Of course I wouldn't want the dealer to muck the hand in this last example. It's absolutely nothing like the hand in question though.

I would not want the dealer to announce before that betting round "player one, just a reminder, there are two other players in the hand, so if you decide to bet, make sure that both players have folded before releasing your hand".

I would definitely not want to see this either. Is it something that has actually happened?

I doubt it, but it's the equivalent of what happened in the OP.

Before it happens?

Let's say your scenario did happen and you won the pot because the dealer fast-mucked the cards before anyone could say something. Next time you get to the river with this opponent, are you and/or the dealer supposed to say "careful seat 8 has cards"? If the answer is yes, how long are you supposed to do that, til the next dealer sits down or forever? "Hey new dealer, seat 2 always needs a reminder who is in the hand on the river. Please make sure to let him know".

The 3-player pre-muck scenario has happened and is covered in TDA. The 'mucker' will receive any uncalled bet back and the last live hand wins the pot.

I think we need to get over calling this a 'reminder' and just lock in procedures where the Dealer announces a general statement as they undoubtedly do going to the Flop.

We're not going to ask the Dealer to go out of their way (too much) and it certainly needs to happen before the next street is exposed. GL

This has happened tons of times. Gaelle Baumann had a hand involving this scenario in the WSOP several years back.

My point wasn’t that this was directly analogous to the OP, but is a different branch in the tree of “should a player win bc of another players game status confusion and what is the dealer role in preventing that”.

I have 100% seen a player livid that a dealer didn’t muck the cards in this spot when I tossed my cards in at Venetian (it was during plexiglass poker and I couldn’t see the 2 seat cards from the 8/9).

After all the player tossed them in and if the dealer mucked the hand then the other guy wins. Why should the dealer decide the guy didn’t intend to bet them muck before last player acts? I obv disagree with that argument but it does get made.

No, again not drawing analogy directly to OP. If I saw the bettor pick his cards up and go to toss them in, yea I would say “I haven’t acted” though.

I don't think it is even close. We'll just have to leave it at that, I guess.

Ok. Back it up to a previous example. Player A raises. A couple of folds. Player B reraises. Actions folds to Player C who is talking to a waitress/massage girl/floorperson and not paying attention. Dealer taps the table and gets his attention and says it is his turn.

I think a good dealer recaps the action for him ("Seat 2 raised to $30, seat 6 reraised to $110) to quickly catch him up to speed and makes sure he just doesn't throw in $30.

Do you have a problem with that?

I believe the correct course is ‘Jim, action is on you. $110 to call.” If you want to look how it got to $110 or who is in, that info is available from chips on the table. Or if you are unsure, you can ask. Imo no need to recap more info than the call amount unless you ask. If you ask we follow the rules / procedures for that question on its own.

+1.

If that happened preflop to Jim in the BB, is the dealer supposed to say:
"Seat 3 $10 straddle, seat 4 call, seat 5 call, seat 6 fold, seat 7 fold, seat 8 call, seat 9 fold, seat 1 raise to $50"

That sounds like a lot of talking for something most players can actually see once they focus their attention on the table. If Jim wants to know if the $25 chip in front of seat 8 was a call of the $10 straddle or a raise to $25, he can ask the dealer. Same for the question if seat 3 straddled or raised.

Yes, this. I have been away from poker for some time and I understand things change, but this still sounds right.

I think any position taken to the extreme ends up sounding absurd.

Of course it would be ridiculous to recite all of that action to a player who wasn't paying attention. That wasn't what I was arguing however.

I don't think telling a player who hasn't been paying attention (for legitimate reasons) that there has been a bet and a raise isn't unreasonable. That way they can look at their hand and quickly fold anything that isn't even close to playable. Sure, if they get a borderline hand they can read the action and take their time to decide themselves.

The point is, keeping the game moving by summarizing basic action for someone who isn't paying attention benefits everyone. If they look at their hand and see 10 9 offsuit they don't have to waste time getting uo to speed. They can just quickly fold and the game can move on.

OTOH, if they have 10-2 off they don't even need you to tell them there was a bet and a raise (or a raise and 3 bet, technically). So for the really simple decisions, why do more than say 'action on you, $110 to call'?

Because I think highlighting a raise to $30 and then a reraise to $110 doesn't take that much more time to say, doesn't confuse anyone, and simplifies a wider range of hands for the player quickly trying to get up to speed.

For me as a player, knowing there is a raise and reraise makes a difference in what my actions will be for a certain subset of hands as opposed to just knowing what the ultimate action to me is. Sure, usually the subset isn't likely to be really large, but it is different. It is all public information on game state and as a dealer saying it doesn't take much more time or effort so why not convey it? Keep the game moving and everyone benefits.

Sure if there is a raise to $30, two calls, a reraise to $110 and then a call, then the game state is obviously complicated enough that no amount of summary explanation will easily work so as a dealer I would simply say "Sir, action is on you." and let them figure it out. It is obvious it will take time and trying to explain it will only cause more confusion than it solves.

To me this is the difference between a mearly good dealer who knows what is required of them and a great dealer who understands what matters and what doesn't and will keep the game going.

I guess my ultimate point is, if the dealer is just trying to help the overall game and not a specific player by summarizing public information that is very basic information (raise and reraise) that doesn't realistically unfairly benefit a specific player, why shouldn't they? The overall game is helped and no one is realistically hurt.

Sure, the legitimately distracted player could potentially be hurt if the information was not summarized because they might make a stupid mistake due to not paying attention, but as a poker player I don't want to take a players money because the waitress was taking their drink order. But if we are going to be that draconian, then that just means everyone who is distracted will now slow down the game while they get back up to speed. That hurts everyone. No one benefits from a slower game due to distractions.

How many Dealers actually answer the 'Who raised?' question? While this can get more complicated depending on what chips are in the betting area, the Dealer should not be answering this question unless there is a potential misunderstanding of the chips in play .. like if a Player called $10 with a green, but it's not raised to $25. GL

The dealer shouldn't answer to "who raised?", really?

Trying to do too much can make a great dealer a good dealer. It is like refs, umpires, etc. If the game goes well and you remember nothing about the refs they prolly did a great job.

Remember:
You don’t know what the player does or doesn’t know about the action
You don’t know if he even cares
It isn’t about the time saved

It is generally unlikely he will have a hand where his decision is impacted by the action recap, BUT if it does, is it really up to the dealer to make sure he has this additional information? The very fact that you believe this info is important and may change the decision pretty much defines you are violating OPTAH. If it is important info, the player needs to seek it and not have dealer hand them this info.

Can’t really have it both ways. If not important, don’t waste time/energy to go through it. If it is important to the hand, then dealer should not inject himself into the decision process by bringing it up.

Not sure that he should or should not. I come down on the answer if asked pov. But whether he should or should not answer, I don’t think he should volunteer the info.

Super bad takes in here.

The dealer pointing out correct action to a player who has repeatedly made a procedural mistake should be accepted, expected, and encouraged. In fact, they should have said something earlier but it is what it is.

The dealer running the game smoothly and eliminating confusion and ambiguity for players of all levels is a key part of the job. Getting mad at the dealer for "clarifying the game state unnecessarily" or some **** like that is complete nonsense.

They make sure the game is run in order and this is a net positive for casino poker whether it benefits any individual player or not. Complete nonsense to think otherwise just because you want to pick up free ev from some confised players or whatever. Nobody should want some confused beginners to make some procedural mistake, lose all their money, and never play again. And it's the dealer's job to run a clean game following the rules of poker, there's nothing super special about being hu otr that breaks this idea.

The rule is self-enforcing, if a players acts out of turn it is binding, there is nothing left to solve. The dealer's job at this point is to merely allow hero to have an option and then instruct villain it is their turn. It is not the dealer's job to coach players

Our room rule was that if the question is asked about a raise on the current street, we answer. If a previous street, we can't.

That makes a lot of sense.

Because it's normal. Besides, on the current street, you can look at the bets and figure it out for yourself ... well assuming a competent dealer anyway.