Commerce floor ruling- situation unresolved 12+ hours later

[Dynasty]

I got into a unique situation last night playing 20-40 at the Commerce.

A new player entered the game and posted $20 in middle posiiton. The dealer dealt the cards. After the cards were dealt, a third person at the table mentioned to the dealer that the new player did not have the required $200 buy-in on the table. While this is being said, I look at my UTG hand. I've got AKo and raise.

The new player seeing my raise, his own hand, and hearing the discussion of his short buy-in, grabs his post back and walks away from the table despite objections from the dealer. The player wasn't found again.

Nobody else called pre-flop so I won the pot.

What, if anything, should the Commerce do?

[symphonic]

If nothing else, give you a $20 comp for that guys post.

[Ray Zee]

bar you for taking action when there is a decision to be made.

[TheLoser]

[snakehead]

the hand should have been declared a misdeal, and everyone's money returned to them.

[Mike Gallo]

the hand should have been declared a misdeal, and everyone's money returned to them.

I would agree with that.

[andyfox]

Bar him? This is Commerce. If he shot somebody they'd give him twenty minutes.

[andyfox]

Misdeals are ridiculous. If the guy wasn't entitled to a hand, just take the hand away from him and continue play.

This happens all the time, not when a guy has a short buy, but when a guy is not present at the table. "He said deal him out," they cry and when a hand is dealt to the spot, they insist it's a misdeal. Why take the time to take the cards back, shuffle up and deal again? Just take the hand and put it into the muck, just like you would do if he didn't say deal him out.

And they do the same thing when the dealer forget to deal an absent player in. They guy's no there, just play the hand, what difference does it make? I'm not sure if it's still the case, but in the 20-40 and lower they are not supposd to deal a player in who's not at the table, and in the 30-60 and higher they are. So the dealers have to remember a different rule at different tables.

And while I'm at it, giving the extra chip at the 15-30 and 30-60 games, in a split pot, to the guy with the highest bridge suit card, is completely assinine. Why not award the whole pot to the spade hand? Split it, it's a split pot. The amount of time saved is used up by the dealer trying to figure out who gets the chip.

Just had a spat with the Mrs. Can you tell?

[Ray Zee]

of course your first line is the correct thing to do. also they need to punish the walker as he took a free shot at having a good hand. dont you think if he had aces more money would have come out of his pocket.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Just had a spat with the Mrs. Can you tell?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what were you wearing this time? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

-Zeno

[Gabe]

The ruling at the Commerce should have been a misdeal. Was Jack the floorman. Doesn't sound like it.

[Dynasty]

Jack was the floorman.

I'm surprised so many people want a misdeal. Once there is action on the hand, a misdeal shouldn't be an option. Both Jack the floorman and the dealer had no doubt whatsoever that the hand shouldn't be declared a misdeal.

The situation hasn't really been resolved. I never got any money and now I'm back in Las Vegas. Jack told me that he informed his supervisoor. Another floorman told me on Sunday afternoon that they would record the thief's image from the overhead camera's and now allow him to play again until he pays up. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to receive the money though.