well ... not enough?

"Hey dealer, he bet 350, I raised all in, and then he turned his cards over. Did he fold or call?"

Sounds like you completed step 1. Step 2 when the floor tells you to turn your hand over and you only win 360 would be..."Floor, the river action hasn't been completed. Why do you want me to turn my hand over?" (before turning your hand over)

This. Many wont even let dealer spread the pot.

From the OP:
Quite different than:

Man, i feel like Don Quichote in here, fighting windmills all the time ;-)))

That's exactly what i tried (as i've posted up there somewhere), but the floor didn't wanna hear it, he wanted the dealer to tell him what happened only.

But whatever, i give up ... you guys are right, i was wrong, the more i think about it i probably should have lost the pot with the nuts, correct?

;-)

Over and out.

You do your best to protect your action and sometimes you get boned anyway. Happens.

Ok. I will try one more time. No one has said you should have lost the pot.

From the OP Did you do anything wrong? As against the rules wrong? No.
What could you have done differently? Most people here have said some version of "When the whale said 'all-in' you could have stopped and clarified the action with the dealer". The rest is just the discussion going off in tangents about related things. It's what happens on the internet. It's how we learn things.

What more do you want when you start a thread?

The question is what happens in your room when a player attempts to bet "pot" in an NL game.

What happens in your room(s)?

Upfront:
You are definitely one of the few people here who try to give an absolute unbiased opinion, thx for that.

To your point:
Very good question. I wasn't sure to be honest, but now that i think about it, i guess what i would have liked to have seen, that with all the discussion and input going on that at least one guy would have said:
"I'd say you didn't do anything wrong, and you got screwed there."

But may be that's unrealistic from me.

Anyways, the real "input" part of this thread has run its course i'd say, it can only go downhill from here.

Peace.

That's a different question than the one I answered, but in our room if someone says pot in NLH they are told that is not valid action and therefore action is still on them. It does not bind them to a min bet or raise.

I haven't read the thread other than the OP but here is what I would have done:

When my opponent said "All-in", I would have said, "Uh, that's more than the pot isn't it? How much is the bet?" Then after finding out it was $360, I would have said, "All-in."

How about saying "all-in" in a pot limit game?

Oh no.

No problem. If you have less than pot that is what you would say just as in NL. If you have more than pot, it's no different than verbally betting 1000 into a 900 pot. The dealer simply announces the correct bet size. This happens all the time in plo games where players arent exactly sure of the size of their stack or the size of the pot. It's really a routine thing to say all in in plo.

You got screwed. But.

Might have got the dealer to understand.

Haven't read all the comments .. perhaps soon.

1) All-in is not a legal bet in PLO (unless you have less than the pot in your stack), but I've played in plenty of games where the Dealer will quickly 'correct' the amount of the bet to 'pot' when a Player has too many chips to actually go all-in.

2) OP's pot bet can be considered OOT as Whale hasn't technically acted yet

3) More than likely OP could've done a better job 'coaching' Dealer and/or Whale as to what was going on with his actions.

4) A pre-exposed hand is not an action, nor acceptance of an action

5) IMO most Floor's are not going to force Whale to go all-in when called into this spot. My assumption is that Whale still has chips in front and OP also either has at least some if not all of his chips still in front and not in the betting area (something that would've indicated to Whale that he's all-in)

6) Certainly having a weak PLO Dealer in the box didn't help, but almost all Reg PLO Players know that they will more than likely need to help a Dealer at least once a down and usually issues can be resolved without a Floor present.

7) In the spot where the 'only' all-in from Whale initially means 'pot' and then OP re-pots we still need the Dealer to clarify action with the Whale even after the Whale exposes his hand. I don't remember OP mentioning a 2nd all-in, pot or call being verbalized by Whale prior to exposing his hand.

8) IMO the Floor may have technically errored here since Whale was facing action that would've put him all in. So the exposure of the hand is not giving away information that could be used against him by OP. But I wouldn't hold it against a Floor to limit the damage to only the initial pot bet.

9) While OP may have lost some chips in the short term this may have been better for 'the game' in the long run by keeping the Whale interested in PLO .. and not feeling taken advantage of by Player or Floor/room in this exact spot. GL

Ok, I was mistaken about that. I thought it was the same as saying pot in NL.

We have a Player who loves PLO .. and who also has had a stroke and is very difficult to play with at times due to 'very' short term memory/attention issues. He is constantly saying pot during NL games and we have to quickly correct him that he has to give a number in this game, not say pot.

I've yet to see where any Player was held to betting at least something when they've mistakenly (or not) said pot during a NL game. Of course no one has tried to check at that point in time either as they've always bet something after being corrected. GL

Thought I was trying to help out but it sounds like you just see trolls against you everywhere. Last piece of advice for your sanity for the next one of these you post. I'd only respond to the people you think aren't trolling you.

**Crickets**

Just wanted to give a quick update:
Played there yesterday again, Floor came to me with Poker Room Manager, they had talked about the situation internally one more time, and apologized for the bad ruling, Dealer was new and not experienced, should have listened to my argument better when i tried to explain.

Comped me a nice steak dinner with a bottle of wine. all good.

Anyway: Thx for all the good advice, appreciated.

Glad it worked out. While the dealer may have made an error, the floor made a bigger one, it's too bad he considers it all the dealer's fault. But all's well that ends well, anyway.

ah, may be i didn't explain well enough, i meant, he apologized for the dealer (being new etc.) but also for himself for not listening to me enough. so he actually didn't blame it all on the dealer.

It's from back when limit poker was the main form of poker, to save time (and allow regs to angle) after a couple of raises you can just put your stack in and if the other player agrees you are both all-in....this is kind of an angle since you shouldn't be putting 20 big bets in on the river without the nuts...but if gamblers agree....most rooms have done away with the ruling but there are some dealers and floors who remember it...if anyone else who played back then knows why it existed please chime in