PokerTDA

POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: The Hitman on July 20, 2018, 07:06:57 AM

Title: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: The Hitman on July 20, 2018, 07:06:57 AM
Hi everyone,

I have a tricky one for you, and I had to go out of the grid to rule it (still not sure I did the right thing, but looked obvious to me).
Here is the situation:
Blinds 1200/2400, everybody folds to the SB who announces "call" in order to call the 2400, but (quite important) doesn't put the chips straight away, action is now on the big bling who moves all-in, action repeated by the dealer. The dealer is coming back to SB and sees the players is putting chips (the chips he didn't put previously to call the BB) and announces "call, showdown please!", BB opens his cards as requested and everybody realises that SB actually didn't act....
What would you do in that case?

Thanks for the feed back gentlemen!
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: MikeB on July 20, 2018, 10:41:19 AM
Hey Hit:

Thanks for the great case. IMO it's pretty clear per 2017 TDA Rule 40:

A: Bets are by verbal declaration and/or pushing out chips. If a player does both, whichever is first defines the bet. If simultaneous, a clear and reasonable verbal declaration takes precedence, otherwise the chips play.

... the BB is all-in and the SB has called. As the SB correctly requests per TDA Rule 16: turn all hole cards up for the showdown then run out the board.

Would have liked to see an All-In button used here but otherwise looks clear-cut.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: BillM16 on July 20, 2018, 12:55:47 PM
Hi everyone,

I have a tricky one for you, and I had to go out of the grid to rule it (still not sure I did the right thing, but looked obvious to me).
Here is the situation:
Blinds 1200/2400, everybody folds to the SB who announces "call" in order to call the 2400, but (quite important) doesn't put the chips straight away, action is now on the big bling who moves all-in, action repeated by the dealer. The dealer is coming back to SB and sees the players is putting chips (the chips he didn't put previously to call the BB) and announces "call, showdown please!", BB opens his cards as requested and everybody realises that SB actually didn't act....
What would you do in that case?

Thanks for the feed back gentlemen!

I see this a bit differently ... depending on some clarification.

1) The SB verbally announced call while facing the BB bet of 2400.  But did not put chips into the pot.
2) The BB announced All-In.
3) The dealer repeated the All-In bet.
4) The SB puts in the chips necessary to complete the call of 2400.  He says nothing at that time.
5) The dealer mistakenly announced "call, showdown please."
6) The BB reveals his hand.
7) The SB and everybody else realizes that the All-In wasn't called.

As worded, it sounds to me like SB did not call the All-In raise.  He merely completed his prior call.  The SB has rightful obligation to complete the initial call by putting in the necessary 2400 in chips.  The dealer made a mistake and should have clarified the action. Unfortunately, the dealer and the BB acted to quickly and failed to realize that the SB did not act on the raise.  I'd rule that the SB can either call or fold. 

Regards,
B~
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: Dave Miller on July 20, 2018, 01:03:58 PM
Dealers sometimes make mistakes.

It is the BB’s responsibility to not act until the SB finished his action of putting in chips. When the BB jumped the gun, the BB must suffer the consequences of following the direction of a dealer who made a mistake when trying to follow the action.

Also, Rule 65:
“Players must protect their hands at all times...”
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: MikeB on July 20, 2018, 01:13:04 PM
4) The SB puts in the chips necessary to complete the call of 2400.  He says nothing at that time.
5) The dealer mistakenly announced "call, showdown please."

Ahhh... that sounds right, I thought the SB had said "call, showdown please" but re-reading the post looks like the dealer said it. In that case the SB has made no action towards calling the all-in.

AND, if that's the case then the first decision for me is Rule 1 on whether to hold the BB to an all-in bet as he exposed his cards in good faith following the dealer's order. The BB has some culpability under responsibility to follow the action but IMO the dealer declaration far eclipses the BB's responsibility and I'd tend to favor giving the BB the option to retract the all-in or go ahead and make the bet with his cards exposed.

There's no direct TDA Rule addressing this but it vaguely falls into the Koroknai vs. Baumann category where the bulk of the error is caused by the house and a Rule 1 approach is needed. Thanks again for presenting the case!
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: Nick C on July 20, 2018, 01:28:10 PM
I replied before reading Mike's corrected answer. I agree with Mike and I'm happy to see that the dealer is going to assume some responsibility for this.

Mike, do you think that Accepted Action could be applied here? I don't care for that rule at all for the very reason you mentioned about being misled by the dealer. Just curious, that's all.

Bill, I agree with your answer, too!

Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: The Hitman on July 20, 2018, 06:59:11 PM
Thanks a lot for your feedback,

Although I'm aware of all those precisions and I took them in consideration for my decision, I have to say that I didn't go to the strict rule for a couple of reasons:
- SB is seat 9 and BB is seat 1 (sorry I should have mentionned that earlier)
- SB is creating the situation by not putting the chips at the moment he declares call
- Dealer enforces the mistake by not waiting the SB to finalise his call
- BB doesn't make any mistake here: he goes all-in, is given the information that he's called and is asked to showdown. Of course he didn't double check, which is his only "mistake".
- SB is given a huge advantage here for his decision whether to call or not...

My decision is off the grid as I said: I chose to give back the all-in bet to BB and play face up, in order to let them decide what to do from the flop.
Not sure it's the best decision ever, but it appeared to me to be the fairest one at the moment.

Don't hesitate to give your opinion!
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: BillM16 on July 21, 2018, 09:09:51 AM
4) The SB puts in the chips necessary to complete the call of 2400.  He says nothing at that time.
5) The dealer mistakenly announced "call, showdown please."

Ahhh... that sounds right, I thought the SB had said "call, showdown please" but re-reading the post looks like the dealer said it. In that case the SB has made no action towards calling the all-in.

AND, if that's the case then the first decision for me is Rule 1 on whether to hold the BB to an all-in bet as he exposed his cards in good faith following the dealer's order. The BB has some culpability under responsibility to follow the action but IMO the dealer declaration far eclipses the BB's responsibility and I'd tend to favor giving the BB the option to retract the all-in or go ahead and make the bet with his cards exposed.

There's no direct TDA Rule addressing this but it vaguely falls into the Koroknai vs. Baumann category where the bulk of the error is caused by the house and a Rule 1 approach is needed. Thanks again for presenting the case!

This is vaguely similar to Koroknai vs. Baumann.  However, as you note, in this case, the error seems largely due to the dealer's mistake.  However, the BB did raise all-in without any adverse influence.  And, without the dealer's mistake, the SB would be faced with a decision to either call or fold. 

IMO, following the mistake, I would first ask the SB to make a decision to either call or fold.  If the SB chooses to make the call, then to compensate for the house error, perhaps I would use Rule #1 to give the BB a choice to alter the bet to either a min-raise or to leave it as all-in.  Then, action would either continue on the flop or we'd go to showdown.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: Dave Miller on July 21, 2018, 09:57:27 AM
... I would first ask the SB to make a decision to either call or fold.  If the SB chooses to make the call, then to compensate for the house error, perhaps I would use Rule #1 to give the BB a choice to alter the bet to either a min-raise or to leave it as all-in.
If you give the BB that option, it must be before you ask the SB his decision.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: BillM16 on July 22, 2018, 05:32:05 PM
... I would first ask the SB to make a decision to either call or fold.  If the SB chooses to make the call, then to compensate for the house error, perhaps I would use Rule #1 to give the BB a choice to alter the bet to either a min-raise or to leave it as all-in.
If you give the BB that option, it must be before you ask the SB his decision.

I disagree Dave.  Here is my reasoning.  I'm assuming that the following is true.

When the dealer made the mistake by saying "Call, showdown please" neither the SB or the BB had done anything wrong.  Then, the BB followed the dealer's direction and revealed his hand.  At that time, the SB and others pointed out that the SB had not yet acted on the all-in raise.

Assuming this to be true, here is my reasoning.

The SB is facing an all-in raise and it is their turn to act.  My ruling would require the SB to declare either fold or call at this point.  If the SB folds, the BB wins this hand and we proceed to the next hand.  Only if the SB decides to call the all-in bet would I consider invoking Rule #1 (fairness) to offer the BB an option to keep the bet as all-in or reduce it to a min-raise.  If the BB keeps it as all-in we proceed to showdown.  If the BB reduces it to a min-raise then we deal the flop and the SB acts first.

It makes no sense to offer the BB an option if the SB wants to fold to the all-in bet.  If the SB is defending their right to act on the BB all-in bet, it is most likely to fold.  On the other hand, now that BB hand has been exposed, the SB might be quite willing to make a call if they also know that the bet is being reduced to a min-raise.  In other words, the ruling would be an attempt to minimize the adverse impact on the BB due to the dealer's error.  Offering the option to the BB before the SB has made the call does not accomplish that objective.  IMO, that offer would be the second house mistake in this hand.

Of course, there is no perfect solution to the problem as the hand has been exposed due to the dealers error.  The SB will certainly call if they have a better hand and might bluff with the second best hand.  But, given the OP, I expect the SB is planning to fold.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: Dave Miller on July 22, 2018, 06:54:25 PM
I disagree.

In my opinion, the BB failed to protect his hand when he exposed it. True, he exposed it because of dealers instructions, but he should have waited for the SB to put his chips in. TWICE! Once when he went all in before the SB finished making the initial action, and then again when he exposed the cards before the SB made his indication to call by putting chips it.


But I also see your point regarding the unusual ruling invoking Ruke 1.

However, I would hope that if you give the BB that option to reduce his bet to a min raise, you then give the SB the option of a reraise.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: MikeB on July 23, 2018, 11:53:22 AM
... I would first ask the SB to make a decision to either call or fold.  If the SB chooses to make the call, then to compensate for the house error, perhaps I would use Rule #1 to give the BB a choice to alter the bet to either a min-raise or to leave it as all-in.
If you give the BB that option, it must be before you ask the SB his decision.

All of this is Rule 1, but I agree with the above because why ask the SB if he calls a bet that you might revoke? Further, asking the SB first gives the BB ALOT of information he's not entitled to. If the dealer gives me the option to retract the bet after I know the SB wants to call then on average I'll want to have a stronger hand than if I'm unsure of the SB's action.

As to Nick's question about Accepted Action, IMO it doesn't apply here as nobody has called, there's just been premature exposure. Accepted Action applies to the amount of a bet not whether a bet and call has occured.

As to the other point about giving the SB the right to re-raise, it's an interesting question as to whether you first allow the BB to retract and just check his option with his cards exposed. In that case there is no re-raise possibility for the SB. If you force a min-raise on the BB then absolutely I'd give the SB the re-raise option. Again, all Rule 1 so there's no 100% perfect solution but I personally tend to favor allowing the BB to either check or all-in, but not make any wager in between.

Very interesting discussion, worth considering for the 2019 Summit.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: BillM16 on July 25, 2018, 11:59:32 AM
My decision is off the grid as I said: I chose to give back the all-in bet to BB and play face up, in order to let them decide what to do from the flop.

That is a creative solution.  So then, the players were allowed to bet after the flop?  Other options would be to simply chop the pot and proceed to the next hand.  Or, run out the board, face-up, without further betting. 
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: The Hitman on July 26, 2018, 04:12:02 AM
That is a creative solution.  So then, the players were allowed to bet after the flop?  Other options would be to simply chop the pot and proceed to the next hand.  Or, run out the board, face-up, without further betting.

Basically yes. My thinking was to minimize the dealer's mistake and the impact he could have had on the tournament's life of both players. So I consider a call from the SB and a "mandatory face-up check" from the BB, and then give them back all options on the flop.

Once again, thank you for your comments!
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: Nick C on July 27, 2018, 07:04:30 PM
The Hitman,

 It is an interesting discussion. I like your call. To minimize the financial damage because of the dealer contributing to the unfortunate situation.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: BillM16 on July 29, 2018, 05:52:31 PM
... I would first ask the SB to make a decision to either call or fold.  If the SB chooses to make the call, then to compensate for the house error, perhaps I would use Rule #1 to give the BB a choice to alter the bet to either a min-raise or to leave it as all-in.
If you give the BB that option, it must be before you ask the SB his decision.

All of this is Rule 1, but I agree with the above because why ask the SB if he calls a bet that you might revoke? Further, asking the SB first gives the BB ALOT of information he's not entitled to. If the dealer gives me the option to retract the bet after I know the SB wants to call then on average I'll want to have a stronger hand than if I'm unsure of the SB's action.


As the TD, the first and most important ruling here is whether or not the SB has called the BB all-in bet.  I agree with what seems to be the consensus that the SB did not act on the all-in bet.  The second most important decision for the TD is whether or not to allow the SB to act now that the BB has exposed his hand.  IMO, the SB should be allowed to act on the BB all-in bet even though the hand has been exposed.  My reason is quite simple - if the SB folds there is absolutely no reason for further action or ruling.  If and only if the SB makes a call on the all-in bet is there any need to EVEN CONSIDER using rule #1 to alter the play.  As we can see from all of the scenario's above, none of the proposed solutions are perfect and could adversely impact either or both players.  Why EVEN CONSIDER those options unless the SB calls the all-in bet?

Now, if the SB does indeed call the all-in bet, THEN AND ONLY THEN should rule #1 be considered.  One option is to not do anything at all, let the all-in bet and call stand.  I might rule that this is unfair as the SB made the call after he saw the BB hand.  One possible ruling to minimize the error by the dealer is to reduce the bet to a min-raise and go directly to showdown.  The end result is the correct winning player wins the hand the same as if the all-in call was made without exposing the hand.  The difference however is that the amount of chips won and lost is smaller.  Who's decision should it be to reduce the all-in bet to a min-raise?  Is it really the TD?  Is it better to give the BB that option?  I'm guessing that most of the time, I'd never get to this part of the ruling as I believe the SB is going to fold.  But, if I do get here, I might decide to go either way given MANY other variables not discussed here.  The ultimate answer however is that THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION ALLOWED - we are going to SHOWDOWN with a call of the bet be it an all-in or min-raise.

Would you force the bet to a min-raise if the BB was holding pocket aces?  Likewise, would you give the BB an option to reduce the bet to a min-raise if he was holding seven-deuce off-suit?  Certainly, any option that does not include immediate showdown potentially determines the eventual winner in a way that would have never occurred otherwise.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: MikeB on July 30, 2018, 01:40:41 PM
... I would first ask the SB to make a decision to either call or fold.  If the SB chooses to make the call, then to compensate for the house error, perhaps I would use Rule #1 to give the BB a choice to alter the bet to either a min-raise or to leave it as all-in.
If you give the BB that option, it must be before you ask the SB his decision.

All of this is Rule 1, but I agree with the above because why ask the SB if he calls a bet that you might revoke? Further, asking the SB first gives the BB ALOT of information he's not entitled to. If the dealer gives me the option to retract the bet after I know the SB wants to call then on average I'll want to have a stronger hand than if I'm unsure of the SB's action.


As the TD, the first and most important ruling here is whether or not the SB has called the BB all-in bet.  I agree with what seems to be the consensus that the SB did not act on the all-in bet.  The second most important decision for the TD is whether or not to allow the SB to act now that the BB has exposed his hand.  IMO, the SB should be allowed to act on the BB all-in bet even though the hand has been exposed.  My reason is quite simple - if the SB folds there is absolutely no reason for further action or ruling.  If and only if the SB makes a call on the all-in bet is there any need to EVEN CONSIDER using rule #1 to alter the play.  As we can see from all of the scenario's above, none of the proposed solutions are perfect and could adversely impact either or both players.  Why EVEN CONSIDER those options unless the SB calls the all-in bet?

Now, if the SB does indeed call the all-in bet, THEN AND ONLY THEN should rule #1 be considered.  One option is to not do anything at all, let the all-in bet and call stand.  I might rule that this is unfair as the SB made the call after he saw the BB hand.  One possible ruling to minimize the error by the dealer is to reduce the bet to a min-raise and go directly to showdown.  The end result is the correct winning player wins the hand the same as if the all-in call was made without exposing the hand.  The difference however is that the amount of chips won and lost is smaller.  Who's decision should it be to reduce the all-in bet to a min-raise?  Is it really the TD?  Is it better to give the BB that option?  I'm guessing that most of the time, I'd never get to this part of the ruling as I believe the SB is going to fold.  But, if I do get here, I might decide to go either way given MANY other variables not discussed here.  The ultimate answer however is that THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION ALLOWED - we are going to SHOWDOWN with a call of the bet be it an all-in or min-raise.

Would you force the bet to a min-raise if the BB was holding pocket aces?  Likewise, would you give the BB an option to reduce the bet to a min-raise if he was holding seven-deuce off-suit?  Certainly, any option that does not include immediate showdown potentially determines the eventual winner in a way that would have never occurred otherwise.


So that's a good description of the view that the SB should call first, then figure out what do do with the card exposure. The alternate view is that the most important FIRST decision is what to do about the card exposure as ordered by the dealer. The dealer ordered cards exposed when the SB had not called, now the cards are exposed, what do we do about that? The BB has a tremendous handicap that has to be figured out, does he still want to make this bet or under Rule 1 will the house allow him to retract it given that it was the house that ordered him to expose the cards.

The problem with having the SB call first IMO, is this then gives the BB the information as to whether the SB wants to call, that's just too much information for the BB to have.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: BillM16 on July 31, 2018, 07:37:14 AM

So that's a good description of the view that the SB should call first, then figure out what do do with the card exposure. The alternate view is that the most important FIRST decision is what to do about the card exposure as ordered by the dealer. The dealer ordered cards exposed when the SB had not called, now the cards are exposed, what do we do about that? The BB has a tremendous handicap that has to be figured out, does he still want to make this bet or under Rule 1 will the house allow him to retract it given that it was the house that ordered him to expose the cards.

The problem with having the SB call first IMO, is this then gives the BB the information as to whether the SB wants to call, that's just too much information for the BB to have.

I understand and respect your position, but I disagree.

It is important to minimize the impact that a TD ruling has on the hand.  At the point in time when the dealer's error occurred the BB had raised all-in and the SB had not yet acted.  At that point, the SB was facing an obligation to either call or fold.  A TD ruling should not overlook or eliminate that critical obligation.

If the SB folds to the BB's all-in bet then there is absolutely no need for a Rule #1 consideration in the hand. Only if the SB has called the all-in should a Rule #1 consideration be made.  Removing this requirement unfairly imposes a TD ruling on this hand.

If a ruling allows the all-in action to be altered under Rule #1 then proceeding directly to showdown must be required. This prevents the SB from taking unfair advantage obtained by the dealer's error.

A ruling that gives the BB an option to reduce his all-in bet before the SB meets the obligation to call alters the action unnecessarily and unfairly.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: MikeB on August 01, 2018, 07:59:06 PM
Since this is Rule 1, allow me to present an opposing view as follows:


It is important to minimize the impact that a TD ruling has on the hand.

Definitely agree and that's the problem with giving the BB the information as to whether the SB wants to call... it creates a major new impact.

At the point in time when the dealer's error occurred the BB had raised all-in and the SB had not yet acted.  At that point, the SB was facing an obligation to either call or fold.  A TD ruling should not overlook or eliminate that critical obligation.

At this point the bigger issue is to address the BBs cards exposed by house order. This should be straightened out first. I want the BB to decide to proceed with his bet or retract it without having knowledge of whether the SB wants to call. I'm giving the BB a major (but deserved) break because the card exposure was largely a house error.

If the SB folds to the BB's all-in bet then there is absolutely no need for a Rule #1 consideration in the hand. Only if the SB has called the all-in should a Rule #1 consideration be made.  Removing this requirement unfairly imposes a TD ruling on this hand.
This all raises the question of whether the BB has made a valid bet in the first place. If I intend to offer the BB the option to retract his bet then I'm not sending a valid, binding bet to the SB. It's not a huge problem if the SB folds, but if he calls then that's additional information the BB isn't entitled to.


If a ruling allows the all-in action to be altered under Rule #1 then proceeding directly to showdown must be required. This prevents the SB from taking unfair advantage obtained by the dealer's error.
Card exposure, even by the house, does not automatically freeze play. For example, if the river card in stud is exposed by dealer error the player has the option to choose to freeze his play or continue to play, but he must make the decision before anyone else acts. (TDA Rec Procedure RP9-A.). That procedure has other implications for this case: A) that the exposed player has to decide before anyone else acts so he doesn't have knowledge of what others want to do; B) one Rule 1 solution here is to allow the BB to declare no further betting. I don't hate that ruling but it's still very early in this hand and the BB may have a hand he wants to play even with exposure. I'd be more inclined to offer this option later in the hand if a larger pot had accumulated.

A ruling that gives the BB an option to reduce his all-in bet before the SB meets the obligation to call alters the action unnecessarily and unfairly.
The alternate view is that it is in fact necessary to address the action immediately because the BBs cards were exposed by house error. Once the BB decides what his bet is in light of the card exposure (just as the 7-stud player with the exposed river) then we have a binding bet we can send to the SB.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: BillM16 on August 02, 2018, 07:38:55 AM
Since this is Rule 1, allow me to present an opposing view as follows:


It is important to minimize the impact that a TD ruling has on the hand.

Definitely agree and that's the problem with giving the BB the information as to whether the SB wants to call... it creates a major new impact.

I'm glad that we agree here.  The house error already gave the SB information - the BB's hole cards.  A ruling impacting the hand is only to be considered if the SB decides to call.

At the point in time when the dealer's error occurred the BB had raised all-in and the SB had not yet acted.  At that point, the SB was facing an obligation to either call or fold.  A TD ruling should not overlook or eliminate that critical obligation.

At this point the bigger issue is to address the BBs cards exposed by house order. This should be straightened out first. I want the BB to decide to proceed with his bet or retract it without having knowledge of whether the SB wants to call. I'm giving the BB a major (but deserved) break because the card exposure was largely a house error.
.

This is certainly a point on which we hold different opinions.  The SB knows the BB's hole cards due to house error and has not yet acted.  You hold that the house will rule at this point that the BB's all-in bet can be kept or retracted, but that the BB must make this decision without knowing if the SB was calling.  I hold that the SB must first act on the all-in bet before the house decides whether or not to rule in the hand.

If the SB folds to the BB's all-in bet then there is absolutely no need for a Rule #1 consideration in the hand. Only if the SB has called the all-in should a Rule #1 consideration be made.  Removing this requirement unfairly imposes a TD ruling on this hand.
This all raises the question of whether the BB has made a valid bet in the first place. If I intend to offer the BB the option to retract his bet then I'm not sending a valid, binding bet to the SB. It's not a huge problem if the SB folds, but if he calls then that's additional information the BB isn't entitled to.


Clearly, the BB's all-in bet was a valid bet before his cards were exposed.  If the SB folds to the all-in, there is no need for a ruling.  If the SB calls with knowledge of the BB's hand then the BB might be given an opportunity to retract his bet with knowledge that the SB was calling.  IMO, this is more fair than punishing the BB twice by first exposing his hand and then asking him if he'd like to let the SB into the hand for a smaller bet.

If a ruling allows the all-in action to be altered under Rule #1 then proceeding directly to showdown must be required. This prevents the SB from taking unfair advantage obtained by the dealer's error.
Card exposure, even by the house, does not automatically freeze play. For example, if the river card in stud is exposed by dealer error the player has the option to choose to freeze his play or continue to play, but he must make the decision before anyone else acts. (TDA Rec Procedure RP9-A.). That procedure has other implications for this case: A) that the exposed player has to decide before anyone else acts so he doesn't have knowledge of what others want to do; B) one Rule 1 solution here is to allow the BB to declare no further betting. I don't hate that ruling but it's still very early in this hand and the BB may have a hand he wants to play even with exposure. I'd be more inclined to offer this option later in the hand if a larger pot had accumulated.

I see very little similarity here.  This isn't 7-card stud with 3 hole cards and it isn't the river.  The original bet was all-in, which requires showdown if called.  Altering the amount bet with a fairness ruling should not alter how the hand is to be played out.  We are trying to be fair and have the least impact on the play.  Allowing play to continue gives the SB an unfair advantage on every street.

A ruling that gives the BB an option to reduce his all-in bet before the SB meets the obligation to call alters the action unnecessarily and unfairly.
The alternate view is that it is in fact necessary to address the action immediately because the BBs cards were exposed by house error. Once the BB decides what his bet is in light of the card exposure (just as the 7-stud player with the exposed river) then we have a binding bet we can send to the SB.

Again, I understand your point of view and simply disagree.  What is most important is that a ruling is fair to all.  Not requiring the SB to act on the all-in bet before making a ruling is IMO unfair to the BB who has already been wronged by the house.  Two house wrongs wouldn't make it right.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: MikeB on August 02, 2018, 08:51:05 AM
Clearly, the BB's all-in bet was a valid bet before his cards were exposed.  If the SB folds to the all-in, there is no need for a ruling.  If the SB calls with knowledge of the BB's hand then the BB might be given an opportunity to retract his bet with knowledge that the SB was calling.  IMO, this is more fair than punishing the BB twice by first exposing his hand and then asking him if he'd like to let the SB into the hand for a smaller bet.

Bit confused on the term "might be given an opportunity". As in a prior quote: "Now, if the SB does indeed call the all-in bet, THEN AND ONLY THEN should rule #1 be considered.  One option is to not do anything at all, let the all-in bet and call stand.  I might rule that this is unfair as the SB made the call after he saw the BB hand.... I believe the SB is going to fold.  But, if [the SB calls], I might decide to go either way given MANY other variables not discussed here."

So, since you're not certain prior to asking the SB to call or fold, let's work through your solution: the SB calls the BB's all-in bet. How do you decide whether to allow the BB to retract or to hold him to the all-in? What are some of the most important of the "many variables" you will take into consideration. Also, please provide an example of variables where you would not allow the BB to retract if he's called.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: BillM16 on August 02, 2018, 04:02:32 PM
Clearly, the BB's all-in bet was a valid bet before his cards were exposed.  If the SB folds to the all-in, there is no need for a ruling.  If the SB calls with knowledge of the BB's hand then the BB might be given an opportunity to retract his bet with knowledge that the SB was calling.  IMO, this is more fair than punishing the BB twice by first exposing his hand and then asking him if he'd like to let the SB into the hand for a smaller bet.

Bit confused on the term "might be given an opportunity". As in a prior quote: "Now, if the SB does indeed call the all-in bet, THEN AND ONLY THEN should rule #1 be considered.  One option is to not do anything at all, let the all-in bet and call stand.  I might rule that this is unfair as the SB made the call after he saw the BB hand.... I believe the SB is going to fold.  But, if [the SB calls], I might decide to go either way given MANY other variables not discussed here."

So, since you're not certain prior to asking the SB to call or fold, let's work through your solution: the SB calls the BB's all-in bet. How do you decide whether to allow the BB to retract or to hold him to the all-in? What are some of the most important of the "many variables" you will take into consideration. Also, please provide an example of variables where you would not allow the BB to retract if he's called.

As I've discussed at length above, I believe it is important that the SB act before considering rule #1.  Accordingly, it is also important that both the SB and BB have no idea how I'm going to rule until after the SB has acted.  As you know, there are many variables at the table that cannot be accurately conveyed in this or any forum.  I doubt that any examples that I provide here will help change your mind.  But, I will offer you an example. 

Let's say the BB has 1000 big blinds and the SB has only 1 big blind.  The SB calls, regardless of the BB's hand - give him 72o or AA.  Clearly, it would not be in the best interest of the game or fairness to offer the BB an option to retract his all-in bet. 

Also, what if there are several versions of what happened from the players at the table.  Some might say the SB did call and only claimed that he didn't act after he saw that the BB was holding AA.  If the SB when confronted then says "OK, Ill make the call dammit.",  I'm not going to give the BB an option to retract.

Maybe an overly concerned player who is most interested in splitting rule hairs demanded that the floor be called.  When I get there the SB says, "He's right, I hadn't acted yet, but I was gonna call anyhow." and the BB says "You don't really need to be here, I'm all-in and he says he's calling."  In that case, I'm bowing out without getting involved

Maybe the BB is Gus Hanson and has raised all-in the last 23 hands in a row.  I'm not likely to give him an option if the SB calls.

Maybe the SB says "I was gonna fold but now that I see the BB's hand and the size of the pot, I guess I'm getting the right odds to call after all." In this case, seeing the BB's hand has influenced the SB's action.  In the interest of fairness, I could give the BB an option and then proceed to showdown.

Let's not lose sight of what is important here.  The TD should not be involved without just cause.  If the SB folds there is no reason for involvement.  If the BB is obviously satisfied with a call, then there is no reason for involvement.  If rule #1 is invoked, the ruling should ensure that the same player wins that would have won if the all-in hand was not exposed and had been called. In other words, the ruling should not change the winner.  There is no good reason to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: MikeB on August 03, 2018, 11:39:50 AM

Let's not lose sight of what is important here.  The TD should not be involved without just cause.  If the SB folds there is no reason for involvement.  If the BB is obviously satisfied with a call, then there is no reason for involvement.  If rule #1 is invoked, the ruling should ensure that the same player wins that would have won if the all-in hand was not exposed and had been called. In other words, the ruling should not change the winner.  There is no good reason to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Bill: thanks for the clarifications on your approach. This thread will provide interesting Rule-1 reading. Thinking this is potentially good 2019 Summit material for a topic such as "Card Exposure by the House"; while it's rare, it does happen and if there's consensus, that consensus can potentially apply to other situations.
Title: Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
Post by: Shehu-J on October 10, 2018, 09:24:01 PM
This is indeed a very unusual spot happened to me not long ago in a Final table.

So here is  my humble opinion : The way i see it ,it's a house error and both players had their share in it.

Ruling 1 : Ask sb to call the all in or forfeit his 2400 ( i wouldn't suggest it since he has advantage over BB )

Ruling 2 : Both players showdown run the whole board and move on to the next hand (Minimum damage to both players ) not fair to the other opponents though.

Ruling 3 : Similar to 2 ,Force bb to Min raise ,sb has option to call or fold and forfeit. If he call they both are passive so we go to the river and the best hand wins. This is what i did anyway ,it was a huge misunderstanding it would be very unfair for a player to bust out due to a silly mistake.