My point was that the player that just called the bet is responsible for understanding that the bet is 156 in this spot. I know and understand that the dealer maybe didn't react quickly enough to realize that the betting player had more chips than a legal bet. I'm not at all insinuating that the dealer has the power to allow a bet larger than the pot size.

disagree. Do you want to sit there and wait for Joe Donkey to figure out what the next raise size will be or do you want to move along? I can grant that there may be an occasional situation where a player may say "pot" and not realize everything has blown up so large that he's now bet $1800, whereas he may bet less if he asks "what is a pot sized bet here?". I just don't see it being as big a deal as you do.

If PLO ever gets 1/10th as popular as HE, I'm through with this business.

If I had to work in a room that had a daily PLO game, I'd find another room.

Really, who needs this headache?

It may infuriate you, but the rule in every place I've played PLO is that the dealer is required to answer if asked what's already in the pot, or how much a pot-sized bet would be, and I think this is as it should be. Most players eventually learn to keep track on their own, but refusing this information is hardly the way to get new players into the game, or to keep the game moving.

I completely disagree with this.

Every player should know what their available actions are before choosing. When you play PLO online, you can move the slidebar and see what the maximum raise is without having to commit to actually raising. Everyone should be informed of their options if they ask.

So you want to be paid $30/hr to be a dealer, but you don't want to do any difficult maths?

You know there are a lot of unemployed people in your country... maybe you can give your job to someone who's a little more grateful for what they have?

I don't think it's the math that he objects to.

I spit out my coffee

+1
good dealers have no problem dealing plo and players are so sick of bad plo dealers when we actually get a good one they get tipped really well.

he sounds like an entitled dealer who thinks his job is to sit in the box, bs with the regs, pay no attention to the game and have players throw money at him.

guys like that deserve zero tips.

live isn't online.
in online hold em you can also see the pot size.

the ONLY reason the dealer has to keep track of the pot is bc by rule your bet can not exceed the pot. It's not the dealer's job to help you calculate your pots odds when facing a bet. They can't tell you the pot size in other games at any point in the hand- there is no reason they should be able to in plo other than when you actually bet the pot.

For example the pot is 400- i bet 350. the dealer should say absolutely nothing other than what my bet is. If I try to bet 500 then he should say"the pot is 400" and that is my bet. That's it.

In limit games they can't tell you what is in the pot either- that can only enforce the rule on what you can bet on each street. This is no different.

Your options when facing a bet are call fold or raise. The dealer isn't there to help you play your hand, they are there to run the game.Pay attention to the game.

I really want to drop a "lighten up, Francis". I agree with the majority of your posts, but I think you're missing the fact that forcing people to pay more attention to the game isn't good for you. You really think you'll get more benefit from a player not knowing what is exactly in the pot than the unintended consequence of players paying more attention to the game, or worse, making it less fun for the casual rec and maybe he doesn't play anymore?

forcing them to pay more attention doesn't mean they will.in fact they won't for the most part.
to top it off rec players tend to either

1)just bet some random stupid amount
2)mindlessly say pot

it's in my experience at least the tablet nits who aren't terrible at poker but terrible for the game who ask the dealer "what's in the pot" when facing a bet/before they bet. if they have to put the tablet down to pay attention and god forbid enage the table a little bit that's good for the game.

i disagree with you thinking it's mostly recs that do this- but if it is mostly recs doing this in your games then i totally agree with your conclusion.

Fair enough. Glad we can talk without getting heated. Sorry about whatever connotation comes with the Francis thing. I just don't see the big deal. We can agree to disagree =P

Yes but they can tell you how much you are allowed to bet .

Question for everyone:

I once witnessed something similar to OP, but with an added complication. Villain 1 declared "all-in" on the flop even though his stack was somewhat larger than the size of the pot. In hindsight, it was a shove of approx 650 when the pot was around 550. Villain 2 covers V1 and verbalized "call" and tossed in a single chip just after V1 pushed his entire stack forward and said "I'm all in." Either nobody caught it or nobody chose to speak up as it happened. It was completely unclear if either player involved was trying to angle at the time. The dealer, seemingly unaware, then proceeds to quickly run out the turn and river even though both players technically had money behind. V2 bricks and loses to V1's naked overpair. Nobody says a thing but V2 looks frustrated to lose. Somebody not in the hand then speaks up after the river came out and as the dealer is counting V1's stack saying "I think V1 bet more than the size of the pot." V2 now says he was never given an opportunity to act on the turn or river. He says both players had chips behind and that the river is premature since neither player was given a chance to act on the turn. He also may have been able to successfully bluff river, but that's arguably unlikely (due to very low SPR) and irrelevant to the proper ruling. He wants the floor called. He now wants the correct legal bets brought in on the flop. He wants each player to have a chance to act on the turn. He wants a new river since action was denied before.

I was there and just watched silently. One one hand, he had a point. Both players technically had chips behind and were not given a chance to act on the turn or river. On the other, nothing was said by anyone in the brief couple of seconds as the turn and, more importantly, the river was put out. Is it fair for him to have the ability to get another run out when he was silent at the time?

The dealer apologized saying he "is used to dealing NLH and forgot" to confirm whether it was a legal bet or not and the floor was brought over.

How should the floor have ruled? Specifically should the chance to act retroactively on the turn be granted or not and should a reshuffle and new river be awarded (with the chance to act again if any chips remain behind)?

Action offered and accepted in that case. You don't get to object to a (small) flop overbet only after the board has completely run out.

I have seen this exact situation multiple times, and this is the best ruling here.
Distant second choice (which I have actually seen done once) would be to reduce V1's bet to pot-size, but not rerun turn and river, and not permit additional action, and have V2 pay off original corrected bet. This is pretty illogical, but it is far preferable to letting V2 angle by rolling action back to turn, having seen original turn and river and V1's hand.

I really disagree with you, both in theory and in practice.
In poker theory, as a player, you are generally entitled to know how much you can bet. (You can ask the dealer, and do not have to discover this by trial and error.) This does come up in limit and NL games, not in terms of the pot size, but in terms of allowable bets, raises or min-raise amounts, and the dealer is supposed to answer these questions. Asking the size of the pot in a PL game is the same thing.
In practice, your approach would slow the game down, and would discourage or drive away players who haven't yet (or won't ever) learn to keep track of the pot. Or perhaps it would induce them to educate themselves? (Great.)
As far as calculating pot odds, knowing the size of the pot is only one factor, and in a pot-limit game, it is info to which the player is entitled. The dealer giving you this info is not even close to helping you play your hand. You aren't required to like this (because apparently you would like the game limited to experienced players who pay close attention)(!?), but it is the rule, and it does make sense.

So what do you think is the most important part that makes this situation different from the OP? I don't play much PLO and have never seen either situation, but I thought the overbet was accepted in the OP and should have been paid off as well.

except it's not the rule and it makes no sense.

the dealer is supposed to enforce the rules on what can be bet- no disagreement there.

player A bets 300, the pot has 500 in it -

"how much is in the pot?" in no way shape or form has anything to do with the dealer enforcing any rules. it is 100 pct so the player facing a 300 dollar bet can figure out his pot odds.

if the player asked "can he bet that much?" a simple yes or no has everything to do with enforcing the rules.

if we're playing 40/80 limit and you try and bet 120 on the river the dealer will correct you. he won't tell me how much is in the pot after he does correct you.

players won't pay more attention if you make them-i'm not at all worried about that.my approach won't slow the game down at all.

the bolded is an absurd statement.it completely helps someone play their hand.

In the OP, the dealer corrected P1's bet amount before anyone showed their cards. Both players ostensibly heard him do so. Neither one said anything, indicating acceptance of the dealer's correction. In particular, P2 did not say "in that case, I raise pot" or anything similar.

If the dealer had not said anything in OP, and players had just turned over their hands, then I would agree it was action offered and accepted for them too.

In a perfect world, I wish dealer had returned the amount above 156 to both players too, as this would have made it crystal clear what was happening to all three parties. But absent that, my ruling is that dealer corrected the bet amount down to 156 (why else would he make that comment?), and then both players accepted the revised amount (P1 didn't have a choice, really).

Suit and RR basically covered this already in posts 7 and 13.

Unlike the OP, this is precisely the spot where accepted action applies. All in was declared and called, the stacks of both players were allegedly visibly clear and reasonably known by both, the board was run out and neither player objected when there were multiple opportunities available, and they both turned their cards over clearly accepting that the action was all in. Accepted action all day, every day.

However, if there were hidden chips by the all in player or the all in was too significantly more than what a pot sized bet was I may declare both players all in for the size of a pot sized bet on the flop but the differential would have to be absolutely extreme (ie he has three 1k's behind his stack when a pot sized bet was $200)

+1

in my view it's not an angle it is a legal option to go all in in a pot limit game and it is the onus of the potential caller to clarify that he only wants to call a pot sized bet.

1. Well, it certainly is the rule in most places where I've played ( mostly LV and East Coast). Perhaps your experience differs?
2. At least we agree on what the dealer's reaction to an overbet should be.
3. FWIW, a lot of times, the question has nothing directly to do with pot odds on a call, but is simply a player (often not facing a bet) trying to decide whether to make a full pot-sized bet or something smaller.
4. But anyway, viewed in the broadest terms, of course giving a player any info might be of some assistance in playing his hand. But there is some info to which the player is entitled, anyway. "How much is the bet?" "Is he allin?", "How many bills is he playing", "Can I raise?", "How much would a minraise be?", "What was that just-exposed card?", "If I call, can V2 reraise?" "Was that a straddle or a raise?", etc., etc., are all examples of questions which are generally required to be answered; and obviously the answers to these might help a player play his hand. But just as obviously, they are all examples of info to which the player is entitled, and it is not considered inappropriate when the dealer answers.
In a pot-limit game, the pot size is clearly critical, much more so than in limit or even NL. IME, players are entitled to know the size of the pot and the dealer is required to furnish the pot size if asked, at least where I've played. Granted that the players should learn to keep track of this themselves, and granted this is different than in NL or limit, but it is the rule in at least many places. I don't see this as a bad thing, but I guess you do.
5. If the dealer isn't allowed to reveal the pot size (which I haven't seen), or if the dealer can't do this because of inattention or inexperience (which I do see often), and the player who asked then has to mentally reconstruct the betting, it does slow the game down a bit, IME.
Anyway, there are a lot more infuriating things about PLO than this, IME.