This is basically a case of a player doing something stupid or a stupid player just doing his thing.

Either way, people do stupid things all the time in poker rooms. And it ends up costing me tournaments.

I have gotten used to it.

This is compounded of course by the Dealer counting down the shortest stack first (which I still contend is a mistake).

Protect yourself the best you can from mistakes that can be corrected in time.

As for stupid players, I have learned to be grateful for them. Eventually you will prosper as a result of their mistakes.

I think you misunderstood (or I didn't clearly describe) what I meant by the angle. It wasnt an angle planned ahead of time. My suggestion was that the player asked for a count. The dealer makes the mistake and announces 12k instead of 30k. At that point, if player realizes the other stack is larger, he says call. If the dealer runs out the board quickly and he wins before OP questions stack size, then he takes both players chips since he covers both. But if he loses, he calls floor and says he only called the 12k that dealer announced. While I'm not suggesting it's a lock he did that, I think it's a least as likely as the player having vision issues that make it difficult for him to realize the difference in stack sizes between two players sitting next to each other.

Because I wasn't there to hear the real story I will give you the 0.2%

Worst possible result? Really? It's only the worst possible result if you consider the pushing of chips to matter.

At the time the decisions were finalized, OP held a premium hand against a shortstacked opener and someone who may have only intended to call 12k but accidentally called 30k (that is, Seat 1's calling range is weaker than if he had snap called 30k without a count!).

That is a super ****ing awesome result.

That S1 shows up with a premium hand is irrelevant. That the board runs out in a way that OP gets eliminated is irrelevant. When the action was completed, OP was not only a clear favorite but better off equity wise than if the dealer hadn't made a mistake at all!

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

"Dealer."
"DEALER, I have him covered."
"HOLD UP, this is the bet size."
Now you're speaking up?

If you're insinuating that things even out for him over time, that's not true. The 'long run' means that the relative deviation from the expected outcome will get smaller, but not the absolute deviation. If you roll a dice twice and it lands on 6 both times, you're expecting to get to a total of 12 times 6 after 62 throws, not 10.

Besides that, the long run in poker is a valid concept for mass tabling online players who get in millions of hands over their career. That thing doesn't exist in live poker, things don't even out. Especially for the vast majority of players who play less than 100 total tournaments at a casino in their lifetime. Would you tell the guy who busted on the WSOP ME FT bubble with KK vs. KK vs. AA not to worry, because next time he's in that spot with $8.8mil for first, he's going to have AA vs. KK vs. KK?

OP has every right to be upset with the dealer. He didn't do his job properly and that might have cost OP real money. He obviously shouldn't tell the dealer he felt screwed because that implies intent by him, but that doesn't mean he can't be unhappy about the situation.

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. If we're going to nitpick and be results oriented, it's almost 50/50 that OP wins this hand and the dealer's mistake more than doubles the OP up. Then he should be happy the dealer made a pretty minor error. "Dealer, my stack is the big stack?" "Oh, I thought I heard you say call"


It happens. It sucks. But being so angry about it when it was almost a literal coin flip to be a positive result...I just don't understand the hate here.

If he's all-in with his AK vs. K6, that spot wins him 7500 chips if the blinds are 1k/2k and 6500 chips if the blinds are 500/1k.

If he's all-in with AK vs. K6 and 88, he wins 600 chips with blinds of 1k/2k and basically breaks even with blinds of 500/1k.

He's going from being a 72% favorite vs K6 in a 24k+blinds pot to having 38% equity in the 36k+blinds main pot vs K6 and 88 and 44% equity in the 36k side pot vs. 88.

That's not even accounting for the bounty that he gets in 72% of cases by knocking out K6 but only in 38% of cases by knocking out K6 with 88 also in the pot.

If you want to nitpick, you can argue that 88 would call the all-in anyway. But absent of that, OP is in a significantly worse position if 88 enters the pot and that's not even close.

We don't know how much the bounties are worth. Maybe it's a 50% bounty and 50% prize pool split? Also, I know it's hard to quantify, but winning this hand puts us in a great spot (likely well above chip average) for the rest of the tourney to start collecting more bounties. I'm not disagreeing with your analysis by the way. I'm just really confused by the precision focus on the results of this exact scenario.

If we have TT instead of AK, and the same scenario plays out, we're fist pumping. I'm just saying that the negative focus on a minor mistake that happens just seems silly.

The real lesson should be "**** happens, and it's not worth getting steamed about" but you're here telling the dude that he's fully justified to be on full blown tilt, and even if that's not specifically what you're saying, that's how the OP is going to read it because that's what he came here for.

Guys 88 is at the top of his range. When the dealer mistake happens, OP has a massive equity advantage over both opponents.

I don't get why, given that there is no One True Ruling, the floor doesn't have a third option of allowing Seat 1 to reconsider his call. I'm not making an argument for what the best ruling is, just that Option 3 is no less reasonable than another option in that list given there is a list to choose from. (Though if pressed, I'd say that Options 1 and 3 are always more reasonable than the confusingly popular partial call option.)

Ya, this.

I am not disagreeing with anything you're saying except for me telling him to be on tilt. I am saying he has every right to be disappointed about a mistake the dealer made.

From the OP, you can already tell he is not a very experienced player or at least doesn't play a lot of tournaments. The one thing he will keep in mind about playing that one is that he busted because of a dealer error. In my opinion, telling him to 'toughen up buttercup' is not the right approach to get him to play more poker tournaments and eventually maybe encounter the other side of that kind of variance.
That's not true. 88 is at the top of the guys range when the cards are dealt. At the point where the dealer messed up, there's been an all-in by a player that OP perceived as tight and a re-shove by OP. Without knowing blinds, bounty structure, other stack sizes and ICM considerations, it's hard to tell where 88 ranks now, but it's certainly not at the top of his range anymore. At blinds 500/1k it would most likely be a fold, at blinds 1k/2k it's closer but definitely still not a snapcall.

I haven't read every reply but it's really depressing that "You can fold but you have to leave the 12k in the pot" has so infected thinking that everyone seems to think this is a good floor ruling. In fact it's an abomination.

The most relevant factual post seems to be this one:

I don't like the TDA rule because whenever reasonable players should be protected against bad info from the dealer. And in this case, closing the action, I don't see any reason at all not to let the caller reconsider with the correct information and either fold or call. This rule explicitly reminds us of Rule 1, and I think letting the caller act on appropriate info is a very just application of Rule 1. But never mind that.

In my view, folding doesn't ever involve contributing chips to the pot that aren't part of a legal bet or call. (Many rooms do not share this view; I have my doubts as to how well they're run.) I don't see anything at all in this excerpt at odds with that. "the caller has accepted the full correct action" means the caller is liable for the 30k. It certainly does not mean that the caller gets to throw in 12k as a little pot sweetener and then fold. What am I missing?


OK, good, my faith in humanity is restored.

Well you should get on the TDA committee and change that rule then because 98% of all poker rooms follow TDA rules for their tournaments and that is one of those rules whether we agree with it or not.

You're saying that "full correct action" here means he can put 40% of the bet to him in the pot and then fold? Or is there some other TDA rule justifying this insufficient non-call that I'm not getting?

That same post states matter of factly:

But the only rules I'm aware of allowing a player to put in part of the required bet and fold are house rules. This is probably just my ignorance of other rules besides the one excerpted above.

I'd love to be on the committee but I'm sure there are smarter, more experienced people than me who have thought through this. I don't get why they'd be OK with putting 40% of a bet in, and I don't see that in their written document.

You didn't say "here" in the post of yours that I quoted so I assumed you meant in general you don't agree with being able to fold and have it cost you any amount of chips to do so, ever. According to the TDA there are times when that is in fact what is supposed to happen. As far as "here" is concerned, I believe the best ruling would have the player calling the full amount, but I'm ok with allowing the player to fold and forfeit the 12k, mainly because of the dealer error. I'm not ok with allowing the player to reconsider and have all options available.

You're making me work for this.

But I think I found the relevant paragraphs:

and the only instance I can find specifically about this "leaving it in the pot" notion, which I still find deeply weird:

So there's the rule that justifies it. Still, it's clearly at TD's discretion, which to me suggests they just didn't want to arbitrate among all the different house rules. In my view, since the TD has explicit discretion, she should exercise her discretion to rule it a fold or a call (or gather more information) rather than something in between that's not a legitimate poker action in any other context.

IIRC in years past "You can leave it in the pot," was more frowned upon in this forum. It's a sort of weirdly Solomonic, cut the baby in half solution that appears intended to punish inattention. But rules should be primarily about regulating the game, not about punishing bad habits like inattention.

The exception would be where there's behavior indicating this is an intentional angle, i.e. making a known invalid action like putting an undercall in the pot to elicit a tell. That should be ruled a full call.

Why not? In the OP it seems this player was closing the action for the hand, so inducing action behind wasn't an issue. Inducing tells could hypothetically be an issue, but there's behavioral evidence in the OP that this was not the case. In other words, the player seems to legitimately be confused and think the action is 12,000.

The strongest prima facie evidence of a genuine misunderstanding is that he asked for a count and the dealer gave him the wrong count!

You're misinterpreting the rule.

The rule clear states that it gives the floor only 2 options. It is meant to be the deciding factor when 1) the player must make a full call, and 2) when the TD can allow them to fold and forfeit the chips.

#2 gives the TD the discretion to allow the player to fold and lose the chips. It does not give them the discretion to decide if they must forfeit the chips or not. If a player undercalls they will always forfeit the chips unless they are forced to make a full call. It defines the times when the player must make a full call versus the times when the TD can use their discretion to decide if they must make the full call or allow them to fold and forfeit the chips.

Perhaps one more time ... Not buried in one of my marathon posts ..

Here is an exert form TDA 2017 ..
53: Accepted Action
Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by others. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from a dealer or player, then pushes out that amount, the caller has accepted the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount. As with all situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion.

I tend to lean on Rule #1 myself, but you also have to consider that 'why have all the other rules if we keep going back to Rule #1?

1) The Bounty chip was put out in the betting area.
2) OP 'snap' (dramatically) shoved in his chips as well ... (Maybe the chips first, then Bounty chip 2nd next time?)
3) Apply Rule 53 from TDA ...
4) Verbal 'call' was made when the Player was given the 12K amount ... not waiting for the other chip count from OP.

If there was a Dealer error, it occurs at #4 for not stepping in and letting Seat 1 know that OP was all-in for more. I understand that this is the ire of OP and the Dealer could've used some verbiage, like '12K going into the main pot' or something of that nature to better alert Seat 1 that more information was coming.

BUT let's be clear here that it's Seat 1 who jumped the gun with his call, not the Dealer .. and then the Floor still gave Seat 1 an out by only holding him to the 12K, not the 30K call of OP. GL

OP busted from the tournament ... That is the worst possible result of this hand no matter what ruling the Floor made. Busting the tournament (getting felted in cash) is the worst possible collateral damage a 'spot' can have on a Player involved.

I believe someone else posted the equity .. This IS a results orientated comment as it was meant to be. There are only three possible results here .. AFTER THE FLOOR MAKES THE RULING AND SEAT 1 calls off the additonal 18K.
1) Lose side pot, out of tournament
2) Lose main, win side ... make 6000
3) Win side, scoop main ... move on with a healthy stack near a bubble

I'm not going to have a hard time picking which of the three is 'worst' .. GL

This all seems like a lot of fuss and bother to me.

Dealer made an error, which happens now and then because Dealer is human. Floor made a ruling that did not favor OP, which happens now and then because Poker.

Whether he was distracted by his phone, or he was hiding under his hoodie like the guys on TV, or he just sat there and watched it happen, Op missed or did not prevent action that created a foul. OP had plenty of opportunity to correct the action if he had been paying attention and had spoken up.

Dealer needs a short training session about being more machine-like and having fewer human foibles. OP needs to pay better attention and be more assertive when all of his chips are in the pot.

As a 'reg' who will let Dealers and Floors (employees) take the heat in some spots to save a 'customer' from themselves, I'm still not ready to put the Dealer under the bus here.

Especially in tournaments, the Dealer shouldn't 'offer' information to a Player unless prompted. Depending on how Seat 1 worded his question (and the pace at which the scenario happened) there is plenty of room here to put very little on the Dealer without having been there.

I'm not sure if Suit commented on how he would like his Dealers to go about this spot .. and again, it depends on the exact question posed to the Dealer. But basically should a Dealer automatically go to the larger stack in a spot like this or work the action as it occurred?

As we've discussed in other threads, in a cash game, especially 1/2, 'lots' of Dealers automatically count down bets to keep the game moving. I rarely, if ever, see this happen in a tournament. GL

If a 0layer is asking the size of the bet they are facing there is no reason to count a smaller bet, only the largest bet.

Now if the player asks specifically about the size of other bets then those should be counted. But 99% of the time that is not the question asked.

That's exactly what I'm saying, but unless I'm driving that 1% bus I think 99% is a bit high. I 'always' want to know the difference between the main and side action since part of my decision making process is whether or not I can 'break even' (or better) in the side if I write off the main pot.

So if Seat 6 has OP covered we go the Seat 6 stack first? But if OP has Seat 6 covered we start with that stack?

In this case it should've been obvious but I'm more interested in a procedural guideline of following the action backwards or as it occurred. GL