Dealer error: do we force player to pay?

[MisterD]

Interesting issue at a private game last night.

• Player A bets 100 on the flop.(Edited to add: this is a typo. The bet amount was 125. This error led to some confusion in the first response, below.)
• Dealer announces the bet as 125.
• Action folds around to Player B, who says "I call," and pushes out 100.
• Dealer corrects Player B, telling him the bet is 125. Player B says, "Oh, I thought it was only 100. I fold," and pulls back his chips and pushes out his cards.
• Dealer mucks Player B's hand.

Action then folded back to Player A who insisted that the $100 should go into the pot. I was asked for a ruling.

--

On the one hand, I understand that, technically, the $100 belongs in the pot: there was forward motion and the chips crossed a clearly delineated betting line.

On the other hand, we are a private game and I honestly believe Player A: there was no angle-shot here; he honestly mis-heard the bet amount. I think it odd that he would call 100 and not 125, but that's his business. We generally have allowed players to withdraw bets under these circumstances, especially when no significant action has occurred behind them (which had not in this case).

Additionally, Player B's cards were mucked and not identifiable. If they were identifiable, I would have offered him the chance to pay the full bet amount and play his cards. Under the circumstances, forcing him to pay the $100 seemed only punitive, which I generally try to avoid.

Thoughts?

[Dave Miller]

Twice you said “$100”. Other times you said “100” or “125”.

If you meant $100 cash chips, then I would have insisted it stay in the pot. After all, if you’re playing at those nose-bleed levels, you should be paying attention and know the rules. And at those levels, even a friendly private game should be playing by casino / Robert’s / TDA rules.

I’m pretty sure you meant 100 tournament chips. As such I would have handled it exactly as you did for a variety of reasons. Notably, keep it friendly, and you’ve made similar rulings in the past.

[MisterD]

Thanks for answering. I made a mistake in my summary of the action. The bet was $125 and was announced as $125.

Player B called only $100 (a single red stack) and, when I asked him about it afterwards, he explained that the extra $25 was "hidden behind the larger stack" when Player A bet. The dealer had counted out the full $125, but the extra five nickels were, in fact, placed behind the larger stack of $100. When Player B called only $100, the dealer corrected him (before any further action) and the player pulled his bet back and folded... and the dealer immediately mucked the hand.

So, here's the essence of the question: the player misheard the bet amount and called a smaller amount than was actually bet. The dealer corrected his misunderstanding and allowed the player to fold his hand and keep his money.

[MisterD]

@Dave Miller:

I edited my original post to correct my error.

Can I interpret your comment to mean that, in the case I described (where the player says he misheard the bet amount and no further action has yet occurred), you would force him to put $100 in the pot?

[Dave Miller]

You originally made it sound like a home game amongst friends. Now it sounds like underground/illegal game. In that case, yes, the money stays in. Know the rules.

[Nick C]

This is an old post that I am just responding to. I understand that "verbal is binding" however, when it is immediately understood that the player misunderstood that the bet was 125 instead of 100, I would base my decision on whether "substantial action" has followed before forcing a player to put 100 in the pot and surrendering his hand, or even worse...forcing him to call when that was not his intention.

[BROOKS]

Regardless of what the dealer says the bet is, if a player whose turn it is to act, says "I call", they are calling whatever the actual bet is.

Once that player said call, they are committed to calling the amount of the bet. Mucking his cards does not change anything. He owes the 125, and his hand is dead.

49: Accepted Action
Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by others. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from a dealer or player, then pushes out that amount or declares call, the caller has accepted the full correct action and is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount. As with all situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion. See also RP-12.

[Nick C]

Brooks,
 
Sorry, I don't agree with you on this one. There are times when common sense should overrule an obvious mistake.
Forcing a player to pay up and surrender his hand is a little too severe.

Some day you will be making a bluff, and because of this ridiculous rule, a player who had no intention of calling your raise, will be forced to call you and beat you!

There's too much here to try to cover but some rules from the past should have been left alone!

[Dave Miller]

Nick, I respectfully disagree. Without that rule, you open the game up to angle shooting.

Bottom line, know the rules, and know the action.

[Nick C]

There are many other rulesets for poker.
 Show me another that puts all the responsibility of an inaccurate call amount on the calling player,?


49: Accepted Action
Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by others. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from a dealer or player, then pushes out that amount or declares call, the caller has accepted the full correct action and is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount. As with all situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion. See also RP-12.

A calling player, given the incorrect amount from the bettor or the dealer, after asking:  "How much is it to call?"   

Are you really going to apply Accepted Action?

I believe you should take a closer look at the rule and pay more attention to the last two sentences.

          As with all situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion. See also RP-12.