Dispute with Iowa Matt

Iowa Matt has been in Minnesota for a few days, and we found ourselves in the same $10/20 Omaha/8 game. During the Omaha game, the following situation came up about which there was a certain amount of disagreement. We discussed this again during this morning's $3/6 (heh) stud game, and he and I are both interested in what everyone else thinks of this.


On the hand in question, there were three players involved, Matt and I not among them. One of them was all-in and there was a side pot. At the showdown, the bettor showed down a big high hand with no low, and the all-in player showed down a good low hand. The third player did not table his hand but held it up so that Matt was able to see it. He was about to muck it, when Matt said, "don't throw your hand away." The third player, "T", had been aiming high, but had an emergency low that was good for half of the side pot.


My stance, of course, is that Matt violated the one-player-to-a-hand rule. Matt's stance is that T was prepared to throw his hand away only because of a dealer error. At the showdown, when the all-in player showed down his hand, the dealer should have said, "please wait, sir, I need to see these two hands for the side pot." Had the dealer done this, T would more than likely have seen that his emergency low would get his $20 back. Matt said that he would not have spoken up in 99.7% of all cases; he did so only because of the dealer error. I see Matt's point, and I think that his position is defensible. I just don't agree with it. Not that it's necessarily germane to the issue at hand, but T is an experience player (although I'd never seen him play Omaha before) who used to deal in this room; he should know the score. We were interested in seeing what everyone else thought.


Matt now enjoys the distinction of being the only person I've played $30/60 hold'em, $10/20 Omaha/8, and $3/6 stud against. /images/smile.gif

I'd be pissed at Iowa Matt if I was in the pot.

Matt should keep his mouth shut.

I'd probably chew him out a bit if it had cost me the $20, but I don't think I'd make a huge fuss about it. I'm not asking whether you'd be happy; I'm asking whether he behaved appropriately. When dealers misread hands, I correct them, and people sometimes get upset with me when that "costs" them a pot. The bottom line in that case, though, is that the cards speak for themselves. I'm not interested in winning popularity contests (lucky for me); I'm interested in seeing that the pot is properly awarded. The more I think about it, the more I think he may have done the right thing.

Maybe it's a carry over from low ball but I have no problem with someone reading a hand. Dealers make mistakes in O/8. If I see a misread handf I'll point it out.


Last week I tabeled my hand and misread it. The dealer misread it. I don't know if any of the players saw it but noone said anything. I was drawing to a nut flush and ended up backdooring a wheel. The pot was awarded to two pair. I realized it myself when the next deal started. If I had the 2 pair and someone pointed out the other player missed seeing his wheel I would not have been angry. I don't want to get lucky that way.


I was in a O/8 tourn once when my flush was second best but I had an emergancy low that I didn't see. I was being paid 4th place money when when a player still in told me. That ticked me off because now I had to deal not only with the frustration of 4th but my mistake as well.I wish he would have just kept quiet.

T did not table his hand. He held it up so that Matt could see it, and Matt told him not to muck it.

No. IM violated the one player to a hand rule. He very specifically told the player not to muck and that instruction had a material outcome in the hand. That is cheating and it is very different from cardspeak or correcting dealer misread.

Boris is totally correct here, although I wouldn't call it "cheating". The last time I played the player next to me held up his hand so I could see it as he was about to muck it. He would have chopped the pot. I didn't say anything, and was careful not to react when he showed it to me. I think that is the correct thing to do. After the hand he was talking about it and others thought he might have a chop. I told him that he did in fact throw away half the pot a minute or two later. But it was of course too late. He understood he couldn't claim the pot at that point and knew it was his own fault. OTOH, if the hand is tabled I think all players have a right to correct misreads. IM's action was unknowingly unethical, but unethical nonetheless.

I agree that "cheating" isn't quite the right word for what Matt did, but I would certainly not say that Matt's action was "unknowingly unethical." Matt is definitely aware of the one-player-to-a-hand, but he consciously violated it specifically because of the dealer error.

I stand corrected. Under these conditions, one player per hand.

Omaha can be a confusing game, especially around showdown time. Dealers are quite prone to make errors here, and it is ALMOST forgiveable. Speaking as someone who has lost half a pot because of a dealer error quite a few times, i think that Matt's action is ok, if borderline questionable. it is forgiveable only because of the confusing nature of omaha showdowns, complicated by sidepots.

i think its ok to say that hes only against x for the side pot.

At the showdown, when the all-in player tabled his hand, the dealer should have said, "please wait, sir, I need to see these two hands for the side pot." Had the dealer done this, T would have seen that the high hand had no low, and his emergency low was good for half of the side pot. Matt spoke up only because of this omission. This is one sloppy dealer. His appearance is sloppy, the flop is always crooked when he spreads it, etc. He was not even aware that he should be asking the all-in player to wait; he was going to ask a supervisor about it on his next break.

Would it have been wrong for Matt to stay silent?


If the answer to that is a concensus no, then it's hard to insist that the answer to the opposite question -- was it wrong for him to speak up? -- is also no.


Tommy

show one show all...showing one person...can be asked to show all...loophole here? gl

I don't know that I agree, Tommy. For example, when someone tables a hand, and a dealer misreads it, I will correct him, even if it works against me. Many, and I think most, remain silent in that spot. I think that my policy is right, but I won't tell the silent types that their policy is wrong. Well, if asked I will. /images/smile.gif I don't think that anyone would fault Matt for remaining silent in his spot, but I do understand his reason for speaking up.

If all hands are tabled, and the dealer wrongfully awards pot or pots of the pot, then the usual issues about speaking up are in play.


(As a speaker-upper, I see it as a question of degrees. I will never say anything about a $20 mistake in a $10,000 no-limit pot, but I will help to correct a $20 mistake in a $2-4 limit game game.)


But in this case, it's all different, because the hand was not tabled. Your argument rests on the assumption that there was a dealer error in not prompting a live hand to be tabled when the betting was finished. I would not consider that a universal mistake, whereas misreading tabled hands is always a mistake.


Tommy

As I explained to Andy, it was a very unique situation. The player T was going to fold for the side pot because he was unaware that the player who was all in was already showing his hand when the side pot should have been the focus of the division of the pot. As Andy correctly points out if the dealer had asked the all in player to wait till the side pot was decided there would never have been problem.


Interestingly though, Andy and I (neither in the pot) were actually the only two at the table that cared if a) the dealer acted correctly or b) if I was correct or incorrect in saying anything at all.


Finally, Andy was very kind and asked what I thought about him posting things here before he did this. I wish to thank him for that. Andy you are a joy to have around....if not very profitable. LOL

He could speak up about the correct procedure without telling another player what to do couldn't he? Would this have served all purposes? If so it might be the better course in the future.