Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike

[jimmytrick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with your general premise, there would still be a problem here.

"well, I will put you all-in".

Then he puts in $40. ($25 for his opponent's raise and $15 for what he thinks will 'put his opponent all-in').

$100 shy of 'putting you all-in' and not enough for a legal raise.

Floor called ....

[/ QUOTE ]

and then you clarify that you have the $100 in play and he therefore can't make the illegal raise (acting like you want to see the flop) and induce him to push. Or something. I dunno, there are variations on this whole verbal thing and it goes awry too much. I have seen rulings like this one before when folks try to protect new players. Plus there are the angle shots. Make the pot right then act.

[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.

[SirPsycho]

[ QUOTE ]
First off, since all the chips went in any way, your friend has no beef. If he had gotten it the way he wanted it, we'd have the exact same result. Yes, I know this is "results-oriented thinking". I don't mention it to justify the ruling, but rather, to tell you and your friend to stop being so upset about what turned out to be an irrelevant ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is being results-oriented. I never should have posted the rest of the hand since it doesn't matter. What matters is if the hand would have played out differently if the ruling was different. The kid intended to raise, whether it be $115 or less. By the floor ruling that the kid did not even have to raise (she did not even give him an option) it closed off the betting so that the AA player didn't get an option to raise again. I mentioned before that the flop may have not even been seen if it was played out correctly, i.e. the kid raising, the AA player pushing, and the kid possibly folding.

[ QUOTE ]
IF the kid stopped the action before the AA was turned up, and before the flop was spread, then this isn't a bad ruling at all. There are rules in NL to protect players from committing large amounts of chips if it is clear that they grossly misunderstood the size of the bet involved. When someone thinks they are raising $15, and they are told that they are raising $115, this would qualify as a gross misunderstanding.

[/ 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? If that would have happened it would have allowed the AA player to reraise, if he wanted. Since the floor ruled that the kid justs need to call the $35 and not even raise the $15 in chips, it closed off the preflop action.

[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."

[SirPsycho]

[ 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 ]

Well, that didn't even happen. All I am saying is that the floor made a bad decision by saying that the pot stays as it is and the dealer must put out the flop immediately. Neither player, especially the kid who intended to raise something, was allowed to do anything.

*edit* Double negative in the last line [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[AngusThermopyle]

[ 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'.