Interesting ruling..

[Al_Capone_Junior]

You make an interesting point. The amount of money surely makes some difference, as no one would bitch over $5, but a larger amount might have made a big difference. It's a difficult situation in any case, not totally clear cut.

al

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Its a tough call to make. Obviously the biggest mistake made here was by the dealer. People here seem to place the second blame on player A for not correcting the dealer. I agree that he has a responsibility to do this. But no one here seems to place any blame on player B. It seems to me that Player B shares some blame as well, after all he asked how much the bet was and then accepted the dealers answer even though it had to be obvious that the dealer had not actually counted the chips. he may be least blameworthy but he does have to share in the blame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Player B may be a lot farther from the betting stacks pushed out and it might not be so obvious to him. Player A should know his stacks are 25 each.

[ QUOTE ]
Since the consensus here is that the original bet should be reduced to the amount announced by the dealer, let me ask you if you make the same ruling in this scenario.

Player A announces pushes out a single stack of red. Dealer does not break down the stack, but announces the bet as "$100" Player B calls. It turns out that Player As stack in fact was $105.

Should the bet now be reduced to $100?

If not? why should this be handled any different than the original case?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. A player can easily be unaware his chip stacks were slightly off. But in this case I'd lean toward having the stacks match up.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it based on the amount of of money? If so how much is the limit? Would it make a difference if the chips were $1000 chips instead of $5 chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

On lead bets the amount is usually the amount stated by the player or the amount pushed if nothing is stated. But in the freak error above everything is relative, so it shouldn't matter if it's $5 or $1000 chips (although in a big game there would be a higher expectation that Player A keep his stacks neat and the dealer count them correctly).

As an aside, in correcting raises some LA clubs (e.g. the Bicycle Casino) use a half bet guideline. For example, if Player A bets $100 and Player B raises with chips but puts in only $195, the raise would be corrected to $200 since Player B was more than halfway to the legal minimum raise. If player B put out $140 his bet would be corrected to a call.

Some clubs (e.g., Hawaiian Gardens) consider any raise below the minimum threshold to be a "fouled bet" and it would be taken back if the floor was called to make a decision.

In any event the rules need a tune up with all the inexperienced players now playing no limit.

~ Rick

[jedi]

I dunno. I think the bet stands at $625. The chips speak. The player could have any number of reasons for not correcting the dealer. He wasn't paying attention, didn't want to give off a tell, he's deaf (well, obviously not in this case). It's the dealer's mistake. Player put his chips out like he should.

Of course, this doesn't help the caller out any. I think he's still got to call. The chips are there for all to see, and if it's obvious that the dealer didn't count it down, but just counted the stacks, the caller should have had him count it down, if just to make sure the stacks are 20, not 21 or 19.

[IceKing]

[ QUOTE ]
The player could have any number of reasons for not correcting the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, maybe he was preparing some nice angle shoot, and didnt want to correct the dealer.

Think about a situation where a player says " I bet five hundred" and starts to count his chips for the bet, dealer loudly confirms it "one hundred to call" and moves on to next player. Shouldnt the bettor correct the dealer? "I said FIVE hundred". Of course he should. If he doesnt say a word, its his fault.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Your decision was different than mine, but I don't think you are wrong. There are a few possible decisions that would be acceptable, your is definitely one of them.

al

[TripleH68]

Why can't players just speed up the game by verbally declaring their actions?

I have played in so many games (limit) where players just toss in chips and then get upset/yells when the dealer/players do not notice the raise. Come on people.

Case that's the way they do it on teeee-veeee.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[VoraciousReader]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't players just speed up the game by verbally declaring their actions?

I have played in so many games (limit) where players just toss in chips and then get upset/yells when the dealer/players do not notice the raise. Come on people

[/ QUOTE ]

This is SOP at the casino I usually play at. I play limit, so it's not as important to declare an exact amount as in NL, but everyone pretty much always says "Call", "Raise", even "Fold" out loud. (We do have one semi-regular who doesn't, but he only plays my level when he's trashed and then his action is simple...he raises every street. No calls, no folds, just raises.)

I tell you, the more threads I read in B&M, the more grateful I am for my home casino. We have a cel phone rule, the dealers are always appreciative of tips (even the ones where the guy wins a huge kill pot and asks his dealer to chop a dollar chip for him), we have auto-shufflers... etc.

Edit: I think the ruling that the betting player needs to speak up when his bet is misstated was correct.

Voracious "Vegas? We don't need no stinking Vegas!" Reader

[Al_Capone_Junior]

OK.

First off, yes, the dealer frigged up, and should be kicked directly in the nuts. But that aside...

Yes, the actual bet that was made was $625, and the dealer didn't count it, like they should have. But when the dealer announced "$500" why didn't the first player speak up? He should have protected his action by making sure the correct amount was stated by the dealer. So now the problem has been compounded.

The player who called probably did so in good faith, thinking it was $500, like the dealer said. Although it's doubtful another $125 would have changed his decision, he of course should have been given the correct information before decided to call. Therefore this guy can't be held liable for what happened.

Therefore the floor probably should have decided that the first guy should take back $125, and leave the river card as is. I don't think there's any situation where the second guy could take back ALL of his call and reconsider $625 vs. $500, particularly after the river is already dealt, even if the river might come back, because now he has gained information that he didn't have the right to know before he called. That information, while probably small and insignificant, could occasionally be the tie breaker on a major decision. The knowledge of even one card that is still in the deck gives him an advantage.

It's a real sticky situation, I am sure you could get several different answers, all of which could have been reasonable solutions to the problem. I'm stating my opinion as to how I would rule the situation. I'd like to hear Randy or Rick's answers as well, because I could be missing the best possible solution. Also, I have not read any other responses yet, but I will shortly. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

al

[Rick Nebiolo]

Al,

FWIW, I came up with my decision indepentently and was happy to see we were pretty close as usual.

~ Rick