TDA POKER TOURNAMENT RULES & RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES > Official Poker TDA Recommended Procedures, Latest Version

Dealer "advises" player

<< < (2/2)

Nick C:
Chet,
 I wasn't there but, the dealer put the all-in button in front of seat 5; my guess is that "all-in" was announced but not heard. I find nothing wrong with a dealer repeating or clarifying an unclear bet before substantial action. Stopping a possible time consuming misunderstanding is the duty of a good dealer.

Yes, it was correct for the dealer to inform the calling player that there was a raise in front of him.

K-Lo:
Hi Chet:

Yes, I agreed with you on all points.  I don't see a problem with the dealer telling the player that seat 5 was all-in if the player's actions seem to suggest that he was aware of this fact.  It is informative, and I don't see it as coaching.

If I read between the lines, I think Steven's question might have had to do with the effect of applying the rule that says "chips that go into the pot in the turn must stay in the pot". I believe you can allow the player to withdraw the entire bet under the gross misunderstanding rule (and I agree with Nick that this is a perfectly viable approach based on the principles in RROP, especially if the 10K represents a lot of chips compared to the average stacks at that point in the game, although I might be less inclined if the 10K was a 'nominal' amount).  However, I expect many TDs would lean towards committing wagered chips to the pot and give the player the option to top-up the bet to a call or fold. 

So, if the TDs at the venue tend to consistently apply the rule where chips must stay in the pot (and then giving the option to call or fold), the issue then becomes should the dealer stop the player from putting any more chips into the pot when it is clear that the player may not have heard the all-in.  In this example, if the dealer waited until the player put all 10K chips in the pot before saying anything, then the player might potentially be forced to forfeit the whole amount, whereas if the dealer stopped the player "mid-bet" (i.e. only after having a put a few hundred in), the player might only have to forfeit say 500 or 1K. 

If that indeed is the real issue that Steven is trying to get at -- i.e. should the dealer advise the player mid-way through a bet that rates to be incomplete -- then my answer would still be yes - I think the dealer can still let the player know that seat 5 was all-in.  I don't support the idea that the dealer should be obliged to stay quiet, knowing that the player probably didn't hear the all-in, and wait until the whole 10K is placed in the pot, just so can seat 5 could potentially get a bigger windfall.  I don't see why Seat 5 should be entitled to a "maximum" penalty of 10K from the player. 

Nick C:
K-Lo,
 I agree, why should a dealer be silent when he knows a player is about to act on an unclear bet? Forcing players to put chips into the pot, when they really didn't want to, is no different than allowing any other form of chip dumping. Like K-Lo said, why should any player be the recipient of a bigger windfall of chips?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page