Author Topic: Protecting the player or not?  (Read 14331 times)

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Protecting the player or not?
« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2013, 09:59:59 AM »
The way that I understood situation 2 is that he does not realize that he has been called and that there is still action to be had on further streets. In this case, it is unlikely there was any intention to abandon or surrender the hand, and I think it is part of the dealer's job to protect the muck and preserve the action.  Of course, you could argue that if the Big Blind was aware that he could have checked and seen a free flop, he would not have surrendered his hand, but I definitely see a difference in degree - in situation 1, the big blind has actually shown a willingness to abandon his hand despite knowing that he has been called -- this is different from attempting to fold when he doesn't know he has been called post-flop (the 'level' of willingness to abandon his hand is IMO relatively less).

2) A player bet postflop and don't realise he is only called and folds - The dealer stop and protect his hand before calling the floor - Then?
I might have put too much emphasis on the 'only'.  I took this as the player thought he was raised, but he was only called...which to me would be the same as the big blind thinking they were raised when they were only called.  So basically the same situation.


I also want to add that while I am slightly in favor of pushing back hands in which a mistake is clearly being made, I am not dead set on it.  It does mesh well with our cash rules though.  Since the dealers push hands back to the unraised BB in our cash games, they tend to have it as a habit and so they automatically do it in our tournaments.  If I then kill it, it would be spotty as some dealers/players would let me know that it had occurred, some wouldn't.  Some hands would get killed, some wouldn't.  Chaos would ensue.  :P
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter