This is a hand / situation we will be discussing in an up coming episode of the Top Pair Home Game Poker podcast (www.toppair.net). It is a hand I was involved in so my perspectives might be tainted but I am sure Eric will offer a "fair & balanced" analysis. I apologize that I don't recall, or have record of, every single detail:

We were in the late stages of a HOE, low buy in, 2 table, 17 participant tournament. It was the final table and we were down to 5 players and the blinds were significant. It was an Omaha round. I had the button and had a pretty big chip stack, probably either 1st or 2nd. My hand included QQ, I am not sure of the other two cards but I don't think they had any bearing on the eventual outcome.

Pre-flop limps by 2 or 3 players in front of me, I also limp and player B, in the blind, checks the option. Flop has a queen, no flush possibilities, and two cards to a potential, middle card straight. Player B makes a bet, the other limpers fold. I declare my intention to make a pot size bet / raise. Before my bet amount is defined, B claims a re-raise to "all in". Having the "nuts" with limited re-draw possibilities on the flop, I quickly announce that I call that "all in" action. This is where it gets a bit fuzzy to me. We had a set dealer who was not playing at the time. My recollection is he stated "all in bet & called". As is the procedure we follow when it is heads up, and one player is all in, I turned up my hand and tabled it. Having the "nuts" at the time I didn't want to provoke any SLOW ROLL allegation, so I acted swiftly & decisively to flip up my cards.

Player B then announces that in fact his all in action had been improper, as all his chips at that point exceed what would have been due as the result of the cap of only allowing a pot size raise. He further stated that because of that factor, and the result that he still had a small quantity of chips behind, he would not be turning up his cards.

This left me feeling very vulnerable in that my hand was face up for B to see but I had no idea what his 4 down cards were, what draws he had, how far ahead I was, etc. This was compounded by the fact that there were 2 more betting streets, the turn & the river. Unfortunately my exposed cards constituted the bell that couldn't be un-wrung. I was in a very stressful and irritating situation.

The turn came out, giving the third card to a straight, and my anxiety level ramped up higher. B checked and I checked. The river was a blank. B checked, I bet all in, B folded, I won the pot.

In retrospect, and after discussing this with a couple of other players from the group, I feel I made two significant errors. I am sure on dissecting the hand there were others. First, my misplaced confidence that the raise made by B was a legal raise. I relied on his analysis of what was a pot size re-raise and that based on his conclusion it would have put him all in. I also didn't occur to me that because B raised my pot size raise that now the betting was still open for me to re-pot and the all in of B's chips would have been achieved or that B would have folded to my re-raise.

Hind sight of course is always 20/20. The "rest of the story" concludes with B clawing his way back from a short stack and taking 2nd place instead of having his chips all in on the hand at issue, losing that hand, and being out of the tournament.

Would love to have some feedback & input from you guys that we can add to our segment

You've pretty much nailed it, I think.

In poker, it doesn't really matter what you're "sure" is happening, or what you "know" is "supposed" to happen. What's important is that your opponents agree with your interpretation before things proceed. Nobody is ever going to fault you for pausing to double-check the pot is right before showdown. The slowroll is only when everybody agrees that the pot is right and is waiting for you to show. As a dealer, I prefer people wait for me to tell them, because of exactly this kind of problem. You'd be surprised how often a third player is missed, or someone thinks a bet is all-in when it isn't (and hasn't even been declared as such).

Wait until the pot is right, and everybody agrees that the pot is right. In home games, I say something like, "That's it? No more betting?" It's to protect myself when I've missed something, and it's to get that extra level of confirmation in order to avoid an angle shot.

As a PL player, you should learn and love the "3x" rule, so that you have a good sense of when a bet is bigger than it should be.

HOWEVER... Action Offered, Action Accepted. Since it's a tournament, it's a little fuzzier, and I've never dealt a PL tournament where it was a problem (since I'm awesome at catching these things immediately ), but in PL cash games, if a player says all-in and is called by someone heads-up, the bet stays, even if it wasn't a "legal" bet.

If he was able to tell you instantly that he wasn't all-in upon seeing your cards, then he knew it before you did it. He could have spoken up while the other players were folding. He could have spoken up when you were calling what was declared as "all-in".

If you feel it was an honest mistake, then just move on from it. If you feel it was an angle, then reconsider his invitation to future games. At least list it as a mark against him. We don't need that kind of crap in home games.

I think pfap covered it. You should always make sure that everyone agrees on the action before moving forward. I don't have much PL experience, but I'd bet that pot-counting mistakes are very common, so agreeing on the action becomes even more important.

This is the part that really bothers me. As a host, if I was asked to make a ruling and I was told that Villain instantly knew that he wasn't all-in, I'd lean heavily toward an "action offered, action accepted" ruling and force him to put all his chips in the pot. It just reeks of an angleshoot.

Robert's is pretty clear on over-size bets in PL games. To wit:

Item two is the kicker. The oversize wager may be corrected at any point until all players have acted on it.

Once the action closes, of course, the oversize wager stands.

If I read the OP correctly, he closes the action.

Obviously the person closing the action can angle here - if he knows the bet is bad, nobody else catches it, and he wants to call an oversize bet - but the rule is pretty straightforward.

Even better! It's good to know that RRoP backs me up.

Good pull, thanks Pali!

Another thought: to protect your hand, don't call his bet. Say "all-in". That way you're covered no matter what. Before showing, ask if he's all-in. Since hands need to be tabled for an all-in, it doesn't matter who shows first.

This is a good policy for NLHE, too. I've seen people try to count down an unbet stack exactly, bet a little less than the player's stack, then not call when the other player shoves. Or another player will say "call" while shoving a stack that's a bit more, thinking he's all-in, then wondering why he's not getting the full bet when he wins. (Also a good angle to try to save when you lose, but try it at my game and it'll be your last. )

Thanks guys for the input, keep it coming - Good To Have You Back pfapfap!!

According to RRoP # 3 above, since my action was the last taken and the announcement that the announced raise was too big came after I took the action of calling his all in, the floor person could have ruled that the oversize amount must stand.

Am I reading / interpreting that right?

Yes.

As a floor, this is how I'd approach it:

If the stack were reasonably close to a pot-size, maybe even double a legal bet, I'd make it stand, especially in this context. OTOH, if there's a weaker player making or reacting to a grossly oversized bet, which should be clear to others at the table who are angling for pot-bet when lost yet all-in when won, I'd give a warning, and make sure the dealer stepped up in the future.

That's an extreme example, of course, but I feel that's part of why it's up to the floor's discretion. In your case, if the dealer agrees it happened as described, the bet stands, provided there's no TDA rule while explicitly contradicts Robert's.

(And thanks! Always enjoy your talking-point threads.)

Backwards.

The oversize amount stands by default and a floor person could make a ruling that it's only pot-size if he felt it was in the best interests of the game as a whole.

Player B is a ****ing douchebag, and I wouldn't invite him to your next game.

That said, I agree with what's already been stated. The bet should stand.

You can intend to bet all your chips in a pot-limit game, but the rules prevent it.

The only reason the bet stands is because two players made a mistake.

There were more than two players in the hand. More than two players made a mistake.

There were more than two players at the table, even if they weren't in the hand.

Everybody made a mistake. Everybody should speak up.

...except for possibly the bettor, who may have intended exactly what happened.

So, was it HOE or HAE you were playing? I'm assuming HAE, since QQ was your only focus

Bubble?



Not sure what you're looking for here- are you asking whether he should have been committed to be all-in? That depends on house rules, house precedent for these situations and whether villain was a known angler or not.

The fact that he fought back to 2nd place (ahead of you?) should be celebrated, not condemned, btw.


Conclusion- you should be thrilled that you learned your lessons from this, at no immediate cost to you (on this hand). Though, how the hell you bet the river makes me want to smack you. He's showing his damned cards, after this crap.... and you aren't getting called unless beaten, so what the hell were you thinking?

Good observation, obviously my thinking was a bit muddled by then.

One point I am still not sure about. In view of the specifics outlined, when the dust settled after the determination that B's raise could only be the size of the pot, could I have raised at that point to put player B all in?

I made a pot size bet, B raised and stated he was all in. I stated, "I call the all in bet". My intention was clearly to call an amount of chips that totaled his whole stack. After he determined he could not go all in because of the limitation of the pot size, could I have then made a re-raise to put B all in?

In my mind I clearly showed the intention of wanting to call a bet that would have totaled B's entire stack, since B could not raise that much but did make a pot size raise over my bet, wouldn't the action be open for me to make another bet/raise in response to his action, thereby achieving my stated of goal of wanting to play for a pot that totaled all his chips?

Given that his bet was misleading and you had legal action allowed, I'd rule that you could re-raise all in, after smacking you in the head for exposing your cards.... and not betting the turn instead of the river.


though, in your defense, the card turnover wasn't really your fault. remember it for next time, though.

So can the penalty be reduced to one smack in the head + one vigorous finger wagging?

In a world of angry, totalitarian tournament directors, you'd get a penalty for exposing your hand early, the action you're facing would be corrected ("He's not all in, sir.") and you'd get maybe even only get to call. ...damned totalitarian tournament directors.

Why did you shove the river?

Glutton For Punishment - Brain Fart - Still Spinning From The Prior Events In The Hand And Obviously Not Thinking Clearly - A Direct Violation Of The DBS (Don't Be Stupid) Rule

Take your pick

Depends on how well my Turkey Day goes....

We discussed this on our latest episode, Top Pair Home Game Podcast (www.toppair.net)