All-in on exposed card on 7th street? - Stud Poker

GutshotJeff · 07-04-2012, 11:05 AM

I don't play stud very often but occasionally we do a mixed-game tournament in our home game. So I try to look up the rules for irregularities ahead of time. Here's what I've been using and the situation finally came up and caused a bit of a stir because it seems pretty obscure. I've found this consistently in various versions of RROP on various sites:

Quote:

If the dealer turns the last card faceup to any player, the hand now high on the board using all the upcards will start the action. The following rules apply to the dealing of cards:

If there are more than two players, all remaining players receive their last card facedown. A player whose last card is faceup has the option of declaring all-in (before betting action starts).

If there are only two players remaining and the first players final downcard is dealt faceup, the second players final downcard will also be dealt faceup, and the betting proceeds as normal.

In the event the first players final card is dealt facedown and the opponents final card is dealt faceup, the player with the faceup final card has the option of declaring all-in (before betting action starts).

So it was a 3-way pot and one of the players got his last card faceup. Based on this rule, I ruled that he had the option to go all-in. It was early in the tournament and his stack was about 4-5x the pot, so the other players both folded.
I think the rule is pretty clear as written, but people thought it just couldn't be correct to allow an all-in like that in a Limit game. Anyone here play enough live stud in a casino to comment on this?

MRB · 07-04-2012, 11:20 AM

You have misstated the rule based on my live experience in limit games.

When the river card is exposed, I've seen the player with the exposed card offered the option to show down with no additional action. The logic is that the dealer's error has placed them at a disadvantage in relation to further bets.

However the player can initiate or participate in action if they choose. It sounds like that's what happened in your game; the player chose to go all in even though a card was exposed. If this was a no limit tournament, that's an option they would have had anyway. Since the intent of the rule isn't to take away options from the player who has been placed at a disadvantage, I think your ruling would be right. However, if it was a limit tournament the player should only have been able to make the normal bet.

ChipsAhoya · 07-04-2012, 12:18 PM

LOL declare all-in doesn't mean he can shove all his chips in the middle, it means he doesn't have to call any additional bets if he doesn't want to and can still win the main pot. That's hilarious.

**RustyBrooks** · 07-04-2012, 12:54 PM

Yeah, it's like how if you get disconnected on line you are "all in" in the sense that you can't call any more bets. Not that you get to shove.

GutshotJeff · 07-04-2012, 01:13 PM

Ok, your guys' interpretation makes more sense. In this case, the player knew (or believed, correctly, at least) that neither of the other guys had hands strong enough to call such a big bet. Thanks.