$2/$5 table, button is in seat 8. Seat 9 is small blind, seat 1 big blind. Seat 2 straddles for $10. A bunch of limps mixed in with a few folds. Button folds. Small blind limps, big blind throws in an extra $5 to call. Straddle checks. 5 or 6 players to the flop. $50 or $60 in the pot.

I put out the flop.

I start to rearrange my rack (the previous dealer left it a mess), but I am carefully watching the player on seat 9 waiting for him to act first. To the best of my knowledge he hasn't moved. I continue with my rack, while watching him.

Then out of the corner of my eye, I see seat 4 check. I perk up, and say "Stop the action". I ask seat 9 if he has acted yet.? He does not answer me. He continues to look at everyone else to see what they are doing. Meanwhile, every other player in the hand checks (nobody stoppedthe action). Then the player in seat 9 speaks up and says that he hasn't acted yet and throws out $15. I pause for a second, and start to speak up and say that he didn't protect his action and it has checked around. I barely get the first syllable of the first word out of my mouth after the pause but it is already too late. Everyone else folds.

It is one of those hands that no one was really interested in. It was a small pot, obviously Everyone missed, they were just more interested in getting back to their phones or their conversations with the neighbors, that they just blondly acted after their neighbor acted. They wanted no part of the hand.

Since everyone else folded, I reluctantly pushed the pot to seat 9. I considered speaking up or calling the floor, but then I thought about it and decided that was not a rules hill I wanted to die on.

It is quite clear seat 9 was cheating. He was seeing if the action was going to blindly check around before betting. It was also obvious that everyone else at the table did not care. Most of the other players would have been more frustrated by the delay in the game by me calling the floor. So I didn't call the floor.

After I pushed the pot and was cleaning up the board, I said to seat 9 that he has to be careful. If enough people check behind him (even out of turn), he might lose his action and his bet wouldn't count. He doesn't say anything for a few seconds, then halfway through my pitch for the next hand he starts going off on me.

He asks me if I am accusing him of cheating? His voice goes higher and gets louder. I say that I am just telling him that he wasn't protecting his action by watching everyone else check. It was fine this time, but it could come back to bite him in the future in a bigger pot where others were interested. Of course everyone else at the table is trying to figure out what is going on and all conversation stops.

He then asks me again if I am accusing him of cheating? I said that I am not accusing him of anything. I was just letting him know that his actions could be ruled differently in the future.

The whole rest of the down he keeps thowing out the cheater accusation. I really wanted to say, "Yes, you cheated", but I didn't. I kept quiet. He talked about going to my manager. When I finally got tapped out, I went to the area supervisor and explained the hand (just as I have here). I said that the player threatened to go to the shift manager over it so I just wanted to explain before that happened.

I don't think I handled it poorly, in fact I think I handled correctly.

I would like to hear others thoughts on this though.

One of my pet peeves in poker is when dealers deals out the cards and then focus on their rack instead of being proactive by keeping the game moving with UTG saying "actions here, x to call", but that's just me.

If you thought he took advantage of the situation (which is highly likely), why didn't you hold your ground and just call the floor over and let them decide if his action stands or not?

Is your preference that he manage the rack first while you guys sit around and watch him, like you do when the dealer first gets in the box and makes sure everything looks right, and only then deal out the cards when he can give you his full attention?

I'm guessing he didn't call the floor because everyone else folded and no one cared.

I might have called the floor when the "are you calling me a cheater?" stuff escalated, but that has a higher likelihood of creating a long term enemy so I can see why he wouldn't if it didn't bother him much. (Though I think it did, hence the post, so I think I probably would have advised calling the floor at that point.)

If you're in an environment where you think the floor is going to have your back, I'd suggest to call for them once the guy asks the cheater thing for the second time.

Otherwise I would probably just not say anything in the first place because it's not worth the risk of getting in trouble if nobody else seems to care.

None of the other players cared when you told them to hold their action. None of them cared when you tried to explain that the bet wouldn't stand. I know you're doing the right thing here and it feels bad to just let the guy get away with it but at the end of the day it's not your battle. I assume it was pretty frustrating when you realized that nobody else gave a F when you tried to stand up for them and enforce the rules to their benefit.

In general an angle isn't against the rules and will be ruled in favor of the angler if a Floor is called over. Here there was basically an angle (a guy who doesn't act and wants to see what other people do before he acts). The irony is that because you called for a halt to the action at the table the angle would have worked if you called the Floor over because you had asked people to stop before 3 people had acted. Seat 9 could have argued that he was intending to bet and the action should have stopped. My guess is that the Floor would have to rule that the bet stands. So you got used by the angler which is normal behavior by anglers.

I think you did the right thing in not calling over the floor for a table that did not care about the technicality and just wanted to move on to the next hand. Especially because the Floor would likely rule in favor of the angler and it would have wasted time (which you were aware of). The benefit of calling the Floor over would have been that the angler might have been warned so it would reduce the chances of this happening again.

I think you tried to do an honorable thing by explaining to the angler that what he did would possibly be ruled against in the future. But by honorable I mean that you are subtly alerting everyone in the hand that they had been angled. Maybe you were doing it from an emotional standpoint where you did not want him to put you in that situation again. I also think that you were calling him out for his action and he didn't like it and asked you if you were calling him a cheater. In that moment the option would have been to say "no I am not calling you a cheater, I am calling you an angler" which would absolutely have escalated things but would have made it clear to the other players that there was an angler at the table. The problem is that if it escalated things, and the Floor came over, the angler would definitely lie and say that he didn't hear you ask him what his action was because he was deep in thought... So it is possible you could have gotten in trouble. By handling it the way you did though everyone else at the table stopped to listen to what was going on and it is very likely that one or more players now know that the angler is in fact an angler.

I think it is good that the angler got riled up because he was called out on his shenanigans. I also agree with you that in the future his action would be cheating if the dealer doesn't step in to try to stop the action before 3 people have checked. It would be an angle though if one of the first 2 people to act puts out a bet and he says he is checking when asked (or says nothing if he isn't asked and acts like he checked) or if the action is actually stopped by the dealer because the next player to act takes an interest in the hand.

I think it was better that you explained everything to management who now will have this evidence if and when it happens again. Your talking to the guy may have actually reduced this from happening again especially at your table, though I'm guessing he will never tip you again.

There was a guy at Foxwoods in the 20/40 LHE game who used to do this repeatedly in EP pre-flop (because he wanted to limp in but didn't want to be raised). When I was sitting to his left I would never act until he stopped hiding his cards and acted. Usually this meant that the action stopped on him while we all waited. But one time everybody to my left folded until the SB. I was trying to stop the action but in this case it only worked when it was on the SB. So the angler called and I think I called but it was many years ago so I don't remember what happened next. Its possible I raised or folded...

It’s an angle, yes, but I also think that many players will try to check waaaay too quickly and not protect their own action.

One time I was at commerce and this guy had his cards hidden utg. It got all the way to sb and he asked for a chop when suddenly this guy was like “I still have cards!” and lifted his hand up. Floor ruled he had all his options available to him and of course he raised.

So in that situation the guy was actively hiding his cards. If guy in OP wasn’t hiding his cards, he should be able to act. You stopped/attempted to stop the action in time, which is what is required by the rules. Be mad at the other players for not caring about whose action it is as much as that guy.

Not getting the floor involved… that’s a tough one. I know certain floors that would have looked at me like I’m crazy for calling them over. I know other floors that I wouldn’t have even needed to call over because they would come over themselves. So I can’t blame you for how you handled it.

Idk, I think this is for a player to call out, not a dealer. If no one is complaining, just keep the game moving.

I think OP did the right thing.

You have two choices:

1. New poker dealer sits down and dealers out the first few hands while only paying "half" attention to the game while rearranging and counting his rack.

2. New poker dealer completely stops the game to do the same thing by not dealing at all.

I think most people would rather have a 1/2 alert dealer for a couple of hands than have the game completely stop. Point is, the new dealer is responsible for the accuracy of the rack (which means counting it) and there are administrative actions that have to happen, so there is some price to be paid somewhere.

There is a lot more to dealing than just tossing out cards and keeping the action moving. Sure that is the biggest part, but there is a decent amount beyond that. A good dealer makes most of the other stuff invisible in the background, but it still exists.

It should also be noted that even while cleaning up the rack, I was watching the player who the action was on and also caught the out of turn action.

I think there were a couple of things that affected my thinking here. One, we have had a bunch of technical rules issues lately. It seems that there is a huge influx of newish poker players (with money) making mistakes and a lot of "rules lawyers" looking to take advantage of them. As a dealer, be have been a little on edge because it has been very challenging. Balancing the technical rules with the understanding of intent by newish players can be tough in normal times and lately everything is under the microscope so it is worse.

Two, I had just tapped into the game, I had no idea what the skill level/experience of the player in seat 9 was. It was obvious though that he was clearly watching the other players act out of turn. He was literally watching them and turning his head as the out of turn action progressed. I don't know if he was inexperienced, I don't know if he is experienced but just doesn't realize that just because he has technically not acted yet does not mean he won't lose his action.

Every dealer and regular player has seen another player make egregious mistakes unintentionally. Mistakes that if the rules are strongly enforced could cost them money. I wasn't going to strongly enforce this. It wasn't worth it. Obviously no one else cared.

I figured I was just treating it as a teaching moment by warning him what could happen if he continued to act like he did. Every dealer (and most players) have let players know when they are making rules mistakes (not strategy mistakes obviously). That was my intent. I figured that if he was a new player, he would appreciate the help. If he was an experienced player who was cheating, he would know that he was caught and that it was communicated in a way that gave him an out. He could easily feign ignorance and move on.

Either way, it was just a warning thatvhis actions were at best borderline wrong. It wasn't an accusation of anything.

The guy wasn't hiding his cards, but he was clearly watching other players check out of turn. He was literally looking right at them and turning his head as the out of turn action continued around the table.

As a player who the action is on, you have a responsibility to stop the action of others as soon as you realize others are acting out of turn. He 100% knew the other players were acting out of turn and continued to let them act out of turn in order to gain information.

It was a small pot that no one else was interested in so he got away with it. If it was a bigger pot, other players would have had a strong argument that he lost his action when he continued to let other players unknowingly act out of turn.

First, when a hand is in action, pay complete 100 percent attention to the hand. Fix the rack, if necessary between hands.

Second, if a player doesn’t act when it’s his turn and you know this, stop the action and have the player act.

Third, once there is significant action behind a player. and several people checking after the player would be considered significant action, the player cannot act.

Fourth, once the hand is over and there are no complaints, don’t say anything and deal the next hand. You never know, as happened here, when a comment will cause a problem.

I would recommend that you physically put out the Stop Sign on Seat 9 while you are verbalizing the "Stop Action" and I would leave it there 'suggesting' (blocking) that Seat 9 answer the question before they can put out a bet. I would also try to keep talking somehow until you get an answer .. no pauses.

As far as after, I think you did fine for the most part.

"No sir, you didn't cheat. But there is a Rule that states that it's your responsibility to stop the action if you have not acted in turn as of yet. I'm here to try and help that process, but it ultimately falls on all the Players to know where the proper action is at all times. You may lose the opportunity to act in a different spot."

See, once you include all the other Players into your dialog then he should feel less that you are singling him out as a cheater.

If he continues as he did in this spot, then I recommend that you go into this dialog .. "Sir, it's no different than if a Player doesn't put out enough chips to properly raise. They are not a cheater, but just didn't follow the exact rule in that spot."

Granted this example could be an angle as well, but IMO it's a close enough example to deflect things away from the implication of being a cheat .. or an angler.

OP says he 'knows' that he cheated and based on the description it certainly seems that this Player did know what was going on at the time. But you never know what's going on in a person's mind even if the physical actions suggest funny business. GL

IMO, seat 9 should not be punished by players acting out of turn *after* the dealer attempts to stop the action.

Something's not adding up here. Aren't seats 1 and 2 also in the hand? Did they also check OOT or is seat 4 extremely premature?

I agree with the above comment. I'm not saying that OP is intentionally leaving something out, but it seems a little unfair to claim to know what Seat 9 was "clearly watching" when you missed it yourself.

Everyone has responsibility to attempt to stop OOT action. And yes s9 needs to protect his action…but when you as dealer call for the action to stop, what is s9 supposed to do? If players won’t listen to the dealer you think they are going listen to me.

Agree it sounds like minor all around but honestly you should have tried harder to stop the action. Your description doesn’t sound like a super bang bang scenario. Maybe or maybe not with full attention and your hands not in the rack action gets stopped.

Honestly I would rather you check and fix the rack immediately when you sit down. Counting a clean rack quick. Just a few seconds. If the rack is a mess sure it takes longer. If the prior dealer always le@ves a mess, give him a heads up. If no improvement, a word to floor is justified. Bu5 even small stakes games deserve your full att3ntion

Most of the time it wont matter but still dont make the opportunity for it to matter.

All of this, 100% (ainec).

I think most poker players just react badly to being told they did something wrong. I've lost count of how many players I have played with that tap their hand on the table to think.

Most of the time I tell them after the hand is over to be careful because it looks the same as a check. I don't get too many polite responses, but they stop doing it for a while.

Think you did right. A lot of players acting out of turn, part of them after you told to stop action. Giving seat 9 a hint he was under observation was good too. He needs to know he can't act as he'd be on the button when not...that's partly for not answering you properly when asking if he had acted...no big scene though, that was right too.

I think you handled the situation about as well as you could have, as the situation was described. I know how rapidly people can check in turn even after the dealer tries to stop the action.

I'm just wondering if there was something nonverbal about the way you commented after the hand that made the player think you were being accusatory and not just trying to be helpful?

I say this because I had a similar situation years ago where I was the one yet to act. I was watching the other players but was kind of daydreaming thinking about something else as they started rapidly checking behind me.

I remember the dealer shooting me an accusatory look and declaring too much action, that's a check as he pointed at me.

He clearly thought I was angling. I can see how it probably looked that way, but I was just half paying attention and didn't register what was going on rapidly enough to speak up and say I hadn't acted yet.

All that's to say you don't know what is going on in someone's head, so be careful to use a neutral tone of voice and body language to avoid coming across as accusatory and potentially escalating a situation. It seems like the player picked up on the fact that you thought he was angling, and that's what set him off, even if you didn't actually say anything that wasn't 100% appropriate.

Yeah, maybe he just followed the action, not registering dealer's question (after all nobody did hear anything), waiting to act, not noticing his actual position. Neutral voice and demeanor is good.

I was fixing my rack and watching seat 9 with me peripheral vision. I saw seat r act out of turn. Since seat 1 and 2 never spoke up, I think it isnsafe tonassume they acted as well.

What was unfair?

I was watching seat 9 waiting for action by him then I saw seat 4 act out of the corner of my eye. Then I watched seat 9 literally watch each other player act out of turn (including the FACT that he had previously been watching seat 1 and 2 act out of turn but I didn't see it).

What am I missing? What am I leaving out?

I have zero interest in the outcome of this hand. Inhave no reason to deceive. I am just reporting that I saw seat 9 act inappropriately.

Respectfully (and I really do mean this respectfully), this is wrong. No experienced dealer would agree with you. Not a single one.

Furthermore, it should be noted that I didn't make any mistake whike counting the rack. I still caught the out of turn action.

You allowed the hand to proceed and this person to bet despite people checking behind him after weighing a variety of factors. So why say something afterward when you didn’t think the possible infraction warranted stopping the hand? It is kind of passive aggressive and my guess is your tone was more annoying/accusatory/passive aggressive than you think. Just my opinion. Either stop the action or let the hand proceed. No need for a comment after the fact when you decided to let it go and move on to the next hand.