1/3 10 handed live, active table. 2 handed on the river,
Pot +/- $150,
board is 2,5,9,5,3 r.
Player A checks (dealer "action on you(player B))",
player B bets $45 (dealer "bet $45),
player A check raise to $160 (dealer "raise to $160),
player B shoves in all his chips (nothing from dealer),
player A tables his hand,
player B tables his hand.
Player B has the superior holding.
Dealer pushes pot to player B then turns to player A and says "you owe X more dollars".
Player A "I bet the $160"
Dealer "player B was all in for $X more"
Player A "I never called the ($X) raise"
Dealer "You tabled your hand"
Player A "so did player B"
Casino allows table talk/showing cards heads up.
Ruling?

Player A doesn't owe anything. Next hand.

Sounds like A never did anything that even resembles a call. A doesn't owe anything more than the $160. B learns a hopefully cheap lesson to verify your bet has been called before tabling your hand.

I see not a single valid reason to hold player A to a call here? Maybe I am missing something and player A can certainly be shooting an angle here, but to me there's just nothing he did that looked/sounded like a call.

people show their hand while folding to a heads up bet all the time. It's not a call and the dealer should go back to table games.

How much was the additional "X"? The dealer should have made it clear to Player A that it's a re-raise all-in and not a call.

Wow! Very interesting initial responses. While all the info I provided is accurate I left out some of the details as Playbig2000 noticed because I was curious as to whether or not it may impact responses.
The dealer made the initial ruling and was quite "no question" adamant, and that the floor would back him. The floor did back him as did the overall shift manager.

Player A was not pleased.

Player A folded to the all in.

If B hadn't tabled his hand also, he could ask A if he's calling.
Or he could say "Hey he folded, that's a dead hand" trying to get the call.

Dealer and floor must be friends with B.

If I'm player A my "not pleased" is going to look like me taking my chips off the table and never returning to the room.

We are t9old player A tabled his hand ... not that player a showed his hand. It seems pretty clear to me that this indicates he was making a claim for the pot.

It seems pretty clear to me that his silence up until the moment the dealer asks for the additional chips indicates he was quite content for everyone to believe he called.


Unless Player A is drunk or completely clueless this seems like he is taking a shot. And especially if he has any prior history of shot taking it is time for him to go.

Player A didn't necessarily go in with the intention of angling, it may have been an afterthought to save a few bucks after losing. People do that move a lot, deciding they want to put another player all in but instead of saying the words "all in" they just push out roughly the right number of chips. Then both players can't wait to turn their hands up, not realizing action hasn't finished.

The dealer should have stopped things before at least B's hand was turned up but sometimes it happens very fast. Both players need to be more clear with their actions and make sure the action is finished before tabling.

He either didn't know there was a raise or he was showing his hand to get a read, which is legal in this room?

As played, you really can't hold player A to a call, but it certainly could have been an angle. If I fold face up like that, I always toss them towards the muck, indicating I am not protecting my cards. And the dealer will still usually ask if I am folding. I don't like the fact that this situation let A effectively freeroll his action, but the fault is on the dealer for not clarifying A's intent immediately.

Ridiculous ruling. So much I would have found it uninteresting if the correct ruling had been made. It would actually be a tougher ruling if seat A had the better hand.

You still left out "some details" ... How much was "$X" ?

Actually I just read this badly ... tmay not have been an angle because x may have been a small amount and Player A may not have realized there was a raise.

As I read it I was imagining a significant amount of additional chips.

If its truly insignificant i believe Player A is a douche if he does objects to paying it because HE CAUSED the problem (see below) and he would have called the insignificant amount (exception being if his hand is actually complete trash and he was bluffing .. in that case Ill give him the benefit of the doubt

But I dont really buy the I was showing my hand to get "get a read" not to table my hand excuse. I believe when you are doing this it is incumbant on you to be clear that you are not acting .... that you are just showing your cards. This is such an easy thing to cause confusion that I feel you get the blame if you do it and don;t take steps to be clear abput what you are doing.

dealer is terrible for not controlling the action but obviously can't make player A call if he didn't

This.

In my room when you throw your hand in face up when facing action it is considered a fold. Would certainly help the ruling here, but the face that A opened his hand does not mean he called. Since when does tabling your hand = call? I've never heard of that.

Yup, ruling seems shockingly bad - floor should be embarassed. Dealer insisting the floor will back him is also not a good look.

Also a room having 10-handed games can be a pretty huge red flag there are some problems.

No additional chips were put into the pot and no verbal declaration of a call was made. It's a fold.

Sometimes this can be an angle but most times it's just a case of players being too antsy at showdown and not taking a moment to realize that they were reraised.

I already agreed with the bad ruling part, but WTF??

Maybe a tad dramatic for my part but 10-handed is so much worse of a game than 9 for the players that I would expect services to suffer in other areas

Why are ten handed games so bad?
In my area, all the card rooms run 10 handed games. This includes NLHE, PLO, and Omaha hi lo. Players expect the games to be 10 handed.

Why?

I doubt 10 handed is "much worse" for a player who refuses to play in a game that has fewer than 7 or 8 players because he doesn't play shorthanded?

I remember when the MGM in LV changed from 10 to 9 handed tables maybe 5 years ago, lots of people where furious about that. Simple reasoning: Now I have to pay a big blind every 9 hands instead of every 10 hands. That's not good for people who wait for QQ+. 9 handed games also break faster than 10 handed games, for the above mentioned fact that some people sit out if the game gets down to 6 or 7 players.

(FWIW, I prefer 9 handed tables, but there are lots of older small stakes players who disagree)

On topic: How would other people handle this situation? If I was player A and was told to pay an additional amount X that seems significant to me, I'd consider racking up and leaving instead.

10-handed...is so much worse than 9.

What.