Author Topic: clusterf***  (Read 4721 times)

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
clusterf***
« on: June 15, 2012, 09:54:12 AM »
Sorry for the title, but that's what this felt like.  Pretty sure I know what the "technical" ruling should have been and I know what I did, but neither one felt like the right call.

Here we go:

I walk up to a table to what appears to be a 3-way all-in.  Players A, B, and C have their cards face up in front of themselves.  Player A has $85 past the line, player B has $25 past the line with another $130 or so in his stack behind the line, player C has $25 past the line with another $150 or so in his stack behind the line.  As I'm walking up the dealer is putting out the turn and river.  Player A (shortest stack) has a flush, Player B (2nd shortest stack) has missed higher flush draw, and Player C has a set.  The dealer takes the $85 from B and C and pushes this along with the pot to Player A.  She then mucks the cards and starts to wash the deck...  Player C says "don't I get the side pot?" Player B says "I never went all-in, I just called the $85".   Player C says "but I went all-in..."
I jump in and ask the dealer "was this a 3-way all-in?"  She says "I thought it was..."
From talking to the dealer and players, it turns out the action went like this:
Flop comes out, Player A checks, Player B bet $25, Player C called $25, Player A check-raises all-in for $85, Player B says “call”, Player C says “all-in”, then they all flipped up their cards and the dealer ran out the board.  At no time did Player B say “call” after C’s all-in.  Player B claims that he thought C had less than $85 so there was no more money to call.

Options as I see them:

Option A) since action wasn’t complete on the flop, back up the action, player B can either call or fold.  (except the stub and muck is not recoverable)

Option B) rule that the all-ins were inferred by flipping the cards and allowing the board to run out.  Treat the outcome as if all 3 players were all-in and push side pot to C.

Option C) rule the hand complete as is, Player A wins the main, and there is no side pot because B never called C’s all-in.

I don’t like any outcome, and maybe there is a better one that I’m not thinking of.  I’d like to hear your responses before I post how I ruled.  Please no “why did the dealer muck the board” or “why didn’t the dealer put out all-in buttons or make the pot right” comments, I couldn’t change that, I can only rule at the time I stepped in.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: clusterf***
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2012, 11:34:23 AM »
Brian:  Since this is a "Cash Game" and not a tournament, I don't think the "Accepted Action" rule applies, UNLESS there is a applicable house rule.

That said, I don't see why all three hands were face up, when it was obvious both player B and C had chips remaining, unless player B was intending to call the 'all-in' of Player C.

Therefore, since it is Player B's responsibility to pay attention to the action and I assume that Player C's chips were visible, I would rule Option B.  Player A gets the Main, Player C gets the side (Player B has to cover as much of Player C's all in as he can).

I don't think Option A is applicable as there isn't anything out of turn as far as I can tell, so why back it up because Player B isn't paying attention?
I don't think Option C is applicable for reasons stated above. 

I agree that B isn't the perfect solution, but I think it better than either A or C.  Player B has, hopefully, learned a lesson.

Chet

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: clusterf***
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2012, 11:42:23 AM »
Brian,
 If I'm following the action as it occurred, I would award $25 from the two losers along with the main pot to the winner (Player A). How could the dealer take any money from either player B or C and award it to Player A? They (B &C) should get their $60 back because neither one of them called the bet. Did they say call? Why did they turn their cards over? I know I'm missing something.

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Re: clusterf***
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2012, 12:12:09 PM »
Brian,
 If I'm following the action as it occurred, I would award $25 from the two losers along with the main pot to the winner (Player A). How could the dealer take any money from either player B or C and award it to Player A? They (B &C) should get their $60 back because neither one of them called the bet. Did they say call? Why did they turn their cards over? I know I'm missing something.

B called the extra $60, and then C said "all-in".  The $85 from all 3 is definately in the main pot.  The issue is that B never called C's all-in.  B thought C was all-in for less than $85 so he thought action was complete.  A saw that B's cards were face up so he flipped his own.  C saw the cards up and assumed that he had been called so he flipped his too.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: clusterf***
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2012, 06:44:07 PM »
I understand that one might consider being a bit more creative ruling in a cash game, but applying tourney principles, I would be ruling with Chet... I would deem B to have called the all-in of C.

B flipped his cards over.  if he hadn't called 'yet", then he wouldn't and shouldn't be exposing his cards, or at the very least, he should stop the dealer before the remainder of the cards were dealt.  I don't buy the story that he didn't go allin but turned up his cards anyways. 

Then he says he thought C was all-in for less...  Well then B is at fault there as well... Unless Cs chips were hidden, B is obliged to make sure he knows how much he is calling.  He thought C was in for less?   Well, he was wrong and he should pay.

Either way, B is definitely most at fault here.  So I wouldn't feel bad at all forcing B to call Cs all-in, at least in a tourney.

Perhaps in a cash game  I might consider having B pay C half the amount that B owes the side pot as a compromise, thus sharing the blame between B and C.  Make some excuse that C should have confirmed B actually called before flipping over his own hand. 

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: clusterf***
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2012, 08:36:53 AM »
Taking another look I expect the problem originated because the players didn't respond by acting, only vocally. The situation is common in head to head but, multiple players will always create problems. Brian, I know you don't want to hear about what the dealer did wrong but...let's face it, there lies the blame!

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Re: clusterf***
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2012, 12:38:55 PM »
Taking another look I expect the problem originated because the players didn't respond by acting, only vocally. The situation is common in head to head but, multiple players will always create problems. Brian, I know you don't want to hear about what the dealer did wrong but...let's face it, there lies the blame!

I am aware the dealer was at fault here and the blame lies 100% with her.  I can handle a dealer error after she is off the game, but the actual floor call I had to make on the game is what's bugging me.

I made ruling C, and I like I said at the onset, I'm not terribly happy with it, hence this post.  I just had a problem telling B that he had to pay C when it was undisputed that he never called the last all-in bet...

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: clusterf***
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2012, 05:39:32 PM »
Brian,
 Under those circumstances, I guess I would have done the same as you. The bets were obviously unclear. Players need to help out a little by acting on their verbal bets, by that I mean, push the amount forward after making a raise, especially in a hand with multiple players.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: clusterf***
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2012, 11:30:59 AM »
Brian's scenario seems eerily similar to a recent event that was the subject of a "controversial" WSOP ruling.  Will post in a separate thread.

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Re: clusterf***
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2012, 12:16:25 PM »
K-Lo, my buddy texted me at 6am to tell me about that thread, lol!