Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike

[SirPsycho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Yes, but if someone thinks that he is raising $15, and says it, shouldn't he at least be forced to do what he thinks he is doing?

[/ QUOTE ]


You don't think there is a difference between raising your opponent's last $15 to just get it in (on the assumption that it is going in on the flop anyway) and opening yourself up to a reraise?
If you cut the newbie slack for not knowing that the cash plays, then you have to look at his 'raise' from his perspective. He 'thinks' he is just getting last chips into the pot, not 'raising'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once everything was explained the kid was not given the option to do anything. The floor closed off the action. The player did not "call". The floor said to put in the $35 and deal out the flop.

At the very least, as RR has mentioned, the kid should have been given the option to call, fold, or raise. This option was never given.

[oddjob]

[ QUOTE ]
When I was playing football once we were screwed pretty badly and lost a game. The team was upset but the coach told us that it was our responsibility to do whatever it takes to win, including overcoming the refs mistakes.

If you intend to play poker and win you have the responsibility to see that things like this do not happen. Don't jump the gun, wait until the pot is right. I make people put their chips in the damn pot before I react.

I've seen this happen more than once and rulings vary.

[/ QUOTE ]

when you played football, did any of the teams get favorable calls because they didn't know the rules?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]


At the very least, as RR has mentioned, the kid should have been given the option to call, fold, or raise. This option was never given.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.
But then, if he folded without putting in the $25 call, the AA would have been ticked. I think the Floor was trying to satisfy both the AA and the newbie and came up with a camel.

[PanRains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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."

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy:

Obviously, you know far more than I do about casino poker, but this decision in this instance strikes me as being outrageously unfair to our AA player, and unfairly benefitting the AJ player for not knowing the rules.

I thought this rule was more for a situation where someone has big denomination chips hidden behind a stack of redbirds, or for a case where a player is asked for a count and given an incorrect number. It seems to me that part of protecting your hand is to know how much you're pushing when you say "I push you all in".

Now, I should also say that my assumption is that the $100 bill was in plain site, not folded up and hidden behind a stack of chips. If that's the case, I lean more towards what you're saying.

[ncskiier]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, I should also say that my assumption is that the $100 bill was in plain site, not folded up and hidden behind a stack of chips. If that's the case, I lean more towards what you're saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was in total plain sight. One bill folded in half under a very small stack of chips.

[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.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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."

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy:

Obviously, you know far more than I do about casino poker, but this decision in this instance strikes me as being outrageously unfair to our AA player, and unfairly benefitting the AJ player for not knowing the rules.

I thought this rule was more for a situation where someone has big denomination chips hidden behind a stack of redbirds, or for a case where a player is asked for a count and given an incorrect number. It seems to me that part of protecting your hand is to know how much you're pushing when you say "I push you all in".

Now, I should also say that my assumption is that the $100 bill was in plain site, not folded up and hidden behind a stack of chips. If that's the case, I lean more towards what you're saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like a lot of these things it isn't clear exactly waht happened here. If he says "I put you all-in" and puts out exactly enough to put in the chips the guy has it is pretty clear he doesn't understand the amount in play. (note: it is pretty common for people that are goign all-in to get some money out to rebuy, so the money sitting there doesn't mean it is in play if the "raiser" is under the impression that it doesn't play). Many of these things I could put in different little details to make it go either way. I won't go as far as to say verbal isn't binding in NL, but the chips need to go in to avoid any misunderstanding. If AA waits until the AJ puts the raise in the pot he will not be injured at all. I don't know any of the history of the two players to make a good ruling. I try to answer on here because a lot of people come here wantign to knwo if different things are handled correctly; if someone corners me in a casino and asks how I would rule if X happens I always say "we do not speculate about what ruling might be as each situation is different and all decisions are made in the interest of fairness considering the dynamics of the table."

[johnnyrocket]

money on the table plays, bad ruling by the floor

[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.