[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Turn comes A diamonds, and he pushes all-in for $110. I curse my luck, uncap my cards and push them forward to the middle of the table. It's obvious I fold (and obvious I'm weak-tight, but that's a different story).

But then before the dealer can take them (and before they touched the muck), someone at the other end of the table mumbles something, and the dealer started counting the cards in the muck. He goes thru them and then says that he didn't burn a card. So he pulls the Ace off the table and puts it in the muck. So I pull my cards back, and he then turns the Qs over for the turn card. My opponent says, "doesn't matter, I'm all-in". Of course, it matters a lot to me, and I immediately call all-in. My tricky, loose opponent shows Qc 8c. The river comes the 7c, so he makes his flush, but I make my boat, so they push the money to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very easy on dealers as a player and when I worked the floor I was very protective. That said, this dealer should be shot (I suspect Al Capone Jr. will agree [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ). If there is a significant irregularity (this was significant!) the floorman should have been called immediately. This point would have been once the dealer found out "he didn't burn a card" (as an aside, generally there is a place for the burn cards, the muck, and the stub - he should have been able to determine that there was no burn withoud counting the muck).

Had the floor been called then the decision should be relatively simple. There was "significant action" taken on the ace of diamonds. This is much more important than burning and it can't be undone. Your opponent wins the pot since you folded the turn (and you only loose the amount put in BTF and on the flop).


[ QUOTE ]
Of course, my opponnet is not at all happy, and calls the floorman. Several of them come over and want the detailed explanation. so as usual, several people give crappy confusing explanations of what happened. They ask me several times, "So you pushed your cards forward and said fold?", and I am smart enough to say "No", which happened to be true. We go back and forth, and its clear everyone there knows my opponnet Bill, and I'm a little concerned he's going to get the 'regular's call', sorta like Michael Jordan always got the ref's call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now it's a clusterf_ck but the floor should have been able to work back to the flop.


[ QUOTE ]
Floor looks confused and then says "I think its split pot" quietly, dealer says split pot, and so then I tell my opponent lets just split it. I think that's sort of fair using moral principles, but I think the rules were more in my favor and in retrospect maybe i should have argued more for my case. what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

The situation is so screwed up a split pot is probably fair. That said, I never made the decision to split a pot in four years of working the floor. That doesn't mean I wouldn't allow it, i.e., if it was obvious that retrieving information as to what happened would take forever or be next to impossible and both parties involved wanted it I'd allow it. But a strong floor should be able to determine who gets the pot.

In the future call attention to a significant mistake when it happens if you want it fixed properly.

Regards,

Rick