Dealer Mucks Flop

[Arbitrage]

Playing in a Caesars Palace 3/6 game. 3-way on the flop, I check, MP bets, button (9 seat) calls, I fold, dealer mucks board and attempts to push pot to MP.

Floor is called and it was obvious that he really didnt know what the ruling should be. He kind of just leaned over the dealer for 30 seconds and said "that was bad, that was bad" to the dealer.

He finally told the dealer to return the bets to the players in the pot and deal a new hand, button didn't move.

I don't know what the correct ruling should be, but I'm pretty sure the floor was wrong.

[AngusThermopyle]

Clearly the person who folded on the flop confused the dealer. All his or her fault.
That person should have been forced to match the pot, which the two remaining players would then split.

[DayTripping]

[ QUOTE ]
He kind of just leaned over the dealer for 30 seconds and said "that was bad, that was bad" to the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did he hit him with a stick as well?

[kcmoore]

[ QUOTE ]

He finally told the dealer to return the bets to the players in the pot and deal a new hand, button didn't move.

I don't know what the correct ruling should be, but I'm pretty sure the floor was wrong.



[/ QUOTE ]
sounds like a correct ruling to me. if i was one of the players in the hand, that is what i would expect to be done.

what do you think the ruling should be?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

With such a small pot in such a small game this was not a bad decision. Perhaps less than perfect but not bad. If it could be determined what the exact board was then I would get those cards back, but if it was not possible to get those cards back then hmmmm... I've never made this exact decision before, nor seen it or read about it, so I'm not sure if there is a "proper" decision or not. I have pulled five cards out of the muck on the river, but in that case there was no dissention on what the cards were.

I will say this, standing over the dealer saying this was bad is not good. The floor, like the captain, always knows what to do, whether he knows or not. You must appear confident or you will create more problems than you will solve. An indecisive floor will create doubt, which invites arguments.

Al

[youtalkfunny]

Waiting for me defend the dealer?

Not this time.

The floor was right. "That was bad. That was bad."

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
He finally told the dealer to return the bets to the players in the pot and deal a new hand, button didn't move.

[/ QUOTE ]
If that means he voided the entire hand and gave back the bets to everybody who ever put money in, including those who already folded, I don't like it. The two guys still holding cards were invested and everybody who already folded should get 0. I think he shoulda split the pot between the two remaining players if folks couldn't agree what the board cards were. If they could agree, recover those cards and shuffle everything left (which isn't ideal, but it beats ending the hand prematurely).

I gots *NO* problems with the floor pausing a while to think. Last thing I want is the floor to act like he's seen this 100 times before and knows exactly what the solution is and spout some crap that's totally wrong and unfair. As well, pausing gives a chance for the two remaining players to talk and agree on a solution--FAR better to have the players happy and solving their own problem rather than have the floor force a solution on 'em that everyone dislikes.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The floor should always back up the dealer, even if the dealer screws up, in which case the floor should fix the problem and then back them up anyway. Although this was in fact "bad," the time to chastize and cast out is away from the table.

Taking time to make a decision is also fine as long as the floor doesn't make it completely obvious that they don't have a clue what to do.

The poster who suggested splitting the pot between the two remaining players had a solution which I would not have a problem with.

Finally, if there is a solution that makes everyone happy, whether worked out by the players or suggested by the floor, this should almost always be the decision of choice. The only time a decision that makes everyone happy should be rejected is when such a decision clearly affects the integrity of the game.

Al

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The floor should always back up the dealer, even if the dealer screws up, in which case the floor should fix the problem and then back them up anyway. Although this was in fact "bad," the time to chastize and cast out is away from the table.

Taking time to make a decision is also fine as long as the floor doesn't make it completely obvious that they don't have a clue what to do.

The poster who suggested splitting the pot between the two remaining players had a solution which I would not have a problem with.

Finally, if there is a solution that makes everyone happy, whether worked out by the players or suggested by the floor, this should almost always be the decision of choice. The only time a decision that makes everyone happy should be rejected is when such a decision clearly affects the integrity of the game.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

I get the feeling the 'that was bad' part was more him saying it as he was thinking of a solution. Maybe meaning it was a bad situation(rhetorically thinking out loud) rather than chastising the dealer. Though I do agree that it can come off wrong and probably should be avoided.

b

[Gonso]

This is weird to me, I always push the pot and drop the rake before mucking the board. I might move it out of the way but it would still be identifiable.

Either split the pot, or if someone had a real beef you might consider calling upstairs and reconstructing the board and playing it out. I'd prefer just splitting the pot.