Author Topic: Opinion on decision  (Read 17418 times)

pbrannon

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Opinion on decision
« on: March 23, 2011, 05:09:01 PM »
3 players in the hand.
After the flop, P1 bets. P2 calls.
P3 goes all in. P1 and P2 calls.

Dealer runs the turn correctly, but then immediately runs the river, even though P1 and P2 has more money.

P1 then turns his cards over...but P3 who is all in says the river should go back in the deck, reshuffle, and redo the river, since the river came out before action was through.

P1 and P2 said they were going to check it anyway, but they didn't physically check it....

what do you do?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2011, 05:41:55 PM »
I know there will be other opinions but, I would let the card play. The all-in player would have no say in this situation. That's how I see it.

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2011, 06:03:43 PM »
it's messy,

But I agree with Nick, I like leaving the river as-is as the best option in this scenario.  It would really have to be a rule #1 decision for this, by listening to what has happened during the hand etc.

I can see no reason in your situation to intervene and change any board cards.

Regards
Stu

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2011, 08:06:43 PM »
What a bloody mess... you'll probably get a range of answers to this one.

Can I ask WHY P1 turned his cards over ???  We should have had betting on the turn, but that betting round was skipped when the dealer immediately tabled the River, and things are further complicated by P1 turning up his cards ??

And then there's a chorus from the players that some of them are happy with the river, and some arent...

First off, as others have said, we don't ever want players "choosing" when board cards play and when they don't.

I feel this all comes down to WHY P1 tabled his hand. If he did it pursuant to some declaration by the Dealer to showdown, or pursuant to a check by P2 then I might lean towards letting things stand because the actions of others would have contributed to P1's error...  Otherwise, I feel that P1 showed his hand for no good reason and this should not interfere with the rights of others to have a betting round on BOTH the turn and river. In other related scenarios there could be other players involved P4, P5, etc... I think we have to protect their rights to proper betting rounds. IF P1 just absent-mindedly turned his hand up he has to live with that big error. There should be a betting round on the turn, and then the river re-shuffled and re-dealt with a final betting round, IMO, unless there's a good excuse for P1 exposing the hand.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2011, 08:09:08 PM by MikeB »

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2011, 04:50:24 AM »
I'm letting the board stand. The only person objecting is the one who doesn't have any chips. His self interest has no bearing on whether P1 and P2 bet. If P1 or P2 wanted to bet, they would've been the ones objecting.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2011, 12:23:26 PM »
I can agree with everyone. Mike does bring up some important facts to consider. I think if anyone wanted to complain, with a right to do so, it would be player 2. If he wanted to, he could actually be allowed to bet into Player 1's open hand. Like thomas says, as long as the two contestants with chips remaining did not object, let it go.

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2011, 04:59:18 PM »
If player 2 wanted to bet the turn then the card it would have to be reshuffled. I would only reshuffle if player 2 stated "I wanted to bet the turn."  A bet on the river wouldn't change anything. If player 2 wanted to bet the river as Nick said, he should be allowed.
EDIT: Where is the rule that states that a player who does not inform the table that action has passed them loses the right to act? Somewhere in the Action out of Turn rules...
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 05:34:31 PM by Spence »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2011, 05:47:32 PM »
Spence,
 You are correct but, it looks to me like the dealer is the one who thought all players were all-in...so when Player 1 turned over his cards, Player 2 probably didn't have a chance to think about anything, except that he didn't have much of a hand anyway. The chance to bet the turn vanished when the dealer turned the river card. You did say that both players said they were going to check anyway. I'll take a wild guess here, and say that the all-in player (Player 3) lost the hand.

pbrannon

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2011, 05:04:01 PM »
Yes..the dealer did think that everyone was all in....P1 wasn't paying attention and he also thought everyone was all in, so he exposed his cards.
Both P1 and P2 said they were going to check it anyway.

The outcome was as such.....since we didn't really have a "floor person" per-se, the decision was mine to make because it was my game. I actually talked it over with another player who was not in the hand and we decided that since P1 showed his hand that we would bring the river card back, reshuffle it and replace the river. Since both P1and P2 said they were going to check it anyway, betting was frozen. We did realize that P1&P2 not betting shouldn't affect P3's all in hand...BUT also we wanted to stay true to the rules of what should happen in this same situation if P3 had not been all in. If P3 had not been all in, then this is what would have happened, so we felt that we should stick with the "standard".

After reading some answers on here and having time to think about it, I would agree that leaving the board as-is would have probably been the better decision. Because P1&P2 checking it down shouldn't affect the all-in player and the outcome of the hand.

As a side note; the replacement river card gave the all in player a straight, which he thought was the best hand, but it gave P2 a higher straight. P1 would have scooped the pot with a flush, but after this decision he only got the low half, while P2 got the high end. All these guys are friends of mine, so no one thought there was any favoritism in the call.

Someone also tell me your thoughts on this........While I was thinking about the decision, P1 was saying that he didn't care which way the decision went; that we could do the river over or leave it as is....Now, I'm sure he was saying this because he knew he had the lock low, but even with a flush, it wasn't the nut high...but he figured he was getting half either way. I told him that if this were a real casino situation that he would be better off just keeping his mouth shut and letting the floor person make the decision without his providing any input either way.

Does anyone agree that he should just be quiet and let the floor make their decision without influence either way?

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2011, 05:49:29 PM »
So are you telling us now that this was an Omaha High/Low Tournament?

I am not inclined to answer any more questions unless the poster provides ALL the important details.  For example, the rules for a misdeal in button games, Hold'em and Omaha for example are different from those that apply to Stud games. 

Chet

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2011, 04:13:58 PM »
As a floorperson, I always have the dealer run down the situation before hearing anything from the players. As well the dealer should only answer the specific questions that I ask. Nobody is supposed to volunteer any information unless specifically asked. Essentially what it boils down to is that you need the facts to make a decison from the rules. Anything that could influence that decision should not be said. Now you are by yourself and are the only decision maker so I would post my rules best I could. Get a copy of TDA rules and perhaps Roberts Rules to have on hand to back yourself up. As well anything that isn't covered specifically in the rules we can always fall back on "Supervisors decision is FINAL" Or in your case pbrannon's decision is final.

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2011, 05:59:48 PM »
After reading some answers on here and having time to think about it, I would agree that leaving the board as-is would have probably been the better decision. Because P1&P2 checking it down shouldn't affect the all-in player and the outcome of the hand.

Just want to add a word of caution to your statement here, specifically the portion that says, "Because P1&P2 checking it down shouldn't affect the all-in player and the outcome of the hand."

The two players, P1 and P2, checking it down 100% affects the outcome of the hand. It doesn't change what P3's final hand is, but it does change the value of P3's hand in a showdown. P3 has a greater showdown value vs 1 player than vs 2 players.

More importantly allowing two players  to "check it down" in advance amounts to no less than "soft play" and in this situation "collusion" against P3.

From the thread it appears there was no "agreement" between P1 and P2 and they were following standard tournament strategy. Just wanted to mention it though.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2011, 06:49:54 AM »
OK but this all ask the question of the abuse of the #1 rule ... or WHEN does a wrong board must stay?

AFTER any action occured following the wrong flop or turn or river?

AFTER 2 or 3 actions occured following the wrong flop, turn or river?

AFTER any FEELING by the floor?

For example: Flop is on the table with 4 players left: player A bet, player B calls, player C raises, Then player D notice that no card had been burned ... ???

FLOP STAY? NO? YES? SO FLOP STAY AFTER HOW MANY ACTION?

Well ... waiting for your advices I will copy to the general misdeal rule and will freeze any wrong board only if followed by to 2 actions! So here if A & B act: the flop stay (C or D should have stopped the action before)!

BUT in the initial post: I WOULD RESHUFFLE THE RIVER BECAUSE THE ONLY ACTION OF P1 (wich may love this river & situation I suppose) isn't enought to conclude that P2 had enought time to react ... frankly it must had been quick: wrong river + P1 show = bing-bang!

SURELY that's only IMAO!

GG

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2011, 06:15:51 AM »
Any opinion please? Do I stay on my "2 actions freeze any wrong board" (influenced by the "2 actions freeze any misdeal") or not?

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2011, 07:00:17 AM »
yes, any two actions involving chips or any three actions is the definition of significant action that I am using.  Of course that gets a bit strange when you are only 3 handed but it is a good definition.