hero limp calls pre, flop goes check check (hu), turn goes bet, raise, hero calls, river hero checks and villain pushes all her chips in.

At this point pot is $280 and opponent pushes $340. Hero now raises to around $600. Villain does nothing. After about 10-15 seconds villain exposes her cards and hero does likewise. Villain never makes a call of the last $50 but all her chips are past the line from when she potted the river by going all in.

Hero wins the pot. Must villain pay $280 or $340?

wer is da dealer?

This can go either way, because the dealer didn't enforce the correct bet amount of $280. Before you raised to $600 you should of corrected the bet amount. The villain only turned over her hand, it's not a call, she still has the option of calling your raise.

280, villain never called the raise, the dealer should have told her she was facing action. The question I don't know the answer to is what if villain doesn't say anything, and shows a winning hand.

This is the reason villain should have to pay the whole stack with the losing hand; you can't allow a freeroll.

Anyway, in a headsup pot, action offered and accepted, pot is right. If villain only wanted to bet the pot, she could have put in the correct amount, or said "pot". But she obviously wanted to go all in. Hero could have corrected the amount and just called for the pot size, but he was ok with the amount, so it stands.

I don't disagree, but hero could also have asked dealer or player if she called once she exposed her hand but before he showed his. He knew he raised, all that was needed was clarification of her action

True enough that hero could have handled the situation better, but as things happened I believe villain should be treated as having gone all in and been called.

Woulda coulda, shoulda....
I'd rule this as action offered and accepted. (But I think some rooms/floors today have never heard of that concept.)

I can see this going both ways, but I hope the dealer doesn't tell The Floor that 'she' went all in originally since it wouldn't look good for the dealer at that point.

If this went 'up stairs' they will side with the shorter amount since the 'all in' marker wasn't tossed in before the cards were exposed IMO.

There is error all around here, but the prevailing factor here should be that she put all her chips in the middle and thus they are all up for grabs as long as the opponent follows through appropriately, which in this case he did by announcing the raise. GL

How do you know they have all-in markers? Most places I know don't use them for cash games.

Allin markers (if used) are indicators, not the determining factor in when or whether a player's all in.

I'm ruling this as accepted action.

As several have stated, all the chips were in the middle when both hands were flipped.

As described dealer should come out of comma and give villain option to call. Assuming Villain sees Hero's cards it will be a 280 with a fold. Then again enough has gone wrong on the river that maybe she will call.

Then it shouldn't get beyond The Floor's decision. I stated if it went 'up stairs' to the cameras. They don't have audio and I have seen many a post on this site where weird things happen if it gets past The Floor.

If the dealer had access to the all-in chip, and it wasn't tossed, then I would anticipate a ruling for the 'call' amount in that scenario.

Every casino I've ever been to has them. It's the charity rooms that are hit or miss in my time playing. GL

None of this should have anything to do with the decision of this pot. The villain is not allowed to 'go all in' here. It should all be about the money being across the 'betting line'.

Suppose villain only put $280 across the line and then hero re-raised. At that point, the hero is putting the villain at a decision for the rest of her chips. Whether she now exposes her cards or not, makes no difference (as long as the casino allows exposed cards during head up play). She is ALLOWED to expose them and whether she has the winning hand or not would make no difference. She still would then have the option of calling or folding. If the Hero then exposes his cards before she makes her action, that is the hero's fault. It could be construed as a shatty angle by the villain, sure, but still not against the rules.

Hence, the only decision to be made here is if all of her chips being across the betting line (keeping in mind she put more chips then allowed across the line before the hero reraised) is a binding action now that the pot was raised.

The problem is that she was really not allowed to be putting that much money into the pot on her action to begin with and the dealer should have immediately counted it down and pushed her back the remaining amount BEFORE the hero acted. As a result of this, I could see a lot of floors ruling that her action is still open and she still has a right to fold with only her $280 being at risk or call her remaining amount (which she obviously would not knowing she is not good). Not that I agree with this, but it is most likely how it should be ruled.

Yes, the villain made a terrible play by not saying anything, putting too much money in the pot, and then exposing her cards before her action was really complete. However, that could be due to not knowing a lot about PLO, being new, or be angle shooting. The majority of the fault lies on the dealer and the Hero IMO. You both could of done a lot more to work this out before it got to this point.

BTW - The Hero could have also noticed the villain put too much money in the pot when she raised and then angle shot some himself by insta-raising to try to make her additional money be binding before anyone caught the mistake or before the dealer shipped her back the remaining balance, so that is another reason the fault should lie on the Hero and dealer.

You do not see a lot of all-in markers in PLO games. Also, there would have been no reason to give her an all in marker and she was not allowed to go all in in the first place, only allowed to bet $280 of her stack. No all marker should have come into play at all during the hand unless the hero was all in on his re-raise, so that should not even be part of the discussion. At no point should the villain have received an all in marker.

In my room the Villian went all-in and the hero called. Headsup in a cash game the players may bet beyond the Pot limit if the other player accepts the action and that is exactly what happened here. Hero had three choices. Call the all-in, Fold or ask to have the bet trimmed back to the Pot sized bet and call just the Pot sized bet.

So, hypothetically,

$1000 pot on River.
My opponent shoves $10K into the pot.
Dealer knows he can only bet $1K, but says nothing.
I know he can only bet $1K.
I say "Call".

In your room I have called $10K?

Or do I have to tell the dealer to return $9K of his bet (and get attitude from the dealer) and then say "Call"?

What if I don't say anything to the dealer but slide out $1K ? Is that a call of $1K, or do I have to complete it to $10K?

Then you have one unique room if Pot Limit Omaha is allowed to be more than the Pot Limit regardless if two players agree to it. I could see if the whole game was a heads up match and they agreed to it, but not a ring game that gets down to heads up at one point. I am sorry, but that is just plain ridiculous.

Regardless, you know that is NOT the situation here, so your point is useless to the discussion.

UMMM. Actually its my understanding its a pretty traditional rule. I will not venture to guess how many rooms use it or not because I most of the rooms I have worked in before did not spread PLO, and I don't play it.

Its not ridiculous at all .... its an acknowledgement of the players AGREEING to alter the limitation on the bet size since it does not occur without the consent of both players.

If you are in a limit game and the pot gets heads up between two players and they keep reraising each other and then one player says hey we are just going to keep reraising why don;t we go all-in and the other player says YES that makes sense lets do that. Why would it be ridiculous to acknowledge there agreement as opposed to insisting on them making individual reraises as set forth in the structure. ..... This is the same principle.

I do not know that this isn't the case here .... as I have no idea what the rules in the OPs cardroom are. But Its not unreasonable to suggest that they may have such a rule.

I dont play PLO, but remember other threads where people said that heads up PLO was in fact a bit different in that the " action offered/accepted" concept could come into play.

In RROP, the rules could be read to mean that if you dont correct an oversize wager before you act on it, then you could be held to the higher bet. Guess it all comes down to room policy, but this doesnt seem to be as clear cut to being held to pot sized bet as it might seem on surface.

"1. If a wager is made that exceeds the pot size, the surplus will be given back to the bettor as soon as possible, and the amount will be reduced to the maximum allowable.

2. The dealer or any player in the game can and should call attention to a wager that appears to exceed the pot size (this also applies to heads-up pots). The oversize wager may be corrected at any point until all players have acted on it.

3. If an oversize wager has stood for a length of time with someone considering what action to take, that person has had to act on a wager that was thought to be a certain size. If the player then decides to call or raise, and attention is called at this late point to whether this is an allowable amount, the floorperson may rule that the oversize amount must stand (especially if the person now trying to reduce the amount is the person that made the wager)."

I am not a PLO player so this is interesting to me, as I never would have thought I was calling more than e.g. $1k in Angus's example. I imagine it would be a rude and unnecessarily hostile awakening to new players.

I have seen this ruled as a call in my room (its wasn't as extreme as 10K vs 1k. But a played shoved all-in for an amount that was obviously in excess of the pot. Player announced call. After the hands were revealed he claimed he was only on the hook for a pot sized bet ... floor ruled it was a call of the all-in bet.

I have no idea why you think you would get attitude from the dealer. You can say any number of things that will indicate you only wish to call the pot size bet. "Hey dealer is that more than the pot?" will probably get a you an explanation of your options. "I call $1000" works. "Dealer cut his bet back to a pot sized bet" would also work


I would try to clarify your intent. The whole point of this rule is to acknowledge the players agreement to bet beyond the pot limit. So there is nothing wrong with clarifying the players intent. If you just tossed out a $1k chip thats pretty ambigious to me. If you are carefully counting out exactly $1k .... I'm thinking you only intend to call the $1k.

As a practical matter this doesn't come up often. Off hand I can think of only one issue at my tables which was the one I mentioned above. Generally the players will very clearly indicate that they want all the money in ... and then they don't try to get out of it.

In the case where I did have the issue ... it was pretty clear to me that the player who lost was just trying to get a freeroll. If he had won he wasn't going to object to getting the whole all-in bet.

If their is a scenario where I think this can be problematic it isn't one in which a player makes an obviously excessive bet. It would the case where the bet is just a little bit more than pot and the caller may legitimately be thinking the bet was a pot sized bet. 10k pot and player shoves out 10,100. Guy says call .... is a harder scenario then 1k pot and guys shoves out 10k.

I know that I have read that Robert Ciaffone (author of RROP) does not like this rule and believes that the bet should be capped at the pot sized regardless.

I do/did play a lot of live PLO in Vegas, MD, and AC and have never ever seen this before. I have seen a few specific examples of what you state about heads up play, but it was completely verbalized between the two players and the example was so clear cut, there would be absolutely no confusion as to what is going on.

The example is more like this:

Player A has $1000 in chips left on the river, the pot looks close to $1000, but is actually $850. Player A puts in his whole stack. Dealer TELLS player A it is needs to be $850 and before the refund is given, Player B says to player A, 'Do you want to just put it all in anyway?', and puts in at least $1000 himself as if he was re-raising him to get it all in.

I have never, ever, in my 18+ years of playing seen a pot be $850 on the river, Player A put a $1000 chip in without saying a word, Player B then calling, and have to call $1000 instead of $850. This just cannot happen without explicit communication between the two players and obviously that did not happen in this situation or the OP would not be posting this question. Come on, that is pretty obvious in this post psandman.