Probably not too thread worthy but I think it's always an interesting topic ... When floors come to a table should they consult with the players or only the dealer?

Test case ... 3 players (one shorty all-in) to showdown. Player A (seat 3) shows trip 8s (68) and Player B (seat 5) pauses and silently tables QJ. Player C shows, never tables, JJ and puts his cards face down on table.

Dealer pushes whole board upwards and pushes main into side and on towards Player A. Dealer combines all 3 player's cards and board is just about to set them all down on top of the stub when Player B says he had a flush, which beats trip 8s. Dealer says he didn't see 4-flush and calls floor.

Dealer re-creates hole cards and board but is unsure if Player 3 had 68 or 68 Dealer indicates he probably would've noticed a monotone board but he is not sure.

Floor? Charity room and unfortunately the only cash table with no camera coverage since room is extra busy. GL

This is damn confusing as written but I'm guessing it comes down to:
8 was on the board making or 4 flush vs
8 was in the player's hand and Player B's QJo isn't a flush

If the dealer isn't sure and there's no camera coverage then I think going with consensus of the table is okay. I'm not going to be convinced if Player B is the only one who saw the flush and if everyone is now shouting "He had the flush" then KITN all around for not speaking up sooner.

The floor should receive the testimonies from anyone who has a worthwhile one to give and then weigh those testimonies as he or she sees fit. The first should come from the dealer, then the players.

Sorry for the confusion .. Was trying to keep it short.

Final board ... 8x 54 8 A

Player B tables QJ

Player A has 68x

So it comes down to the 8 or 8 being on the board in order to give Player B the flush or Player A wins with trip 8s.

There is no dispute that these are the cards. It's just the dealer doesn't know for sure which card was on the board. GL

Players don't overule the dealer. The floor makes a decision and should get all available relevant information to make the correct decision.

How did betting go? When Player B "hit his flush", did he bet? Did Player A bet his trips on the turn? Player A should have bet his trips on the turn. If Player B called, then it's plausible that he called with the Q-high flush draw. QJ on a board 854-8 without a flush draw doesn't make any sense.

B waited for all that to happen? He waited till the cards were mixed together to speak up? Too late.

Certainly the flow of the hand can help us determine what makes sense for each V to have as hole cards.

I was more interested in how often, if ever, a floor would pursue information from the players if the dealer wasn't positive. 'Overrule' is a bit steep I admit. GL

I realized that shortly I after I couldn't edit the post. Oops.

When it comes to determining the factual questions very often the best source of information is going to be the dealer because the dealer has no stake in the outcome.

On the other hand if the dealer isn't sure about something the floor has to take that into consideration in judging all information.

In any event I would expect the floor to listen to what anyone who has information about what happened and then after considering all the information reach a decision

Very often that is the reason why the dealer is the worst source of information.

Also lets be honest, it's rare that the dealer is truly impartial. Usually dealers will favor regs that tip well over all others at the table. A good dealer may tell himself he doesn't allow his personal preference for that reg to affect his decision at all. I say, that's just not possible. It has to affect it to at least some degree.


Not saying the system isn't correct, over all the dealer should be the one reporting to the floorman especially at lower stakes where most of the players don't actually know the rules all that well, but let's not kid ourselves that the dealers are completely impartial, because that is BS. They have favorites among the players, and that favoritism will have an impact on their decisions and an impact on their report to the floor, whether they like to admit it or not.

As a floor, I will always get the info/facts from the dealer first and ask the players to wait. Then, I will let the players chime in regardless if the dealer is sure or not just in case any of them disagree, I want them to be heard. If the dealer is unsure as in your example, I will certainly use what the players say to help make a decision. Key word is "help". I generally need a pretty good majority to agree. With no camera coverage in the example given I may have to say player B was too late to speak up and the pot goes to the trip 8s.

This is just not true. There are some dealers I'm sure that may do this, but IME they don't because if the supervisor has any brain at all they will catch on to this and it won't turn out well for the dealer. Most won't risk the consequences to keep the good tipper happy.

I think there is a big difference between those things where a dealer is making decisions and things where a dealer is relaying facts to a floor.

Certainly dealers are more likely to let players they like have a little more room on behavioral issues. Joe is generally a nice guy so when he uses profanity once or twice I let it go. Jim is a jerk so I'm right on top of him when he starts swearing.

But if it gets to the point where a dealer is describing what happened to a floor I think it's unlikely he is going to describe things differently based on personal preference for one player over another.

I know some people think dealers lie to cover their own mistakes but my experience is few dealers are actually in position where a mistake is going to carry a heavy penalty and those dealers are going to not call a floor and try to fix it themselves

I agree that they won't do anything blatant in favor of the good tipper. But I think they will unconsciously give/allow the good tipper small things they won't give/allow to the bad tipper. Psandman's example was good. Allowing someone you like to drop a casual f-bomb or two to his neighbor, but jumping all over a bad tipper the very first time he utters the word.

Here's another one. Allowing a player you like to straddle a bit late (as long as they haven't looked at their first card yet,) but being a complete stickler when someone you don't like wants to straddle in the exact same situation.

Now those two don't really affect anyone's profit or loss at the table, so they don't seem like huge deals. But what if there is a dispute later, where the whole situation is not that clear and the ruling is one of those could go either way rulings? I refuse to believe dealers and floor don't more often than not choose the side of the players they personally like more in really close decisions like that.

It's just human nature, to have favorites and treat you favorites better. And dealers and floorman are human after all, same as the rest of us.

Not what you asked but I'm curious if dealers here can comment: Is there a specific order that the poker dealer will pick up the cards, allowing for re-creation? I was watching a how to deal 21 video (I'm hosting a games table at a wedding), and pro dealers should have a very specific order, fro. What I hather.

No. We do not pick up and stack cards in an order to allow recreation. We do however if we are doing are job correctly take and muck losers and leave the winner until after the pot has been awarded so that players can protect their hands

Actually it's the dead opposite. The muck is designed to be a hopelessly jumbled mess if done properly.

This is how it should be and dealers that don't understand this have no interest in the game of poker.

The pot should be pushed before the board and winners are swiped in and mucked.

Tyvm guys

For table games there is absolutely a 'correct' order to collecting the cards in order to allow re-creation of the hand, although with all the shuffle machines now often an issue doesn't get raised in time.

In poker the muck is the muck and has no order. Burns get tucked near the pot. The stub gets spread with the cut card on top. Muck is opposite the pot. Losing hands/mucked hands go into the muck indiscriminately. Winning hand stays in front of winner until pot is pushed.

Great responses ... thanks. I'd like to think that all floors would have a sense for the situation instead of drawing the line at the dealer.

In this case here the floor listened to the dealer and then asked each player involved in the showdown what they saw. Then a reg player at the table was asked by the floor if they agreed to the assessment and the pot was awarded to the flush player.

In an interesting side note, since some of the chips had already been stacked by the 'trips' player the flush was only awarded what was left scattered on the felt in front of the 'trips' player's stack. He estimated that he missed out on $20 in the end. GL

The dealers at the Borgata aren't allowed to have the only say as far as we're concerned. When they can prove that they're not completely incompetent, then perhaps we'll give them the floor and keep out of it.

We have dealers that can't even read the board or split up a pot without making mistake after mistake. Do you think I'm going to put my fate in someone who doesn't know a simple task such as that? No way.

That said, I don't mind if the dealer takes the first crack at it(and I understand that that is the proper procedure in most places), but if I see/hear that the dealer is not able to get the facts straight, then I'm sorry but I'm going to interject as politely as I possibly can.

The player cannot overrule the dealer. If the dealer has been overuled by the players then He should quit his job. He should know how to read the card that is his job.

Eye in the sky.