

I just don't see any positive reason for the ruling that we saw on the last visit.

[/ QUOTE ]

YTF explained it perfectly, but I know people like to see "rules" rather than being told what the rules are.

[ 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. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300 into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is mentioned there, but in the case of a potential angle shooter there is also this rule:

[ QUOTE ]
8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

[/ QUOTE ]

[SirPsycho]

So you would agree that the correct ruling would be to shut down all preflop action even though the kid made it clear that he was raising (no matter what the raise would be)? I don't see the justification in this. By this ruling you are causing damage to the AA player.

The kid says "I put you all-in". I can understand that he may be confused. Of course, the verbal statement could be binding, but at the very least it would be a raise. Therefore, wouldn't the correct ruling be: "We understand that you did not realize the cash would be in play. Either min-raise to $60 total or be all-in."

Your example is pretty obvious. We have all seen small-blinds say "call" meaning they only want to complete the blind instead of calling a raise that they did not see. Things like that are obvious. But, in this circumstance you are causing damage if you stop the action without allowing the AA player to raise. If the kid min-raises, the AA player will most likely push and if the kid pushes the AA player will instantly call. Again, don't be results oriented. The AA player is obviously being caused damage if the floor rules that the kid does not even have to min-raise even though he made it clear that he wanted to raise and even said so.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
The kid says "I put you all-in". I can understand that he may be confused. Of course, the verbal statement could be binding, but at the very least it would be a raise. Therefore, wouldn't the correct ruling be: "We understand that you did not realize the cash would be in play. Either min-raise to $60 total or be all-in."

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct ruling would be "There was a gross misunderstanding as to the amount of money in play. Now that the misunderstanidng has been cleared up the player should act on his hand."

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
Brad1970: Yes, this did happen as described. It was on a busy Saturday evening so the floor was a little frazzled, possibly why she made a snap decision and immediately left the table.

The entire table heard the "all-in" from the kid. I was on the other end of the table and heard it and was happy for my friend since I knew he had AA. The dealer heard it, so the floor was called.

I have been in the Gold Strike on more than one occasion where the EXACT same thing has happened - the damn phrase "I put you all-in" being said, without realizing that, yes, that entire stack of bills under/behind the chips IS in play. And every other time I have seen this, I have seen the floor rule that the player that said "I put you all-in" has to either be all-in or match the other player's money on the table, whichever is less.

If it was any other way, this would be too easy for angleshooters. Your opponent has a few chips but a stack of bills. Say, "I put you all-in" and see your opponent's reaction. If the opponent immediately calls say that you "didn't know the cash played".

I just don't see any positive reason for the ruling that we saw on the last visit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm....still, bad ruling, imo. He should have been given the option of calling the all in or making the min. raise & folding. Too bad Mr. Lagtard didn't know the rules. Like I said before, that's his problem.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
Rottersod and youtalkfunny: you seem to either misunderstand or are being results oriented. You say that "the results would have been the same" or "all the chips got in anyway", but that is not necessarily the case if the hand was played right. Without even considering what happened after the flop came down, the action may not have even continued to the flop.

First, if the kid knew that there was another $115 after the $35 now in the pot, he most likely would not have went all in. He was loose, but not completely reckless. Since he verbally declared an all-in raise he should have been either forced to follow through with his declaration and go all-in before the flop (again, I would have agreed to this no matter the outcome of the hand) or have the decision to surrender the flop at the previous raise of $35.

I definitely do not think that the betting should have been completely cut off and the flop shown without any action. I guess the other option would be to hold the kid to a min-raise ($25 since $35 is a raise of $25 over $10), which would then give AA the opportunity to push preflop. This would mean that the kid would have to put a total of $60 into the pot and then AA would push for an addition $90. Whether you think the kid would call with AJo for the additional $90 is moot. Without even thinking of the hole cards or the outcome, what is the correct way to have the hand play out?

*edit* my numbers at the end weren't quite right. I said the kid would have $70 in the pot after a min-raise, but it would be $60 = $35 + $25. He would have $60 in the pot and would have to call another $90.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the one being results oriented. If the kid said all in (in every place I play live if you say "I'll put you all in" it's an all in bet) then your friend had no decisions to make and called. If money plays at that casino then it should stand. Your friend had his money in plain sight and you wrote the kid saw it before he bet. You don't get do overs. Your friend calls 100% of the time with AA anyways so he loses the hand.

[SirPsycho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rottersod and youtalkfunny: you seem to either misunderstand or are being results oriented. You say that "the results would have been the same" or "all the chips got in anyway", but that is not necessarily the case if the hand was played right. Without even considering what happened after the flop came down, the action may not have even continued to the flop.

First, if the kid knew that there was another $115 after the $35 now in the pot, he most likely would not have went all in. He was loose, but not completely reckless. Since he verbally declared an all-in raise he should have been either forced to follow through with his declaration and go all-in before the flop (again, I would have agreed to this no matter the outcome of the hand) or have the decision to surrender the flop at the previous raise of $35.

I definitely do not think that the betting should have been completely cut off and the flop shown without any action. I guess the other option would be to hold the kid to a min-raise ($25 since $35 is a raise of $25 over $10), which would then give AA the opportunity to push preflop. This would mean that the kid would have to put a total of $60 into the pot and then AA would push for an addition $90. Whether you think the kid would call with AJo for the additional $90 is moot. Without even thinking of the hole cards or the outcome, what is the correct way to have the hand play out?

*edit* my numbers at the end weren't quite right. I said the kid would have $70 in the pot after a min-raise, but it would be $60 = $35 + $25. He would have $60 in the pot and would have to call another $90.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the one being results oriented. If the kid said all in (in every place I play live if you say "I'll put you all in" it's an all in bet) then your friend had no decisions to make and called. If money plays at that casino then it should stand. Your friend had his money in plain sight and you wrote the kid saw it before he bet. You don't get do overs. Your friend calls 100% of the time with AA anyways so he loses the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the misunderstanding - the point of my post is that I do not agree with the ruling. From your reply, "If money plays at that casino then it should stand" - well, that was not the case and that is what I have been arguing. If the floor would have ruled that way, then they both would have been all-in and the AA would have lost, but I would have been fine with the decision and this post never would have happened.

I believe that the preflop action should have been played out or allowed to play out differently. Yes, if the floor would have allowed the all-in my friend definitely would have called and he still would have lost the hand. My point, though, is that the floor stopped the action preflop before allowing any more betting. I believe that this was an error and should have been handled differently - there appears to be different opinions on how it should have been handled, but it definitely should have been handled differently.

As I mentioned in one of my replies, I wish I wouldn't have posted the results of the hand in my original post. I know it is hard to overlook the results. This post is about the ruling, not the hand or the outcome.