Ok so its going to be hard for some of you to respond to this because it only applies to rooms that close on a day-to-day basis (Michigan, Florida, etc.).

Imagine your room has to close at 2am everyday.

Cash game - last hand of the night.

Only 4 players are left at the table, and several others are railing.

UTG bets on the turn, 2 fold, and button calls.

River comes, UTG bets $50, button shoves for $500. UTG says, if you make it $200 I will call (he also states that he may call anyways). Button says ok, I allow it, UTG calls and actually wins the pot.

Now, I know that in most situations this is really bad, but I am not sure it is here. My reasons are that the AI bet affected no one other than UTG and button, as all others were out of the hand before that bet. Also, since this was last hand of the night, stack sizes do not impose on other players after this hand.

Now, a rail bird, who has been out of the game for about 30 minutes, went nuts on me for allowing it and said it was a terrible ruling.

I disagree, but am still 'green' for the most part. Am I wrong to allow this? I hope not, but I may be.

So you are the dealer in this hand? And both players agreed to reduce the bet on the river at the end of the night in a hand that doesnt affect anyone else. Not like someone already folded for 500 on the river and then he changed it right? I think it's fine. Even if it's technically against the rules, both players agreed, so I'm fine with it. Railbird needs to mind his own business.

If you are really uncertain about a decision just call the floor to get a proper ruling, not worth risking your job.

I can't imagine why you'd allow it, there is literally no upside and plenty of downside to doing so. Just say no.

Having said that, I don't really care that you did allow it, even as a player in that game.

Just tell the players that they cannot change the bet, but that they can agree for the winner to give the loser $300 back after the hand.

I see nothing wrong with allowing it. As the floor I would've allowed it too and my room closes at 3am every weekday and I've seen a lot of crazy things happen during that last hand.

Totally fine.

Screw him.

Floor .. "Bet stands"
Player UTG .. "OK, if I call will you give me $300 in the parking lot if I lose and vice versa if I win?"
Player B .. "OK, sure"

Now which scenario can go 'worse' than the other here?

Last hand of the night .. Michigan .. players can't 'give' chips to each other per regulation .. Showdowns are 'not' allowed .. The Gaming Board has long gone to bed.

The issue here is that it will be a talking point for as long as it takes the Floor/Owner to settle down the masses .. until the next hot topic pops up. An upset player can even call Gaming and tell them weeks later. You just don't want to open a door in today's Michigan charity world!! GL

For the house and person who decides to allow the collusion and changed bet? The one that violates your gaming regulations.

Let the players know that they house won't be responsible for any outside agreements they may make, then let them sort it out if they want.

My only objection to allowing it is that players tend to not see nuance.....

Next week a guy on the turn will shove all in get 2 folds and his last opponent will sggest the same thing... and when you tell him no he will go ballistic because you "always allowed it before." He will either not understand or will willfully refuse to acknowledge the different situation.

(I don't even care about the last hand of the night thing..... to me the stack size issue is unimportant unless I believe players are deliberately manipulating it ......)

To summarize a bit. If you look at the decision in isolation, it isn't a big deal. Both players agreed, no one else is harmed. I suspect this is a smaller room and catering to your most loyal players is good for customer satisfaction.

If you look at it as part of a larger picture, it is a bad decision. You announced that the players can talk you into knowingly changing the rules at random. It will take you a minute or more to explain why that situation was different than all the other possible permutations that can come up like it. While two regulars are happy, one is clearly not happy. If you felt like you had to come up with an accomendation, you could have just said, "action is on you, 450 to call. Whatever you guys decide later isn't the room's business and is up to you."

In a game where almost no rules are universally acknowledged, "winging it" is a bad idea.

+1

"This is the bet. We can, and are legally required, to enforce this bet. If you make any other agreement, we can't stop you but we also can't enforce it."

EZ game.

I do not like this approach at all. The underlying suggestion is that the poker room will not take any action on deals performed between the parties. And while I would find that acceptable here ..... There are lots of situations where that is reasonable.

While the poker room staff may not have the power to prevent players from settling up away from the table that does not make them powerless to act when it comes to light. Players can and should be banned if they are doing something collusive.

In tournament context a player could be disqualified from the tournament if it comes to light they have entered into an agreement contrary to the rules.

Players should not be advised to try to circumvent rules by entering into outside agreements.

Why does every ruling need to have Grand Unified Theory level of covering all scenarios?

Why does two people shaking hands in the last hand in a cash game before a room shutdown in a small charity room in Michigan have to fit with the bigger picture? Nobody's saying that every room has to enforce every agreement at every game.

Yes but when a floor person stands in front of a table full of players and tells them "Whatever you guys decide later isn't the room's business and is up to you.". He is telling them all that making deals like this not a concern of the room ..... He is not saying to them that in this unique instance he is going to allow the deal he is announcing a general principal that these sorts of deals are outside the realm of being ruled upon by the poker room.

It's not that there needs to be a grand unifying theory. It's that you need to be aware of the words you say and how the players are going to consider them as an announcement of the rules and policy.

I don't objects to the player being allowed to reduce his bet in this scenario. But I want the floors ruling to be "in this particular scenario because it has no impact on other players and doesn't appear to be collusive I will allow it.". Not just "yeah it's allowed".

And even if you are aware of and use excellent grammar in your explanation/ruling the story will be twisted as soon as it leaves the building. People will filter to their own uses for sure ... And then they try to push the envelope in a much more delicate situation.

I'd be on the phone with my Mom or Dad and say, "IF we have the time, we MIGHT stop by around 4:30." If I didn't follow up with a phone call later I would no doubt get a call at 4:45 stating, "I thought you were stopping by at 4:30?"

Lots of people wont bother with the conditions of a statement, just the statement in general. GL

I agree with this .... but that that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. There are some people who will understand.

That sounds like the room is going to enforce the deal if someone welches.

No. I'm not talking about a deal being made away from the table. I'm talking about allowing the player to reduce the bet...

I do not think the floor should ever suggest it is acceptable to make adeal away from the table.

Why do you keep using the word "allow" like you're the dictator of some totalitarian state?

This 'Murca. You're allowed to anything you're not specifically disallowed to do.

If they want to chop it up in the parking lot, you can ban them from coming back in but you can't stop them from doing it.

I've already acknowledged that you can't stop them. That doesn't mean it's allowed and since you acknowledge that it can be addressed by not letting them play anymore I don't see what your point is supposed to be here