Interesting ruling..

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

[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

[Al_Capone_Junior]

First off, I made my decision assuming no angle shot was being taken.

Second, you are right, a lawyerly type could complicate this situation greatly. That's why the detailed rules of a cardroom are a protected internal document that only supervisors have access to. Dealers are usually given a copy of the rules, but the version the floor has is often more detailed. Few rooms make any of this available to players, and they are smart not to do so.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Last guy at my table who tried to stack them in anything other than stacks of 20, well...

I kicked him in the nuts. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

al

[Rick Nebiolo]

If it was allowed I'd kick at least one of the players and the dealer in the nuts Al Capone style [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

NL players have an obligation to keep their stacks in standard or easily discernible sizes. So Player A is partly at fault because he pushed out five non-standard stacks. He also had time to correct the dealer's mistake, since Player B was in the tank for a considerable amount of time before he called.

The dealer should have been more careful and verify bets correctly when asked. A dealer could be forgiven for stating that five 19 chip stacks is $500, but five 25 chip stacks is another story.

Player B apparently had a close decision given he went into the tank. Generally Player B can't be faulted for missing that Player A's stacks were 25 chips high; once he was told the bet was $500 it would be reasonable to assume that he had other things to think about.

There is no way the floor should take back the river card in this case since the turn action is complete although *somewhat* incorrect. Best decision seems to be have Player A take back $125 and let the river play on. He seems far more at fault then Player B, who appears to have acted in good faith on incorrect information provided by the dealer.

This is also a case where the dealer should be written up, since it was pure incompetence and laziness on his part that he didn't count the chips correctly.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

Al,

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

~ Rick

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.

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? 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?

Rick,

You would write the dealer up after already kicking him in the nuts? Wow.