Allowing player to retract a raise after opponents' cards exposed

[K-Lo]

Interesting ruling... Exposed cards (player accidentally thought it was a misdeal), option given to player who has already acted to retract a raise (he changed it to a call).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUryl2XzTfM#t=261

Not sure whether anyone else here would have allowed the initial raise to change his bet after seeing exposed cards...

[MikeB]

I had to watch this several times to get a handle on what happened...

It looks like Ygor Kaganov (the SB), who is the player to the left of Ms. Barausova (the button), got a look at her cards when they flashed as she re-checked them: note at around 40 seconds he says "I saw her cards". The cards were not exposed on the deal so far as I can tell, so per RRoP "cards flashed by a player still play".

The TDs logic appears to be that because the player to her left who has not acted knows the identity of her hand and has announced same to the table, he (Kaganov) would be acting with knowledge of her hand. The BB (Maximov) of course also has cards and would act with that knowledge.

I think the TD was trying to level the playing field by giving the player two to her right (Schemion, the raiser), the option to re-consider his bet in light of knowing her hand, as his opponents (in this case the SB and BB) would know it before they would act..... As it unfolded, the TD exposed Barusova's strong hand to all (A-K), and Schemion did retract the raise and make it a call only. Not sure if the TD gave him the option to retract and fold?  

Of course an alternative consideration is that in many cases of deliberate (or accidental) card exposure we don't automatically back up the action. This situation is somewhat unique because it happens right during the first betting round pre-flop and the raiser is the first bettor after the BB. This is a more convenient place to introduce such a remedy, very early in the hand with only one post-BB bet.

This hand is likely to be discussed for some time... to see if any standardized solution can be found.

Thanks alot for the post!

[WSOPMcGee]

Completely dumbfounded.  What the heck just happened there? Really? 

I think I can say I've seen it all.

Aspiring TD's.... please do not do this. #SMH

[Nick C]

The whole video is filled with controversial subject matter, from the decision of the floor (ridiculous) to the questionable dealer procedures. Why is the pot formulated on the right side? Why are the burn and muck also on the right side? Why are the burn and muck cards so close to each other? What about the seated player texting while waiting for a decision? Is there no rule against electronic devices?

Also, there are enough distractions in a normal tournament, therefore the number of overly attractive players should be restricted...and that includes dealers.

[Lado]

I think the dealer needs to keep her thumb on top of the deck and stop moving it around...
And who are these zombies wearing ties and making ridiculous  decisions in poker rooms across the globe?

[WSOPMcGee]

Ylola is a good dealer.

Perfect mechanics? No... but I think I can say that the 99% majority of all dealers do not have perfect mechanics.

[Nick C]

Thomas,

 I hope you didn't think I was being critical of your dealer. I was questioning the placement of board cards (muck and burn), that obviously, the dealers are instructed to perform. Ylana would be a welcome addition in any poker room. My last comment about restricting the number of attractive dealers, was intended to be a compliment with a bit of sarcasm and humor combined. 

[WSOPMcGee]

I didn't think that Nick. I just felt the conversation was leaning towards dealer error and nitpicking.

Her attractiveness aside, she's an excellent dealer and is not on the TV table just for her looks.

As far as the man in the suit, I've never worked with him before that I can recall and being on the Stars team to begin with I'm sure he usually makes better decisions than this.

Everyone makes mistakes. His just happened to be on TV.

[Nick C]

Yeah, Thomas, Darn right we all make mistakes. I even made one or two in my days (and nights) on the floor.   All kidding aside, my problem is when the mistakes are made and certain people won't admit it was a bad call. We're all human. You screw up, admit it!

[Spence]

Maybe I'm lost here but this just seems ridiculous.

I think the TD was trying to level the playing field by giving the player two to her right (Schemion, the raiser), the option to re-consider his bet in light of knowing her hand, as his opponents (in this case the SB and BB) would know it before they would act..... As it unfolded, the TD exposed Barusova's strong hand to all (A-K), and Schemion did retract the raise and make it a call only. Not sure if the TD gave him the option to retract and fold?  

So she showed her hand after there was a raise?  That may give away information to the players who have not yet acted but the original raiser gets some protection?  From who?  If the hand wasn't exposed then perhaps we see a re-raise from AK but we can't foresee what the action of the SB or BB might be.  In the exposed circumstances we still can't say what the SB or BB are going to do.  I don't think the information so dramatically changes the course of the hand to allow a retraction of a bet.  The knowledge gained is it's own reward.  Not when in the hand it is gained.
I'm so confused.