Instead, I won the hand and racked up and left taking $1000 off the table.

This is 2/5 where people should know better. The floor was standing right there when the guy yelled out what he had right in the middle of the hand still being played. The floor said nothing. This time I did speak up and had a few words for UTG as did the other player in the hand.

Nice hit and run.

I disagree.

If the rule is that OOT calls are binding then the dealer never should have mucked his cards. This is all the dealer's fault no matter what he said to the player.

With this guys cards in the muck I would've given him his chips back within about 30 seconds and waited patiently for this dealer to get pushed out so I could issue a KITN. LOL@8minutesnoobfloor

Who said the dealer mucked his cards? I didnt see his cards go into the muck or how they got there.

Assuming OOT action is binding (which hasn't been confirmed or denied?), when he put the money in the pot he had cards. It's his own fault that he now has money in the pot and no cards. He paid and *then* gave up his cards. The dealer helped muddle the situation, but he made it himself.

And the floor needs to work on sticking to his rulings, not letting people badger him into changing his mind. If you need a second opinion, call the boss. If you just want to vent, let's discuss it away from the table, this hand is going to continue now.

First time ever. I was fed up with the Hard Rock, that table and that UTG player at that moment. I didnt really even care what the ruling was. I just wanted to get on with the hand and once he yelled out his cards during the hand and the floor said nothing to him, I was done.

Right. It must have been the muck fairy. You said they were in the muck and irretrievable. There are not a lot of ways that happens.


Except that the dealer pushed his chips back to him.

Understatement of the thread, but whatever you need to say to force your point!

:grunch:

Depends on the stated house rules for action out of turn, and what constitutes a change in action. In most places (and my opinion) his call stands, and his money stays. Same if you had folded. Only way he gets his money back is if you raise.

Arguing with the floor shouldn't get the money pulled. Problem is that the dealer explicitly pushed the chips back before he mucked. So the dealer basically made a ruling and the guy made his action based on that incorrect ruling. Dealer may deserve a KITN for that.

Best solution for everybody is probably to just comp the guy a meal or a room. Money stays in the pot, guy gets something to make up for it, and the casino gets him back in for another trip.

I'm 100% with albedoa and suit on this one.

Sure, the player messed up big time. But the whole situation would have been avoided if the dealer did what she was supposed to do. I don't see how it would be in the best interest of the game to keep the players money in the pot.

Does anyone have an objection to a player who folded telling the dealer not to muck the hand because he thinks the floor is going to get called to deal with this and he wants to prevent a messy situation that might take some time to resolve?

Absolutely not. Would have saved this mess completely if anyone had stopped the dealer.

Or the player mucked them himself. Think that mightve been possible?

How many players put their cards not only on top of the muck pile, where they are usually retrievable, but mix them into the muck in a way they are totally irretrievable or as you stated "completely in the muck"?

Everybody understands that you wanted the rules enforced by the book and the money to stay in the pot, but people here argue based on what's in the best interest of the game and not what's in the best interest of OP. It's always sad when people get defensive because they don't get the responses they wanted to get.

Im fine with whatever the correct ruling shouldve been. I honestly dont know.

I didnt see the cards go in the muck so I dont know who put them there or which cards they were. I just know there was a tight pile of cards with no cards sticking out which wouldve been obvious which ones were his. I didnt even realize he didnt have cards until the floor said his money stayed in, and then he said "but I dont even have any cards"

The $55 doesnt make much difference in the grand scheme. I would just like to know the correct ruling so I will know next time. I was trying to keep quiet so the raiser wouldnt get any read on what I had based on me wanting UTG in or out of the pot.

It appears there's no black and white answer other than I should not do anything next time until its cleared up first.

You can still speak to the floor in that spot.

P1 did X, then P2 did Y, then I did Z, at which point P2 did Y ... what's your house rule on how this goes? Fine to ask that before acting too.

You're not going to "give up a read" in any meaningful way by asking a neutral question. If you said "he has to keep his money in, right?" it's a different story of course.

Yeah, the problem was that I didnt see exactly what happened with the chips or the cards and I dont know what was said to UTG by the dealer so I decided just to stay silent and let them figure it out. I was fine with whatever ruling he came up with. I just wanted to know what you guys thought was correct, but I guess its not really possible to know since I dont know 100% of the facts.

I skimmed over some of this but there really is 2 discussions here IMO ...

1) What's the rule about OOT action for this room? Apparently the rule was that it's binding per the floor's 1st decision. I think the majority of us here would agree and enforce accordingly. Chips stay in the pot with no option to re-raise when action is 'finally' on them, folding is always an option. Everything is forgiven and 'safely' returned if OP re-raises, thus creating new action.

2) Now we have a dealer error (maybe 2 or 3) in properly implementing the rule. My feeling is that the floor was also in the right here to reverse his 'correct' ruling and allow the calling chips to be returned.

I have seen plenty of spots (not many at casinos, but charity/home rooms) where a player tries to limp or open-raise and wasn't paying attention to a raise that had already occurred. In these cases a dealer will push back the chips and let the player (with warning) start his action 'anew' (but maybe with no option to re-raise). In this case here since there had already been a call of the raise and the player 'knew' what he was trying to do (call a raise) then the chips should've stayed in the pot had the dealer not made their errors. GL

In no limit when there is a gross misunderstanding concerning the size of the call the player should be allowed to take back his call and decide anew. Should the player in this scenario be limited to only 'passive' options (call / fold)? Also, if the player calls the big blind but it has in fact been straddled does this constitute a gross misunderstanding?

Did this happen 5 years ago in Puerto Rico? I hope it wasn't a timed table.

That came out of left field.

No, it happened the day I posted it. It was at the Seminole Hard Rock where garbage like this goes on quite a bit which is why I hate the place.

Yes RROP

13. A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action and must make the amount of the wager correct. (This also applies right before the showdown when putting chips into the pot causes the opponent to show the winning hand before the full amount needed to call has been put into the pot.) However, if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you. At pot-limit or no-limit betting, if there is a gross misunderstanding concerning the amount of the wager

The only thing I question about this rule is what if player announces "call" and then puts in chips?

There can still be a misunderstanding as to what's being called. Puts the dealer in a tough spot sometimes but in the interest of the low limit stake games it's usually better to give the benefit of the doubt to the player. GL