There's an EP raise to $20. 2 guys call. The action is on me in the SB. I look at my cards. I look to see where the raise came from and it came from the freaking BB who open raised without the dealer noticing. After you kick the BB and the dealer in the nuts....whats the ruling?

Action offered and accepted. Action on you to close the round.

Back up the action to the first caller. Big Blind takes 20 back and puts his big blind out. All players have all options to call or raise.

First, kick the SB in the nuts for not paying attention (unless the "BB" is in Seat 1 and you were in Seat 9/10).


Then, what Baldy said ^^^.

I would let the action stand. And definitely don't complain if it happened when you were in the SB, it just gave you a pretty big advantage.

^^ this is probably the worst way to handle it.

What everyone else is saying is what you should do.

After 7 people have acted? I don't think so.

"The blind was 20 this hand, OP, the action is on you."

It's likely UTG raised and BB called out of turn.

Well, it's not exactly like the blind was $20; the BB shouldn't be able to raise again.

It took you a whole orbit to look at your cards or even notice the action?

Might as well just play the hand out. You haven't invested any money in yet, and don't really have anything to complain about. With everyone having acted already, its almost never getting reversed.

You look at your cards, and THEN you look to see where the raise came from?

First of all, pay attention to the game more.

Then tell the dealer the BB can't raise, he's the BB. Action will be on UTG.

If someone else raises, action would change, so he would probably be allowed to re-raise.

Either this (significant action) or killing the whole deal, monies returned and deal over. I really hate deal agains, but this is the most egregious cluster **** I've seen and would be fine with it. You can't start the action over as some players have folded. Those players paid (their fee - their blinds) for an orbit of hands and shouldn't be punished for folding a hand they might have limped in or opened themselves.

The other players weren't "punsihed". They all got to go one position later than they should have been. The only player hurt by the way the action went down was the one who made the mistake.

Meta-analysis based on the future boardcards aside, no one who was planning to limp or open was punished, they all came out way ahead.

Limpers who would have folded to a BB raise save money, limpers who would have called will have already called (probably for less), and anyone planning to open now can re-raise if they want (or call and not get re-raised if they don't). I suppose the argument might be made that the BB may have checked rather than raise a field of limpers or something, but that is a long stretch from what actually happened.

I cannot wrap my head around why anyone would think it's a good idea to rewind the action or kill the hand, or why it's that big of a cluster****. The solution seems incredibly simple and obvious..?

FYP.

Seriously though, action stands and it's on you to call, raise, or fold. Too late to fix it. He effectively gave you last action. You should be happy no matter what your holding.

The issue isn't relative to the small blind. He doesn't get to decide. Nor should it matter if it benefits him or not. The issue is relative to the table as a whole and the players who paid for (via paying their blinds for the orbit) and acted according to what they thought was the betting. Sure it's up to them to watch what's going on. But it's no as simple as some replies.

Also, we don't know the positions of the 2 "callers" either. If they were utg and utg+1 or if there were folds, a call, a fold, a call, etc.

1- Everyone at the table, with the exception of BB who caused the issue, is getting more hands in better position. So "paying for an orbit" is not relevant, or if anything, they are benefitting.

2- Way too much action has occurred to declare a misdeal.

3- Nothing material has happened that would warrant voiding the hand, which is one of the biggest bombs you can drop as a floor ruling. No chance you void the hand because BB raised OOT and practically the whole table acted afterwards.

4- It is exactly as simple as the replies state. Your job as floor called to this table is to minimize the overall damage, and if necessary, concentrate any penalty on the player who caused the problem in the fairest way.

By far, and it's not even close, the best ruling is to just play on. It's hard to say for sure whether backing the action up or voiding the hand is next, but both are so far down the list they're almost not worth considering.

I agree you can't rewind the action here. The SB can either fold for the cost of the BB, call the $20 to close the action, or reraise to open the action for everyone.

But if the SB chooses to raise, this opens another question. Normally an out-of-turn is binding if the action doesn't change, but not if the action does change. The BB acted out of turn; if SB raises, can BB fold for the cost of the BB or is he still forced to put $20 in?

Out of turn action is normally binding if several people have already acted on it, no matter what happens later.

I agree with holding the action to the sb to act - significant action.

All I'm saying is I've seen hands voided in poker rooms and if they rule such then w/e. It wouldn't be my choice, but certainly wouldn't start action over once players have folded and are now out of the hand; regardless if it helps or hurts them.

1) Mis-deals can't be declared after significant action occurs (3 players), whether it be good or bad action.
2) No way you can back up this much action, especially with folds involved.

SB got handed a gift here, pretty easy ruling .. "Action is on you, sir." GL

What's your point?

I never said the issue was relative to the SB. I never said it matters if it benefits him or not. I simply pointed out that it does benefit him. I also stated what the ruling should be in that situation. I'm not blaming anyone but the BB and the dealer for the problem either FYI.

True.

"Gentlemen, for this hand we have a $20 blind, he does NOT have the option to raise. OP, you are up."

My point was that whether the OP is or isn't happy is moot. And nothing in the OP suggests whether he is happy or not. Just thought it was curious that you brought up the sb's perspective to what should be an objective decision from the floor.

I won't be shocked no matter what the ruling here is. Floors make strange/or bad rulings all the time.

The OP is leaving us hanging!