Another Wynn Floor Decision... Correct?
 

I was playing in a game this morning. Both blinds were posted and I was in the BB. I was talking to the person next to me and the dealer starting dealing out the cards. A MP player opens and then someone calls when I look down and see that I have no cards. Normally this isn't a problem, but I had posted a BB. It can't be a misdeal because there was already action. Players across the table said I got cards and mistakinly mucked them, but I knew this wasn't the case and told the dealer to count the muck. I was correct as two cards were missing. She just didn't deal me in. What's the correct ruling?

My ruling would be to leave my BB in the pot, but give me a BB back out of the dealer tray.

They ruled to just have me take my BB back.

This ended up being good as I got to skip my BB for that round.

Re: Another Wynn Floor Decision... Correct?
 

The ruling is for you to forfeit your BB. Significant action has already occurred and it is the players' responsibility to stop the action if you are not being dealt cards. It's happened to me twice before and it sucks cause your being penalized for the dealer's error, but it's the rule.

-tony

Re: Another Wynn Floor Decision... Correct?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The ruling is for you to forfeit your BB. Significant action has already occurred and it is the players' responsibility to stop the action if you are not being dealt cards. It's happened to me twice before and it sucks cause your being penalized for the dealer's error, but it's the rule.

-tony

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I could agree to this as well, do you think they gave me the BB back because I was a regular? Is what you said the "official" rule?

Re: Another Wynn Floor Decision... Correct?
 

"They ruled to just have me take my BB back."

this screws over the people who have put bets in

Re: Another Wynn Floor Decision... Correct?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"They ruled to just have me take my BB back."

this screws over the people who have put bets in

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree which is why I would have ruled to keep the BB in and give the player back his BB from the dealer tray. Although the other rule mentioned might be more correct.

Re: Another Wynn Floor Decision... Correct?
 

The reason to have the house pay the BB costs (leaving it in the pot and refunding you from house money) is for the "betterment of the game". Your BB should not be refunded from the pot. But you should be told you will lose it next time. We need a warning as players to be responsible but the house needs to do "whats best for the game also". Dealer errors happen. But often times we can stop them.

Re: Another Wynn Floor Decision... Correct?
 

I would rule it , you get your BB back. But you have to "post" next hand.

Re: Another Wynn Floor Decision... Correct?
 

[ QUOTE ]
My ruling would be to leave my BB in the pot, but give me a BB back out of the dealer tray.

[/ QUOTE ]

...which would be the equivalent of refunding your BB from the drop, which ain't gonna happen at a game with such a low house take in the first place.

Re: Another Wynn Floor Decision... Correct?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"They ruled to just have me take my BB back."

this screws over the people who have put bets in

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree which is why I would have ruled to keep the BB in and give the player back his BB from the dealer tray. Although the other rule mentioned might be more correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't you think every game should have the same rules?

do you think the casino should cough up $200 in a 200/400 game?

Re: Another Wynn Floor Decision... Correct?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"They ruled to just have me take my BB back."

this screws over the people who have put bets in

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree which is why I would have ruled to keep the BB in and give the player back his BB from the dealer tray. Although the other rule mentioned might be more correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't you think every game should have the same rules?

do you think the casino should cough up $200 in a 200/400 game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, although this may be a situation for that reason where different situations should call for different rulings.