POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Non-TDA Tournament and General Poker Rules Discussion
Uncovered bet: does mistake stand or backup to the flop then redeal 4t & 5th st?
pastor:
THNL; heads up
Post flop:
Play. A: bet xx (announce)
Dealer: repeat bet xx
Play. B: push all-in xx +/- x (silent)
Dealer: didn't announce nothing
Play. A: didn't say nothing
Turn:
Dealer: open turn
Play. A: didn't say nothing
Play. B: didn't say nothing
River;
Dealer: open the river
Play. A: didn't say nothing
Play. B: didn't say nothing
Dealer: announce show down
Both play. exposed his cards
Dealer: starts counting the chips of play. B and "upsssss" here is xx + x
My decision was: pot is a wager of play. A + play. B call. (argument: 1.to many mistakes, 2. responsible of both play. to stop the action, 3. fair play)
Nick C:
Paster, welcome to the Forum.
Your situation occurs more frequently than we would expect. In my opinion, because the turn and river cards were on board, (two betting rounds) and showdown began before the "silent raise" was noticed, I would rather return the unnoticed over sized bet to the "silent raiser" than force the other player to match the bet.
Why didn't the raiser speak out? Obviously, the dealer made a mistake and missed the raise but, players have a certain responsibility to assist the dealer whenever a mistake is about to occur. Think about it...if you raise, wouldn't you pay attention to see if the other player called?
Enforcing a rule after multiple betting rounds have lapsed does not appeal to me. It's too late.
Good question.
MikeB:
Great example, Pastor and we may see this included in an "incorrect bets" discussion segment at the 2015 TDA Summit.
IMO you have three choices under Rule 1:
1: Back up the action to the flop, and remove the turn and river from the board. Ask A if he wants to call B's overage. If so, then you do a re-shuffle according to your pre-mature boardcard protocol, and then re-deal the new turn and river..
2: Leave the board as is, and call the total bet equal to what A pushed out.
3: Leave the board as is, and call the total bet equal to what B pushed out.
In the best interest of fairness I think Option 2 is best: B never enforced (or even recognized) that he over-bet, and if he did he didn't speak up. Sure the dealer and A have some obligation too, but when I add that the original turn and river have been dealt AND the hands exposed, I think more of this falls on B.
The best interest of the game is not quite as clear; you can make a case for each option: Getting bets straight and narrowly enforcing rules are generally in the best interest of the game over the long haul (hence Option 1). Also a strict interpretation of Accepted Action might have us at Option 3 if we decide to leave the board as is... HOWEVER, fairness can't be totally separated from the best interest of the game either. At the end of the day, the best reading for me here is that there were mistakes by all, but everyone acted as though they assumed B's bet didn't cover A. Even B himself acted that way. Both board cards and hands have been exposed... So for these reasons I favor Option 2.
Thanks for the great case! This is another twist on the "incorrect bets" topic that we are likely to see at the 2015 Summit. Here's a link to the discussion suggestion:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1056.msg9151#msg9151
pastor:
Excellent guys,
I am satisfied with the answers and discussion. I wanted to tell you that this has happened on cash game because my opinion is, that solution must be exactly the same. The difference is only a momement of showdown (tournament – on the flop, cash – after the river). Intentionally I did not want discussion in bets value because I want a more complex response on a base of liability and facts.
In my case the fact is that until the end (chip count after the river) no one did not know that the silent all-in bet was higher than play. A bet and no one did not react.
Q. Is play. B responsible to draw attention to an error?
My answer is YES. If the answer is NO, then he can required to play. A FOLD ???
MikeB:
--- Quote from: MikeB on September 08, 2014, 09:28:02 AM ---Great example, Pastor and we may see this included in an "incorrect bets" discussion segment at the 2015 TDA Summit.
IMO you have three choices under Rule 1:
1: Back up the action to the flop, and remove the turn and river from the board. Ask A if he wants to call B's overage. If so, then you do a re-shuffle according to your pre-mature boardcard protocol, and then re-deal the new turn and river..
2: Leave the board as is, and call the total bet equal to what A pushed out.
3: Leave the board as is, and call the total bet equal to what B pushed out.
In the best interest of fairness I think Option 2 is best: B never enforced (or even recognized) that he over-bet, and if he did he didn't speak up. Sure the dealer and A have some obligation too, but when I add that the original turn and river have been dealt AND the hands exposed, I think more of this falls on B.
The best interest of the game is not quite as clear; you can make a case for each option: Getting bets straight and narrowly enforcing rules are generally in the best interest of the game over the long haul (hence Option 1). Also a strict interpretation of Accepted Action might have us at Option 3 if we decide to leave the board as is... HOWEVER, fairness can't be totally separated from the best interest of the game either. At the end of the day, the best reading for me here is that there were mistakes by all, but everyone acted as though they assumed B's bet didn't cover A. Even B himself acted that way. Both board cards and hands have been exposed... So for these reasons I favor Option 2.
Thanks for the great case! This is another twist on the "incorrect bets" topic that we are likely to see at the 2015 Summit. Here's a link to the discussion suggestion:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1056.msg9151#msg9151
--- End quote ---
As a related issue, this case does raise the question of whether B did put himself all-in by pushing out all his chips. If that's the ruling, then it tends to favor Option 3. The logic here would be that A Accepted B's action, and even though there was no all-in declaration and the cards weren't exposed, betting proceeded as though both parties assumed B was all-in short.
Arguing slightly against Option 3 and in favor of Option 2 is that A) the cards weren't immediately exposed as they should have been in an all-in; B) Player B didn't verbally declare all-in; and C) in the absence of a definitive all-in B's bet could be seen as a multiple chip wager where the overage likely didn't equal 50% of a raise, hence it could be construed as a call.
So after sorting out the mistakes in procedure, a good case (perhaps best case) can be made for Option 3 here as well. The question under Option 3 is what amount A pays B if B wins. Most would award B's entire stack to A if A wins, but by his silence has A accepted B's overage here and must he pay off B the full amount if B wins?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version