WSOP Ruling & a slight twist on "Accepted Action"

[K-Lo]

PokerNews reported on a ruling made in the $50K Player's Championships:  http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/06/controversial-poker-hand-highlights-day-2-of-50000-ppc-12946.htm

I would briefly summarize the essential facts as follows:

1.  The game is PLO.  Before the flop is dealt, Player A is all-in.  Player B announces "all-in", but given that he can raise only the amount of pot, he could not actually go all-in given his chip stack, and is deemed to raise the pot. 
2.  Player C has player B covered.  After a long, long delay, he eventually announces "call".  All players turn over their cards, and the board is dealt out.  A wins the main pot, B wins the side pot.
3.  It is then pointed out that C merely "called" and B was never actually "all-in".  Chaos ensues.  The floor is called for a ruling.

The first floorperson ruled that since action on the flop was not complete, the turn and river must be redealt.  Understandably, A appealed this ruling.
The second floorperson ruled that there was "accepted action" by all parties, and so in respect of the side pot, C must pay off the balance of B's deemed all-in wager.

Comments on this situation?  Can we get to the same place using TDA rules or is it a "Rule 1" situation?  I like the final ruling -- I can't see how B or C can argue that they should not be all-in after flipping over their cards and letting the board run out.  The first floorperson's decision is terrible, IMO. I hate giving players two chances to win a pot, especially when there is more than enough time for a player to bring attention to any irregularity in the deal before the entire board is dealt.

This type of situation and variations of it happens more often than one might think.  A player is close to being all-in, but is not actually all-in for whatever reason, and another player "calls" and everyone flips over their cards.  Technically, an "all-in" has not been "called" but surely everybody thinks it is in all-in situation since all cards are flipped over.  TDA does have a rule that all cards will be turned face up without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete, i.e. all-in with no further betting -> flip over all hands.  Why shouldn't the converse be true?  i.e. when all cards are turned faced-up because all players believe this is in all-in situation, then all players will be deemed to be all-in regardless of the prior betting action.

[Nick C]

K-Lo,
I am going to respond before I watch the incident. Based on your description I think the problems arise because we allow too much verbal without follow-up action. The only time verbal should be allowed before completion is when action is down to two players. I have always tried to push for separate rules for all-ins and head to head, they are very different from general rules in many categories

All-in for pot limit should automatically indicate the intent for a maximum raise, in this case, it would be a raise the size of the pot. I agree the original call was ridiculous!
The amount of a raise from Player B should have been placed into the pot by Player C.

I don't agree that Player's B & C should be all-in. The maximum bet allowed is the pot...so Player C must call the amount that Player B intended on making.

[K-Lo]

Yes, definitely it would have been best if the dealer counted out what B's wager should have been, then taken the same amount from C, form the side pot, told everyone not to expose their hands, and then directed betting to continue after the flop is dealt.  But unfortunately, that's not how it played out.  Everyone had flipped over their cards and treated it like an all-in situation, and the dealer followed suit.

So, if as the floor, you get to the table after the entire board has been dealt out, what would you do then?  Are you saying that C should only lose enough to cover B's original pot-size raise, but let the board stand, say, because 'substantial action' had already occurred?  That would be an interesting alternative, I admit.

[diz475]

WOW what a nasty spot

I cant believe that no one, the floor that was there for the clock call the dealer or all the other players said hay he is not all in.
but I'm sure the dealer gets all the heat for that

Did the guy that folded out of turn or the guy reveling the contents of his hand get a penalty?

But with all that I think the accepted action is the best way to solve it


Option 2  (don't know if its an option or not ) because of the large amount of chips left behind, is to award the pots as they are with all called bets in  no more money goes in ( I think this would work for a cash game)
This way you are not putting the guy almost all in without him actually calling most of his stack

[K-Lo]

I don't know, the more that I think about it...  As a player, if you've only called and don't think you're all-in, then don't flip up your cards, and don't pretend to be all-in.  Isn't it that simple? 

If you flip your cards over like you're all-in, and let the cards run as if you're all-in, then you should be held to be all-in.  You know, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[Nick C]

Gentlemen:
You can't bet or raise more than the legal amount and you sure can't take back the turn and river...so, the side pot goes to player B in the amount of his pot size raise, (not the stated all-in), and the main goes to the real all-in Player A. That's my call.

[K-Lo]

And B and C get a penalty for exposing their hands with action pending? 

[Brian Vickers]

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=670.0
Eerily similar?

I have to say, that I agree with the "accepted action" as no player spoke up to say that the players were not all in, and allowed 3 burns and 5 community cards to be delivered as well as the results of the hand to be show before saying anything?  I feel that re-running any board cards would open the door wide open for future angle shoots (and I think we can mostly all agree that not saying anything til the results or trying to exploit the situation was a clear angle here). 

I haven't made up my mind yet whether "treating it as an all-in" or "only the money in the pot counts" is the better solution.  In the past I had made the rule that there would be no additional side pot and the board would stay, but I don't disagree with treating it like an all-in either.  I will continue to think about it and listen to opinions and then post again.

[WSOPMcGee]

Bottom line is the 1st floor person to rule was completely incoherent. I will let them remain nameless, cause they should be.  (NO IT WASN'T ME)

Basically here's the situation. BB in Seat 1. Seat 2 calls, Seat 3 calls, Fold to Seat 7 (Button) Call, Seat 8 (SB) Calls, Seat 1 (BB) Raise to 12,400, Seat 2 Calls, Seat 3 Calls, Seat 7 Pots All-in, 68,800, Seat 8 folds, Seat 1 announces ALL-IN to angle shoot and get the players behind to fold. Seat 1 has approximately 420,000. Seat 2 is thinking, while Seat 3 mucks out of turn. Seat 2 announces that he has Aces with one suit as he looks to his friends for advice. Seat 1 objects.  Finally Seat 2 calls. He's calling the All-in of Seat 1. Players turn their hands over and the board is ran. Simple.

How can Seat 1 be all-in? Typically in PLO players agree to be all-in to save time of Potting and Re-Potting until they are all-in. Simple.

How can you hold Seat 1 to a bet of all-in? The Player announced that he was all-in and when he was called by Seat 2, both players turned their hands over which means they are both accepting the action of the all-in bet that was verbally announced by Seat 1.

All-in is not a bet in PLO though? It is a bet when two players are left in the hand with no further action. Because Seat 3 mucked, there is no further action behind.

Bottom line is: DON'T ANGLE SHOOT.

[chet]

Right or Wrong, Agree or Disagree, the most important point of PokerMcGee's post, in my opinion is:

"Typically in PLO players agree to be all-in to save time of Potting and Re-Potting until they are all-in. Simple."

Does this deviate from the typical betting process, certainly, but so what.  These kinds of events are not your typical mom and pop tournaments.  These guys are not your typical Monday Night Home Game players and they certainly are not the kind of players you are going to see in a 2-5 or 5-10 PLO game in your local room.  If you don't want your players following these kinds of deviations from the "norm", develop house rules that prevent it.  It isn't all that complicated. 

In fact, if you are going to allow this type of stuff, then I suggest you develop house rules that allow it.

I can certainly see why the players at the WSOP and so forth would want to 'save the clock' by not having to "Pot and Re-Pot".  Makes sense even to me.

Chet

[Nick C]

If dealers were allowed to clarify each bet as it occurs these problems would be non-existent. Players in multi handed pots should make their intentions clear. Push the damn chips forward! A good dealer could have easily prevented the fiasco. What was he thinking?

[K-Lo]

Bottom line is the 1st floor person to rule was completely incoherent. I will let them remain nameless, cause they should be.  (NO IT WASN'T ME)

Basically here's the situation. BB in Seat 1. Seat 2 calls, Seat 3 calls, Fold to Seat 7 (Button) Call, Seat 8 (SB) Calls, Seat 1 (BB) Raise to 12,400, Seat 2 Calls, Seat 3 Calls, Seat 7 Pots All-in, 68,800, Seat 8 folds, Seat 1 announces ALL-IN to angle shoot and get the players behind to fold. Seat 1 has approximately 420,000. Seat 2 is thinking, while Seat 3 mucks out of turn. Seat 2 announces that he has Aces with one suit as he looks to his friends for advice. Seat 1 objects.  Finally Seat 2 calls. He's calling the All-in of Seat 1. Players turn their hands over and the board is ran. Simple.

How can Seat 1 be all-in? Typically in PLO players agree to be all-in to save time of Potting and Re-Potting until they are all-in. Simple.

How can you hold Seat 1 to a bet of all-in? The Player announced that he was all-in and when he was called by Seat 2, both players turned their hands over which means they are both accepting the action of the all-in bet that was verbally announced by Seat 1.

All-in is not a bet in PLO though? It is a bet when two players are left in the hand with no further action. Because Seat 3 mucked, there is no further action behind.

Bottom line is: DON'T ANGLE SHOOT.

Yessirreee!

[Spence]

First of all I want to say that "accepted action" is awful. Second, with the info from Tom we can have the players be all-in and accept that. Third, if the players were not heads-up and action was still pending then "all-in" is not a bet and either should be ignored altogether or a commitment of a pot sized bet is all that should be held accountable.
Tom is right, K-Lo is right, and Nick is right but all on differing points of nearly the same issue. The devil's in the details folks!

[K-Lo]

I'm going to briefly revive this thread because I came across an interesting situation much like the one that I alluded to at the end of my original post, where all players flip their hands over because they believe there is no more action to come with a player all-in.

E.g.  NLH - A bets, B raises all-in, C calls B's all-in.  A then pushes the rest of his chips forward...but it looks like less than B's all-in (in reality A actually has more) ...  Everybody flips over their cards including C, because the dealer tells the table that B had A covered.  After A wins though, the dealer re-counts and finds that C actually owes "X" more. 

1.  Do you deem C to have called the all-in (i.e. everyone accepted that it was all-in situation) and direct him to pay A the difference?  Or does A only get the amount that C explicitly called?

2.  What happens if C says, "I didn't accept the all-in, I just exposed my cards to see what everyone would do.  The Rules say give me the option to call and redeal the board, penalize me for exposing my cards with action pending at the end of the hand if you want"... what would be your response?

To those who like the WSOP ruling (and I do, although I think we currently have to rely on Rule 1 to get there), maybe we do need an explicit rule that says something to the effect of: whenever the hands of all players are turned-up in what appears to be all-in situation, all players will be deemed to be all-in, even if all betting action had not yet, in fact, been completed.

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

I'm having a tough time following these scenarios but, I think the fact that there was no mention of specific amounts, all players are responsible for the largest amount wagered by any player. This is a perfect example (and the only one I've heard), that would support Accepted Action.