Very questionable floor decision at the Gold Strike

SirPsycho · #1 04-12-2007, 11:03 AM

This happened about a month ago in Tunica:

A group of my friends and I took a road trip to Tunica. One of them has never played in a casino. He has played many years in home games and we run our local home games as close to casino rules as possible so that people will be comfortable during their first visit to a casino. So, he is familiar with the rules.

The situation - a young college kid sits down for what appears to be his first time ever on a casino poker table. He is pretty loose and is showing down some very bad hands. My friend is to the left of him and is eager to get into a hand with him.

About 4-5 orbits after this kid sits down he is on the button and puts in a small raise (raise to $10 on a $1/2 NL table). My friend raises to $35 and has about $15 left in chips and a $100 bill under those chips. The kid looks at my friend, looks down at his chips and the bill and then says "well, I will put you all-in". My friend's eyes bug out and he excitedly says "hell yeah". Of course, I know he has AA.

Chaos ensues as the kid is told that this all-in includes the bill under the chips and he says that he did not know that the bill played.

The floor is called instantly. After the situation was explained, the floor quickly makes the decision that the pot can stay at the first raise ($35), the flop will come out, and they will continue play from there!

The flop comes out KQ10. My friend is steaming so he doesn't really take a second to think and instantly pushes. Of course, this kid has AJ. The outcome is beside the point, though.

I was very upset by the floor decision. What I think should have been the decision was that the kid would have a choice of either following through with the all-in of an additional $115 above the $35 raise or he can just call the $35 and forfeit the pot (hand over - no flop, etc). The fact that the action was stopped at the $35 raise, giving my friend no other options, and play continued AFTER the flop was a horrible call on the floor. The outcome may have been the same - the kid may have thought his AJ was good and put it all in - but the fact that my friend was caught in the middle of this chaos without any say as to what should happen was very disappointing.

Brad1970 · #2 04-12-2007, 11:37 AM

I play at the 'Strike alot & unless there were extenuating circumstances or you're not telling us the whole story, then that is a bad ruling. Cash has always been allowed to play in this room...for as long as I can remember & I've been playing at this property since the mid 90's. Too bad that the other guy didn't know the rules...that's his problem. He should have asked when he saw the cash on the table.

I assume that the dealer is the one who explained to him that the all in bet from your friend was $115 not $15?? Did the other guy clearly state his intentions of putting your friend all in or did he just mutter it to himself??

Rottersod · #3 04-12-2007, 03:34 PM

I'm not understanding OP. If the money had played then the results would have been exactly the same since the new kid is the one who put your friend all in, right? All your friend did was call. The floors ruling actually gave your friend a way to save money. I think the floor made a terrible decision if the rules at the casino allow money to play but regardless he helped your friend.

youtalkfunny · #4 04-12-2007, 04:14 PM

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.

Now, let's get to the meat of the issue: is it possible the floor got this one right? I think it is, with a few "ifs" attached:

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.

If the kid waited until he saw the AA or the flop before trying to correct the action, it's much stickier. But if he stopped the game and protected his action as soon as he recognized the problem, I don't see how a floor could reach any other decision.

(Actually, I can see a floor taking the easy way out, and saying, "All in means all in, sorry, sir." Kudos to the Gold Strike if they have a floor who is familiar with the differences in rules between limit and NL.)

AngusThermopyle · #5 04-12-2007, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]

(Actually, I can see a floor taking the easy way out, and saying, "All in means all in, sorry, sir." Kudos to the Gold Strike if they have a floor who is familiar with the differences in rules between limit and NL.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there is another problem because the kid said:

[ QUOTE ]
"well, I will put you all-in".

[/ QUOTE ]

which is another wonderful influence from TVHoldem.

jimmytrick · #6 04-12-2007, 04:57 PM

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.

AngusThermopyle · #7 04-12-2007, 05:04 PM

[ 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 ....

ncskiier · #8 04-12-2007, 05:06 PM

[ 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 ]

I was at this table and I agree it WAS a gross misunderstanding.

As a misunderstanding, the floor should have explained to the raiser what his bet meant, and what his options were, that he was actually betting $115 and that he could, if it was a misunderstanding, make the allin bet, make his intended bet, or whatever the min. would be, or just call.

The results, we all know, don't matter. It may have come out the same way. I think if the correct action had been taken by the floor, either make him min raise or go allin. The speed at which he was called on his original "I put you allin" bet surely would make him think twice about actually doing that. Alternatively, if they required him to make a min. raise and given the other player a chance to reraise, WHICH THEY NEVER DID, then this hand never would have gone to a flop.

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.

Brad1970 · #9 04-12-2007, 05:18 PM

[ 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]

ncskiier · #10 04-12-2007, 05:30 PM

[ 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.