Quote:
Originally Posted by psandman
Either it was a call or it wasn't
If the bettor thought it was a call the bettor has no reason to feel cheated.
If the bettor thought it wasn't a call why did he turn up his hand?
All three lines have problems.
1. While it may be true that from an omniscient point of view the rules will clearly state one or the other, sometimes the rules are not precise (e.g., if the rules state that chips must cross a line, but the chip lands on the line so its front edge has crossed but the back edge hasn't), and sometimes people don't know the rules (so there is confusion at the table even if it is true that there shouldn't be).
2. Whether or not the bettor was cheated has no bearing on whether he feels cheated. Take the dark scenario where the bettor realizes he wasn't cheated but could have been, and then devises a way to angleshoot others in the future.
3. This is the easiest conceptually - maybe he thought his opponent folded and he was unnecessarily showing as a courtesy.
I'm not saying that any of these alternate scenarios are true. I'm saying they could be true, and the ambiguity of whether they are true is itself bad.
Clearing up ambiguity is one of the most underappreciated parts of a dealer's job. Instead of assuming everyone knows whether it's a call or fold, dealer should say the obvious. Like if someone flips their hand to get a read, dealer should instinctively clarify, "Action is on Seat 5" so that nobody thinks Seat 5 mumbled a verbal action or whatever.