Totally and completely disagree here because of the bolded. These things are generally easier for onlookers than for those doing it, so if he couldn't follow it, something broke down.

Dealing poker isn't about proving how good you are at figuring out complicated situations. It's about clarity for the players. They should have no doubt about what's going on. It's not about what you know, it's about what you can demonstrate. If the status of my table isn't crystal clear to an onlooker (save, perhaps a heads-up all-in and call), then I've failed at my job as a dealer.

At showdown, adrenaline is flowing and releasing. People are NOT paying attention, because they're thinking about too many things. This is not the point to have them verify that you're doing your job properly. That point is when you have their rapt attention, which is before showdown. Again, it's not what you know you know. It's what they can see and verify when their attention is still on the pot and there's still a chance to correct a mistake. Showdown is not that time.

Agreed. I was dealing a 10/25/50 PLO the other week, with an all-in that was just 3-way and wasn't even that complicated. The most experienced player there asked me to make the pot right before continuing. I smiled, because he didn't realize I'm the only dealer in the house who does that every time.

If I did my job based on how 2/5 PLO players wanted me to do it, I wouldn't be as good of a dealer as I am. Those players are, by and large, ignorant of good poker etiquette and procedure.

Case in point, why the hell are there that many reds on the table? That's insane. The only thing this tells me is that they need even more attention given and fewer shortcuts taken, because they don't know how to buy chips.

I'm with bigfishead on this one. Mainly because a large chunk of the time, the big stack gets it all, and there was no need to set up anything. If the big stack doesn't get it all, then setting it up after the showdown takes no longer than setting it up before the showdown.

pfap's point about clearly demonstrating what you're doing is well taken...and from the sounds of it, that's exactly what bigfishead is saying, as well.

One final point: I never call players back to the table. That's their problem, not mine. I'm sorting side pots over here, I've got enough on my plate. If they want to walk away from their money, that's their business. Besides, I'm at a table full of people who are DYING for a chance to show off how smart they are, I'm sure one of these attention-seekers will go run after him.

From a player's perspective I appreciate when a dealer can appropriately split the pots up after the fact because it certainly is quicker and when I'm in a hand I just wanna be like "run this ****er out and we'll figure it out" however...

If you DON'T know what you're doing or are not comfortable doing it this way - never just do it imo. I've had several instances in PLO where I've been playing in a game and we had to go back to the camera because there was a 3 or 4 way all in and the winning hand didn't cover one of the stacks or something and its always a mess. That slows the game down WAY more than just splitting up a few side pots before running the board out.

I always tell break in dealers that while you're burning and turning each card you need to be identifying the possible hands, specifically knowing what is nut high and nut low. When you add in following the action and stacking the pot, and even keeping a running count of pot size in PL games, it's simply more brain capacity than some have available. I feel like I'm one of the best in the room I deal at and I still make occasional oversights and mistakes.

Re: side pots, I guess I'm kinda in the middle.

I don't like the idea of just running it to save time if you have some giant 4-5 way allin. I see it a lot. 5 all-ins, dealer runs out the board, "Ok, I need to see all of the hands". Um, no, you don't, most of the players have every right to muck. You could also find yourself in a ****ty spot when the short stack shows the nuts (because the dealer didn't care) and the two bigger stacks muck. Now you have a side pot without an owner

Two way allin, I speed it up all the time. "Ok guys, don't touch the stacks, I'll figure it out later" *run out the board* "Ok, showdown. He has a jack-high flush." *muck* "Ok, he has $155. I'm taking $155 from you, the rest is your rebate". When the obvious big stack wins, no counting necessary. When it's 3 ways I generally make the main pot correct and then do what I usually do for the side pot. Instruct them to keep the bets out and figure it out after the hand.

Figuring out 4 side pots after the hand is just bad IMO. As someone said, part of your job is clarifying things for the players. I doubt most players would have an idea wtf was going on.

Edit - I've heard some dealers argue to always figure out pots after the hand, and they use the argument of "the big stack usually wins". What? Oh, so because they have the most chips they are the favorite? Because the big stack is the "favorite" that justifies being lazy?

I run out the board for all ins to save time, but I make sure to announce right after I place the river "side pot between you two first" or whatever it may be.

I'm in this camp as well mainly because of the bolded and yes if they walk away without seeing where the money goes that not my problem.

I also agree that once you get more than 3 players allin you should make at least the main and first side pot right before running it out.

Seems like an acceptable question.

I don't think it's appropriate to make some cute remark to a player who just lost a hand.

Divide that by 2 and I will accept your rant.

A hand with 34JK has the following 2 card hands:
43
J3
K3
J4
K4
KJ

That's an lol horrible cop-out. It is still the same 6 hands.

I don't this it's necessary to be a huge nit.

If you're making two pots right, why not make four? At this point it's just a few chips, anyway.

In my experience, I've found that when I leave a few and say "we'll take care of you four at the end," the players get confused. They think they get to keep their chips, and then don't understand why I'm asking them for more later. I mean, they just lost those two big pots, now I want to take MORE from them?

People simply aren't thinking right after showdown. I don't want someone to walk away from the table or start stacking chips and then have doubt that it was done right. Even if I know 100% that it's correct, that's not what matters to me.

I also agree with the comment about not making jokes to someone who just lost a huge pot.

It's like with rake. You take chips from players before they're counting what they've won.

I don't construct the pots if I know for sure which order the side pots are going to be awarded in

In cash games (or tournaments when this happens on the river) there are a few scenarios that I get mixed up in when it comes down to the order players must showdown.

Assume with no action on river it's in order from left of the button or last aggressor if there is river action

Player A goes all in on a random street, player B re-raises, player C calls
B+C check it down to the river, when C bets and B folds



There are other examples of spots that I've ran into but this is only one that's immediately coming to mind

First off in tournament (under common tournament rules) Order of showdown in this scenario is irrelevant .... because there is an all-in ALL CARDS MUST BE SHOWN. If all cards must be shown then it makes no difference who shows first. Some players will argue about this .... Give them a boot to the head.

In the cash game scenario I have never seen a written rule that addresses this. In your situation I would look to C first ... as you have defined your rule as last aggressor when there is action on the river. There was action on the river, C was the last aggressor. But I wouldn't be terribly upset if the ruling was that between A and C there was no action so A shows first (assuming that he is in earlier position). In all honesty this never bugs me to much because I think it makes very little difference who shows first.

Fun situation from 2 nights ago. I was called to the O8 table to make a decision. Details are unimportant but some people were protesting a raise from seat 3. At no point did seat 3 stop bitching at me even though I was ruling IN HIS FAVOR.

O8 players are fantastic.

I've had O8 players (ours is an OE game primarily) complain in stud when there is a community card....I've been called as the floor and they argued there shouldn't be one.

Somehow when 7 people see 7th street there should be enough cards for everyone and its my fault.

Its really odd ..... every once in a while I will push into an Omaha 8/b game with no regulars .... and its such a different atmosphere ..... players are actually having fun, they aren't arguing with each other, they are aren't complaining at me .......

Unfortunately its uncommon

Yeah it seems pretty rare. Actually a small handful of our O8 players represent some of my favorite guests. Sadly, the majority of the rest seem to have side bets on who can be the biggest dick in the room.

The recent discussion about making side pots or leaving it for the end, I am somewhat torn. I personally liked to leave it out and sort it out later. But I, like most dealers ITT, know that my skills are high and I have never had a problem sorting a pot that way. I am quick, efficient and focused enough to get it right.

But, I would prefer that most dealers do it the "long" way. Too great of a risk for the "average" or "below average" dealer for my comfort level especially in a game with huge stacks on the table. I'm sure that qualifies as a double standard but if I'm playing, I want to see the dealer make the side pots before moving forward. Especially considering that almost no one counts the chips anymore, most everyone matches stacks which always has the potential for disaster.

Re: showdown order.

One situation I argued and gave up due to frustration at a room I used to frequent years ago: player A is on the button and shoves on turn(or any street before the river) and player B calls. Dealer runs out the remaining cards, and we arrive at showdown. Typical drama-roll stalemate, to which the floor gets called over. The floor states "because there was no action on the river the showdown goes by first in front of button."
I am like "whatttt? There isn't even a river betting round!"

Back and forth for a minute and I just give up and walk away shaking my head.

What is the verdict on a btn straddle? Does SB act 1st pre or UTG? It seems like every house does it different. What is your preference? Feel like if Sb acts first btnshould be strad all day.

I've seen it done several different ways - my preference as a player is under the gun acts first, button gets skipped over once unless there are two raises before it gets to them. It's a little confusing for people when they first see it, but it feels the most fair to me for some reason. UTG is probably easier for the dealer but it screws over the blinds.

In addition to the reasons mentioned above about Omaha-8 dealers, I know that the more I'm yelled at the less effective my brain seems to get. Some of those bad dealers are probably just rattled by the combination of a more difficult game and unreasonable people they can't defend themselves against.

I have been looking for a way to practice hand reading at home but haven't come up with anything. I have this image in my head of a program that replays logs of an online tournament, pausing at each board card for you to figure out what the nuts is, then pausing at the tabled hands, then telling you what the answers are. My software skills are pretty rusty, though, so I haven't made it yet and haven't found anything equivalent on the web.

My room allows button straddles in three different games (though two of them rarely run). Each of the games has a different rule for the button straddle.

In one game, the action starts with the small blind and then proceeds normally.

In another game the action starts under the gun and the button has ultimate last action.

In another game the action starts under the gun, and if there is no raise skips the button and comes back to the button after the Big Blind, but if there is a raise the button acts in turn.

where i play the rule is how you like it: if theres a shove and a call before the river, the shover shows first. this is a bad rule because it just allows the angling nits to bet all but $1 instead of moving all in when they have position. either the other person sets them in and they call and get to show last, or the river goes check/check and they get to show last. either way they get what they want but the game is slowed down and more confusing. id fix this by making the "all in minus one dollar" crowd show first in any situation where the other players "all in" (call, really) isnt a full raise but this would just confused dealers and players so given the two extreme options i prefer clockwise showdowns regardless of who moved in on a previous street