What would you do here if you were the Floor?

Live $ 120 Tournament. Prize pool about $ 6300.

House Rules TDA. Not my home turf, so, at the time, I just strongly believed the rules were TDA (remembering from playing there a few months before but not double-checking) but now checked online that they in fact are.

Cliffs: I go all-in with 9 BB from UTG with 4 players at table, player in Small Blind approaches table just as Button is folding his hand. Dealer waits a few seconds and allows the SB to play his hand. SB busts me.

Hand in question that lead to my busting:

- It was just after the break.

- Only 4 players were at the table.

- One of the missing players was the Small Blind, who had a huge stack.

- I was UTG and went all-in with my 9 BB stack with KJo.

- My reasons for pushing KJo:
a) only 4 players at the table
b) one of the missing players was the Small Blind, who had a huge stack
c) dead money in the pot from the Small Blind

- After my push and everyone folding up to and including the Button, play halted for a few seconds, as the dealer saw the Small Blind player approaching and waited those few seconds to let him see his hand and play it.

- I didn't say anything at first because I was a) startled that the dealer would do that and b) if I had cried out then, the Big Blind would have called with a much wider range, knowing that I didn't really want a call here. Also, the fact that none of the regulars spoke up but behaved like this was totally normal, made me feel insecure.

- The big-stacked SB found AQ and called my 9 BB shove.

- Immediately after the Big Blind had folded, I said to the dealer that I wasn't going to be happy at all if the SB busted me now because the SB had in fact been late and really shouldn't have been allowed to play the hand. The dealer replied that his instructions were such that when a player is seen approaching, to let him play the hand, as "we're promoting a friendly atmosphere here".

- Dealer dealt board and the Small Blind's AQ beat my KJ and I bust.

I was totally frustrated and shocked because of course I had made my decision to push KJo under totally different circumstances, which were then suddenly changed by the dealer letting the big-stacked Small Blind into the hand. However, everyone present at the table seemed to think this hand had gone down totally ok and someone even said "bad luck" to me, so as to console me. LOL to that.

I left the table and went next door to talk to the Floor. I explained the situation and said that I didn't think this was right at all and that the player who busted me should never have been allowed into the hand. The Floor went back to the table with me and asked the dealer what had happened. The dealer said he had seen the player approaching and that he therefore let the Small Blind play his hand and that "play wasn't halted". The latter of which is not true but it was in fact only a few seconds that play was halted after the Button had folded. Why would that matter, anyway? Has there ever been a time, i.e. before the latest TDA rule change, when a late player was allowed into a hand AFTER there had been action?? Am I missing something here? Anyway, the Floor listened to the dealer and then asked me to leave the room with him and we went next door again. The Floor said something about this being "a grey area". I'll post what else the floor said to me later on but would first like to hear some opinions.

First Question: What should the floor have done here?

Second question: Should I have spoken up immediately and called the Floor when the dealer let the Small Blind come in late? Thereby essentially asking for the hand to be replayed since by speaking up, I would have revealed to the Big Blind that I didn't really want action and could therefore no longer have stayed in the hand profitably? Because this was not my home turf, though, I was really not self-confident enough to act so fast and be so clear about my strong belief that the House Rules were TDA rules and that they were just being severely breached.

The more I think about it, the more ludicrous I find it that the dealer allowed a player into a hand AFTER there had already been action! His reasoning of having been told to "promote a friendly atmosphere here" is just so inappropriate in this situation. I think he must have totally confused letting a player into the hand until the last card dealt (old rules) with a ridiculous leeway of letting a player into a hand after several players have already acted! Looking back at it, I should have handled the situation differently but the fact that all the regs were totally calm and ok with it, really also threw me quite a bit. All this happened in a major, European Casino, by the way.

Sounds like you're upset about the results and manifesting that on the situation.

Too late. Action stands.

Yes. By the way, the "old" TDA rule would have killed his hand too (had to be in your seat before last card dealt)

Of course I was upset at the result! But, have you ever heard of letting a player into a hand when there has already been action? Let alone when there has been an all-in by a small stack and a big stack is allowed in late? If I had been the big stack in the Small Blind, I would also have called that 9 BB all-in with a hand much worse than AQ. Were you one of the regulars in that Casino or why is your comment so peculiar?

Had the hand been played out correctly, I would have increased my stack by 16% and could have waited for more spots to shove and hopefully double up.

He is saying that if you had won the hand (ie, a different result), you would not be nearly as upset.

Ok if the dealer really had instructions to do this, then you have no position to argue from with him. He was simply doing his job as directed. You can then pursue your problem with the floor or directors, but if they made the policy IDK what you think should happen. What did happen anyway?

Exactly. I have since suggested to the Floor that if they want to be "friendly", which has its merits, they could possibly let a late player into the hand before there has been any action (which essentially amounts to the "last card" rule) but for God's sake not AFTER there has been action.

About speaking up immediately: I was just not prepared for this and I think that I was somehow afraid that I'd be forced to play the hand with the BB still not having acted and could only "achieve" getting the Small Blind out of the hand by speaking up. I was taken by surprise and it was too much for me to handle, I admit. The good thing about this is that it won't happen to me again because from now on I'll be prepared.

He's upset because they claim to use TDA rules, and then don't.

That's ok. The room can either stop claiming to use TDA rules, or change their internal procedures. There is no "gray area" here and under this year's or last year's rules SB's hand would have been dead.

As for what they should have done about it once it all played out? Nothing. Results have to stand. If you had won, you would have taken SB's chips. Therefore we can't really let you off the hook because you lost. You absolutely must call for a ruling before you know the results.

I don't think that the dealer had the instructions "to do this". I think he confused giving players some leeway by letting them into the hand until the last card dealt (when they are seen approaching the table) with letting them into the hand basically at any time, no matter if there has been action, as long as action wasn't on them yet or just about to be. In that sense, this hand was truly misplayed due to how the dealer handled the situation, even though I'm sure the dealer meant no harm but really just wanted to "promote friendliness". He was really nice and it was just a mistake.

I'll post later what happened, as I don't want to influence answers so early on.

Btw, I didn't post this hand to beat down on anybody. I'm seriously interested in how the experienced people here would have handled the situation, be that as the Floor or as the player. I'm here to learn. Thank you.

bav

Yeah I get that, but it seems to be the old case of the "rules" being whatever the room says they are and not much the OP can do but rave and vent a little. Likely a lesson learned and on to the next live cluster **** situation hopefully less costly for him.

I've never heard of "action" being a cutoff for when to kill a hand of a player that's away from the table. The most common tournament rule was when the last card is dealt to the button until recently when it was changed many places to be when the first card is dealt. Either way the SB's hand would be dead.

In cash though I think it's fairly common that the hand is not killed until action is on the player and he hasn't returned. It's not that often that you have cash hands dealt to empty seats but it does happen some places in time games and at Commerce where everyone leaving the table asks to be dealt in so they're BBJ eligible.

Under all the rules for when to kill a hand there's usually some leeway in terms of a player being close to the seat or approaching the seat.

All that said the time to speak up is immediately after the SB calls. When the hand is over it's clearly too late to protest and it might even be too late after BB acts. I wouldn't worry too much about your protest influencing BB to call.

Before the TDA rules became common it was not uncommon at least in small tournaments to allow a player to play a hand as long as he was at the table by the time the action got to him.

The floor should have simply said to you that he would discuss it with the dealer later. regardless of what happened you are out of the tournament otherwise you are freerolling .... if you end up beating the small blind you weren't going to go to the floor and demand to give him his chips back.... You don;t get to waiut until after the hand to raise your objection

Actually you should have asked the dealer to muck all the absent players as soon as he finished dealing. While this would call attention to the fact that there were only 4 players in the hand it would not be as big a statement that you didn't want a caller.

I imagine it going out like this...

"Dealer... is that hand live?".

"Yes, he just waved at me. He's getting a straw now and will be here in less than a minute.".

"Oh..."


Instead you complain based on the situation. You should have addressed the situation first if the people and the SB were why you raised. It is an understandable mistake, but nothing to create a large fuss over.

If I was heading back to the table and waved to the dealer to put me in the hand, I would want the hand to be live, especially on the blinds.

And I would want the hand to be aces. Just because we want things doesn't mean they should happen. The guy who is up getting a straw is supposed to be at the table receiving his hand. In a cash game, he'd be simply dealt out. The only reason cards even go to your seat in a tournament is because you have to keep paying blinds.

In my eyes, you shouldn't get to play those cards if you were anywhere but your seat when the first card was dealt to the small blind. Your being away from the table gives you a visual angle on your fellow players that you are not supposed to have.

I can be more loose with this kind of thing in a home game, but in a professionally run cardroom, nuh-uh. Especially not if the decision to keep the hand live is contrary to the written rule. That's some bull****.

@Jim,

Coming back from a break is not quite the same as getting up.

No. When I raised UTG, the player was not back in the room yet. It's a very short way from the room entrance to the table.


As I've said before, when the SB was suddenly let into the hand, I was taken aback and insecure and had no clue what to do in that situation. Cf. above statements on my thoughts while this was happening.

Plus, had I "addressed the situation" before playing my hand, i.e. had I asked "Is the SB's hand live?" when action was on me (which according to both old and new TDA it should not have been, so why ask in the first place), I might as well just have mucked. No good player would ever misunderstand what a question like that means, namely: I'm double-checking rules I know to be in place (covering both new and old TDA variations) because I have such a ****ty hand that I will only play it if you now confirm to me that we will stay so short-handed and if there is dead money in the pot from the missing Small Blind. Please, dealer, confirm this to be the case and if you do, I will push my 9 BB wide! I don't see how asking the dealer about the SB's hand before acting UTG wouldn't have invited the other 3 players to call my shove really, really wide.

This is a valid argument about the disadvantage of arguing about it when the SB is acting. It is far less convincing if you raise the issue before you even act. You could have actually addressed it before you even looked at your cards ..... then it certainly couldn't give away the strength of your hand.

Since everybody knows you only want the rules enforced when it is to your advantage, I guess you have a point.

Question: What do you think should have happened at the time you finally raised the issue?

It's not identical, but it is still the same offense: not being at your seat in time to receive your hand. (It also comes with the same unfair opportunity enabled by the visual angle you get on your opponents.) The rule is right there, in black and white; the SB knows or should know that his hand will be dead if this happens, and still he turns up late. In doing so, he is forfeiting the hand. That's what he agreed to by signing up for a tournament with that premise in the rules.

As far as I know, there's no exception for people coming back from the break, nor should there be. Players are told how long the break is and/or when it will end. Any lateness is their problem, and the house can't reasonably be expected to judge the cause or degree of it. Everyone is held to the same written rule: You're late, and your hand is dead. Don't be late next time.

Thanks, Jim! That was how I felt, exactly!

Also, those saying that I wouldn't be complaining here if I had won the hand: I'm not so sure. First of all, I didn't want any callers and was happy to increase my stack by 16% by just taking down the blinds, which was going to be the most likely outcome given the circumstances when action was on me. Second, I still would have wanted to know what the pros here think and learn from this experience. I might have ended up being too lazy to type it all up without "the pain of losing" but I definitely would still have planned to post it.

So, what would have happened if I had protested immediately after the dealer let the SB into the hand? Would the hand have been allowed to go on but without the SB? Would the hand have been annulled? Somehow I still think that, at best, the SB might have been excluded but for the BB my protesting would have been valuable information and if he was any good, he would have called me very wide. So instead of my highly likely +16% (after the Button had also folded) I suddenly found myself in this situation and would have had to protest, which would either have led to the BB calling (-EV for me), the hand being annulled (-EV for me) or the SB staying in the hand, plus, potentially, the BB, too (double -EV for me). It was simply not a situation I wanted to be in. Which leads us back to "I want Aces", Jim

You don't get to play out the hand, lose, then complain that the villains hand should have been dead. There are 2 appropriate times to raise the issue: before you act on your hand, and when the sb returns and is allowed to play his cards.

It is not appropriate to raise the issue after the hand is over and you see that you lost. Because to be honest, if you spiked a king or flopped trips, this thread would not exist.

The rules are not in place to protect you from appearing weak, they are in place to attempt to ensure an even playing field. If you feel that a rule should be enforced, speak up at that moment. After the hand, you have no legitimate argument.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using 2+2 Forums

I believe you might have posted about it. Seeking advice on how to handle the situation in the future.

But I am very certain you wouldn't have gone to the floor after the hand and argued that the SB should get back his "call" because his hand should have been dead before he called.

Trying to have the rule adhered to may make the BB call slightly wider, but you'd only have to sweat one hand instead of two. I think your worries about "giving reads" cost you here.

I mean, it could be a reverse tell. Maybe you could have included "I don't want someone sucking out on my hand that shouldn't be allowed to play". There are lots of different ways that it could be brought up.

Also, not to talk strategy, but if the BB was good enough to call appropriate to your shoving range, knowing that you're weak would most likely only bring in hands that you are ahead of into the equation anyway. Basically, get the hand killed if you can.