Guess I will start the last sub-thread in this years low content thread with a SOSA / OOT edge case… farewell 2021.

NLHE, significant size pot underway, three in hand.

S4 bets $150 on turn, S8 raises all in for about $500, S2 begins to tank. Now the fun begins. S4 OOT calls then exposes his hand to S2, dealer calls for floor. Dealer tells floor that S4 exposed hand to S2, S2 says he intentionally did not look (BTW S4 has been acting up to and across the line on “things” all night and is drunk enough to be belligerent).

S2 folds and Floor announces S4’s hand as K-J. Now S4 pops a gasket, says hey won’t put in the call and demands to see a supervisor because the floor told S8 his hand.

Other details that should not matter. All in bet was $524. S4 stack was just over $600. But Was likely to last or nearly last hand of night and definitely now the last hand of the night. S2 racked up and left when he folded. The was a claim S4 was or was trying to collude and send signals under the table. S2 folded pocket queens face up and was ahead of S4. There were two hearts on the board including the jack so no way he has a flush redraw. The board was jack high so S4 has TPGK but eventually we find out S8 has pocket aces. (Btw, I am none of these players, was not even playing at this table. I was cashing out when floor was calling for shift sup.)

Ruling and conclusion. Shift Supervisor shows, situation explained (S4 to his credits let’s dealer explain without interrupting. Then he asked to add his input which was all about floor revealing his hand.) The Sup then confirms he said call and tell S4 he has called and chips go in pot. S4 refuses to put chips (they are sitting in a rack on the table.) some animated discussion incurs. Sup explains chips go in or he will be escorted out and banned from property. More animation. Security is called.

Eventually chips and rack get shoved toward pot. Dealer runs out the board. Aces hold. Dealer counts all in and call chips. Gives S4 his rebate. Security arrives to escort him to cage and off property. Interestingly, short while later I saw him on main casino floor, still had an attitude. I was very surprised he wasn’t escorted off property or maybe he “snuck back in”.

Questions.
1) Does he have to call?
2) does hand need to be exposed? If so when?

Answer IMO
1. Easy, completely separate from whole exposing hand issue, action not changed so OOT call is binding. Even villain did not really argue against this

2. Again easy, if dealer says player exposed his hand regardless in other player says he saw it or not, should be exposed. SOSA. The when is the edge case imo. If S2 had not folded and there was any action behind S2 who did not have that info, expose immediately. If S2 still in hand, then expose at the end of this betting round. I S2 folds and no one else with the info is in hand, expose at the end of the hand.

In this case it is unique imo. Once S2 folds there is no one left to benefit from the info. S8 is all in and S4 obviously has the info. So it is a level playing field. Expose after hand. But since in reality S4 has already called it doesn’t matter anymore. Action is complete so exposing now or after we run out the board doesn’t really matter

Others!

There are a small number of rooms left where out of turn action is not binding even if the action does not change. Assuming this is not one of them, the call obviously stands.

The only reason to not expose the hand right away is to give S4 the opportunity to accidentally muck the winning hand after the board runs out. It would then go to the room's policy about whether a hand exposed due to SOSA is considered dead. Mostly, though, he's just wasting everyone's time. Expose the hand and move on.

Where was the Button? So you're saying that S2 folded QQ (over-pair) IP to a bet/shove?

1) The call stands .. if the chips ultimately went in then they shouldn't have kicked him out (necessarily).

2) IMO things are changing on this spot for the better. With S2 folding then I wont force a 'reveal' to S8 of S4's cards. Had S2 called or shoved, THEN I will apply SOSA and allow S8 to see the holding. As long as S2 doesn't state 'something' and folds, then I'm not expanding what has already occurred.

The trend in our area is to expose less cards and just let Players describe what they think they saw .. WHEN action is on them and IF they plan on staying in the hand. This could be a pretty deep thread just on it's own. There's no way to eliminate angles either way with 'Player' exposed cards. Dealer exposed cards are different IMO and Player's should speak up immediately and use the procedures currently in place. GL

This was not an inadvertent flash but a deliberate, blatant full showing by S4 to S2. There was a S3 player also not in the hand. So no doubt in my mind the hand should be exposed just when, IMO. But when really doesn’t matter, there is no one after S2 to make a decision using the info. So immediate, end of round or completion of hand effectively the same.

I don’t know where the button was but action went S4 bets, S8 all in for more action on S2 to call or over shove. This is win S4 calls S2 OOT and shows S2 his hand cause he has him beat (but obviously S4 did not have either S2 or S8 beat).

As to giving him the boot, I agree with decision to give a ban. His actions in this hand alone deserved a ban but my understanding is he had been pulling ***t all night. But simply refusing to put the money in after dealer asked, after floor told him and after shift sup gives him the choice and then still has to call security (who he also initially refused to listen to) and then finally putting money but the attitude was still there. Those events alone deserve at least the rest of the night off. IMO 7 - 30 days after paying the call and of course permanent if he had not paid the call. Again imo.

There was a hand where Rick Salomon flashed an Ace and was forced to show Fedor with action pending. Seemed pretty bad tbh, Fedor could have seen wrong and was closing action, no reason to force exposure at that point, keep as secret as possible.

If the hand was heads up, expose at completion of hand. If not heads up but Fedor closing action, expose when Fedor has acted so everyone has information before their next decision.

Since we can’t be certain Fedor did or did not see the flash, we need to protect the others in the hand as best as possible. Giving both Fedor and the third or more player this data is best we can do.

Lol, no it's not. Protect players is not giving Fedor more information than others had when they made their decisions.

Assuming you mean before Fedor acted that street. But that was last action, after that street is debatable but I'd still go with "say what you thought you saw".

Seems like you probably meant after that street but they were all all in after Fedor action.

If Fedor is closing action on that street then after Fedor acts. If action behind Fedor then do it before Fedor acts. This ensures Fedor (who may or may not know) and the player acting after him have same knowledge. Any who acted before Fedor kinda get screwed but we can’t help that since we don’t know if Fedor has the info or not.

We could go round and round on this one for sure. IMO Jack came in a little too quickly in this spot and forced the card to be tabled.

I'm pretty sure in this case Fedor was closing action behind two all-ins after he opened. So, IMO, with poker being a game of observation and with him closing action there's very little, if any, reason to 'offer' free/more information to him than what's already out there .. which is basically just a confirmation of the card. Are we suggesting that this was an angle by Rick? What if Fedor hadn't seen anything? We just give the card up to him? I think not.

I can see a cascading effect of 'what a Player thinks they saw', with and without angles, when the hand is multi-way and we tell a Player not to disclose their side of the story until action is on them. But I feel that we overreact to card flashes and based on the spots I've seen and discussed I'd rather put the spotlight on the Players, not the card, in these situations. GL


PS .. I still want to emphasize that Dealer flashes and Player flashes should be treated differently and for the most part they already are. Case in point during the PPC when Jungle's last card in Razz flashed and the replacement paired him up, putting over 2M in chips into Volpe's stack. Granted Jungle overcame this without much ado and won the tournament, though it took much longer than it may have otherwise.

Let me start by saying the cause was mine but after the fact I am not certain what was the correct ruling. But it is really a minor detail since in the end it all worked out.

1/3 NLHE in a casino. Six handed, later at night.
S4 and S1 are a couple and maybe married.
S4 UTG limp calls.
S6&7 fold.
S9 limp calls.
S1 (SB) goes all in for $32. She had recently bought in for the min. $100. Actually, S4bought both himself and S1 in. S1 is very obviously new, maybe first time. She knows little beyond hand ranks. So far she has played loose passive pre and folded most flops to any bet.

Hero in S2 is BB and looks down to find pocket sixes. OOP I don’t want to call $32 and play small pp four ways. So I quickly calc the SB raise is $29 so a min raise is $61 but through a brain fart I actually come up with $51. So I take two greens from my stack pick up my bb three whites and toss forward the five chips.

S4 thinks for a minute and ask dealer how much. When dealer say $53. Then he asks is it a raise. At that point dealer and I both realize it is not enough to be a raise. The dealer say no, it is just a call of the $32 and hands me back $1. Eventually S4 and S9 both fold, dealer runs out board and sixes hold over A8o.

I soon decide I am up but obviously now off my game. So I rack up and head home. Thinking the next day about the prior night hands. Should this hand actually been a raise? Obviously $53 was not a min raise but the $19 was more than 50% so should I have been made to complete the min raise? But did I put in just oversized chips? Sure, any whites could be removed and still make the call but were they already in the pot? Or did my picking them up and tossing all five forward together make this a min raise by the 50% rule!

You should have been made to complete a min raise to 61, for the reasons you listed. Because you picked up the white chips, added the green and tossed all 5 chips forward that means they all play at full value of 53, more than half of the required raise.

Room dependent .. Have no clue the ratio, but there are rooms that force you to initially put out the full raise or it's just a call IN CASH GAMES ONLY. This is a spill over from Robert's Rules.

Pretty much every room would force a raise in a tournament per TDA 43 after determining your action can be considered a call, which is it. GL

While it is true that some rooms do (sadly) require you to have put in a full amount to qualify as a raise, this does not come from RRoP. RRoP uses the standard 50% raise rule, although it doesn't call it out in its own rule.

House rules
Dead button rule
Button and utg straddle
Only utg can straddle/post
Can buy button
Move more than two from blind and you must post
Cannot post on button

S3 bust as SB and leaves. So will be a dead button.
S7 tells dealer he wants to move to S3. Dealer says one hand. After button passes
No hand yet but now S4 decides to leave.
We play a hand with dead’s button and BB only no small
After hand S7 now chooses to move to Seat 4 and a new player shows up who takes Seat 3. Dealer places plastic button physically in front of seat 4

Who can play and who cannot? Who must post or buy button? How do you get both players in this hand?

Playing the other night live in a casino for the first time in months. Dude is badgering players in a shorthanded PLO game 1-2-winner straddle 5 option 10, and he's badgering about whether they straddle for 5 or 10, folding in the dark if someone wins a substantial pot and straddles 5 and making insulting comments. I won two pots, he was all-in on one, straddled 5 both times, then quit, breaking the game, which I figured it would. Sweet. But dude is bad for the game all the way around, imo.

Most rooms don't have a dead button in cash games. It would stay in S2. S7 can move to S3 or S4 right away and be BB, no small, or wait 2 hands. In your scenario after the first hand and new player sitting down, button should still be in S2. S3 has first choice to buy button or wait a hand. If they wait, S4 has the choice to buy or wait.

That's how I'd do it in rooms I'm familiar with, anyway. There are a lot of room-specific rules and most dealers and floors haven't really thought through scenarios like this so they just kind of wing it. They tend to err on the side of getting everyone dealt in with minimal drama.

Interesting spot .. For one, I'm a guy who doesn't think the B has to be 'in a seat' .. just 'between' the 'right' two Players in spots like this one.

I guess I need to know if 'new Player S3' needs to post to get a 'first' hand, assuming no but if yes could change things.

With S4 leaving on his SB you are now going to have two Dead Buttons in a row, which really puts S7 'mover' in a tough spot if you wont let him Post in front of a Dead Button. That's the crux here, can a Player post 'in position' with a Dead Button in play? (or does a Player 'have' to have the Button)

This is a spot where 'S7 mover' is either really making out by possibly playing 3 hands IP, or is going to miss some hands while waiting to get the Button back in sequence.

Certainly the timing of all this is going to matter with the potential variance of house posting rules.

I think I would allow 'mover' to BTB while sitting in S3 or S4 with the B between S2 and this Player .. OR I would request that 'mover' play one (or maybe two) more hands in S7 allowing the B to get to S5 before the move. (I'm assuming the chips and Player moved before S4 left or 'new S3' showed up.)

As it played out I'm allowing both 'mover' and 'new player' to post/play behind the Dead Button that is now 'between' S4 and S5 while S5 plays their Small. Essentially 'mover' only gets one hand with 'free' position since they sat out the last hand and it will sit on S5 in the next hand.

I think it would be crazy to tell 'mover' (and 'new S3') that they have to sit out until the B gets to S5 in the next hand, but it may have to play out that way under some house rules.

IMO you can't have cake and eat it too, so to speak. You can't say there's a Dead Button and yet penalize 'mover' for being behind it and not allowing him to play. It's not their fault that it's dead (again), and they're going to post as required, when allowed to.

If the room is married to the Button being 'in a seat', then it may play out that 'mover' needs to sit out while 'new S3' does get a hand in position without posting.

Interesting spot that took some thinking .. hopefully in real time it went OK for you. GL

There is no functional difference between putting the button in S4 or between S4 and S5. They still have every advantage. Unless that room allows a player to move directly to the button it's not happening.

Sometimes you tell someone they need to wait one hand to move but it winds up being 2 or 3 hands because players leave. It happens and they have to wait or post.

Sorry for the delay, but wanted to be on a computer with a KB for these replies to the replies in no particular order.

TLDR: Room Mgrs, just teach your dealers to leave a dead button alone and not move it. Then all the rest becomes real simple.

Reducto: Most rooms don't have a dead button in cash games. It would stay in S2.

Well if rooms don't have a dead button in cash games, then the button can't stay in S2. It must move forward to the next seat with a body in it. Then, as a forward moving button, both S3 and S4 as well as S5, post a BB with S3 posting on Button. Next hand would have S3, S4, S5 all posting SB (S3 in CO, S4 on Btn and S5 normal) and BB on S6. Third hand back to normal.

As to whether cash games have DB or FMB rules, I think it is regional and well split. But IME, DB probably has a slight edge in room count. While I learned with DB rules and originally did not like FMB when finally exposed to it, I now prefer FMB. However, that is not what most rooms here use.

answer20: I'm a guy who doesn't think the B has to be 'in a seat' .. just 'between' the 'right' two Players in spots like this one

The house (or more likely dealer) might not mind a button between seats, but I suspect most of the players at the table would freak out and then complain/worry it will void a BBJP.

Personally while I accept the between the seats when done that way, I don't reallty like it as a solution. It upsets the number of hands UTG/early Pos vs. late position by a admittedly tiny amount. But more philosophically, the button represents the dealer and you can't have a dealer between seats.

Note this also helps correctly position the button for a DB rule anyway. It will keep the button in front of the prior dealer which is correct IMO (a dead button can't move as it is dead) or even in rare cases back up the button to the left to the next player in a seat.


answer20: With S4 leaving on his SB you are now going to have two Dead Buttons in a row, which really puts S7 'mover' in a tough spot if you wont let him Post in front of a Dead Button.

Agree. But I don't have a big problem with this. If he moves to S3, he can buy the button instead of posting. Since S3 was his original request and he is choosing to now pick S4. It is on him he misses an extra hand.


My "Solution"...

I start with treating the dead button as I feel it needs to be treated. That is it stays in S2 (or if really needed even backs up to S1).

Now the new player is coming into game in S3 can BTB or wait. If S3 BTB, S4, moving player stays in S7. So we have 1BB and a dead SB in the middle.

Next hand, S3 is button, S7->4, moving player has a choice. He can move to S4 now and BTB (S5 still doesn't yet post his SB) or he can wait another had and play in S7. Note if he waits S5 posts SB, S6 posts BB. S7->4 will post behind the button next hand since he is moving away from button so I don't know why he would not move now.

Assuming moving player did move to S4, the next next hand, S4 is button, S5 posts SB and S6 posts BB and we are back to normal.

If new player choses to not BTB, then he isn't at the table, button stays on S2, S7 moves to S4 and BTB, S5 does not post his SB. We play a hand with 1 BB and a dead SB in the middle.

Next hand button moves to S4 (he bought it), S3 enters w/o posting or buying as is his right but he lost one hand to do this, S5 post his delayed SB and S6 posts BB and all is back to normal.

No one misses a hand except by choice, button is never between seats and all blinds/postings are correctly paid.


BTW as done, new player was able to play with effective button (but no right to button straddle) while moving player in S4 had to both sit out a hand and then post behind the button. I really disliked that. And I still feel if rooms would just teach dealers that a) there is no such thing as a "dead small" where there is a empty seat between button (I cringe when I hear it as I know that dealer really doesn't know what is supposed to be going on and will screw these situations up every time. He will also prevent players moving to a empty seat on a new player coming in because of where a button is located) and BB and b) for a dead button, just don't move the damn button. Then these situations get fairly easy to get right. Or we could just move all cash games to FMB (but good luck getting rooms that have always had dead button switching.

As to going ok for me, I was down in S9 of a 10 handed table, so none of it was really going to impact me. But as noted, I did not like how it was handled. At a min, I would have preferred, move button to S3 (cringe), mover goes to S4 and BTB, next hand S3 enteres in CO. I prefer this as A) he is the new player so he is not per se missing a hand, just joining a hand later (I know just semantics) and moving player does not miss anything. Also as shared above, if S3 does BTB, then dealer will see it will work and allows player to move to S4 no prob, except he will need to BTB next hand or will tell hime to play one more in S7 (which honestly, most dealers used to moving the dead button will anyway.

(now you see why I wanted a real KB to post from)

This is exactly why dead button sucks, because seat 2 basically gets to be the button 3 times in a row.

Even if you “move” the button to seat 4, the new player in seat 3 can’t come in because he would be the effective button. He has to wait one hand. However I don’t think the button should “move” because then it allows seat 3 or 4 to buy the button, and I think because of his position, seat 3 should have the first chance even if he is a “new” player.

By moving seats, you are giving up your right to post blinds first and are at the mercy of the person that moved to your right if there are two seats being filled. In a casino where new players don’t have to post, that player probably won’t buy the button anyway, but in games where posting is required, well even if you’re new you have equal rights as any player that was already there to post.

If it absolutely has to move, then seat 4 can’t post because he would be the button. Sucks but it happens.

Let both play with seat 4 paying, like, a dollar

Gaming doesn’t believe in “like a dollar” type decisions.

S4 moved out of blinds more than two seats. He must per rules in place post the blinds. That is not optional unless he sits out until bb is on him again.

Posting on the btn is not allowed anyway.

I've seen it happen

Saw this posted on a FB group I belong to:



A Few Good Dealers

LTJG Kaffee: Dealer Mike! Did you drop the redbird?

Judge Randolph: You don't have to answer that question!

Dealer Mike: I'll answer the question. You want answers?

LTJG Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to them.

Dealer Mike: You want answers?!

LTJG Kaffee: I want the truth!

Dealer Mike: You can't handle the truth!

Son, we play in a game that has chips and those chips have to be protected by people with tact. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Dealers. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Santiago's felting, while tragic, probably saved bankrolls; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves bankrolls.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me in that chair -- you need me in that chair.
We use words like "string bet", "TDA" and "8-ball push". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent dealing something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps dreaming about winning in the very game that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a deck and deal a hand. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!

LTJG Kaffee: Did you pretend to not hear him say "chop " and drop the redbird in your tip box?

Dealer Mike: I did the job

LTJG Kaffee: Did you drop the redbird?

Dealer Mike: YOU'RE GOD DAMN RIGHT I DID!!!

One of those kinda OOT action situations where I am wondering what was really correct (or if what i think is correct really is) and correct response to a question was. Otoh…

4 to the flop
SB checks
MP bets
Action is on LJ but btn slides out a call, lifts his hand, sees LJ has not acted and pulls back his call
LJ calls
Btn asks dealer a question (more on this later) who says “yes you could” and btn folds
SB folds

1. Should btn be allowed to fold?
IMO his OOT call is just as binding as OOT raise would be if action did not change. And action did not change. Note this wasn’t a mistaken under call that missed a raise nor a “bet” less than prior bet. The proper call amount was put out so btn called the correct amount albeit OOT

2. Btn was in 9 seat next to dealer (I was at other end and folded pre) so I did not clearly hear the question. I think it was ‘could I raise’ (80%) or else ‘could I fold’ (20%). Obviously I think the answer should be no to either question as btn should be held to his OOT action since action to him did not change.