Mike, I thought this might be a good way to start this thread. This is an old post from K-Lo:
Re: WSOP Ruling & a slight twist on "Accepted Action"
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2012, 06:47:26 PM »
Reply with quote
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.