Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Is this ruling correct? Is this ruling correct?

09-23-2017 , 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by youtalkfunny
I don't mind reshuffling a premature turn or river, but I'm loathe to do it on the flop. The player has a duty to stop the dealer from putting out a card before the action is complete (I know 99% of you don't like this, but tough luck, this is your responsibility whether you like it or not!).

I understand that it's tough to do that on the turn and river, a dealer can snap those out pretty quickly, and sometimes a player is helpless to stop it--but a flop? Nuh uh.

Maybe the UK has different dealing procedures than USA#1, but over here, you can't snap out an unexpected flop, short of complete and utter dereliction of the duty I described in my opening sentence.

This ruling in the OP that no one can follow? Makes perfect sense to me. You don't get to look at the flop, and THEN say, "Hey, let's back this up." You had plenty of time/notice to prevent this, and you chose not to. The flop stands. When you let this flop happen, you effectively checked your option.

As for the rest, that the all-in was binding: I'm giving OP "gross misunderstanding of the action" protection. He clearly thought he was betting last round, not this one. Take back that bet, it never happened.

Of course, if this room enforces a betting line, or doesn't understand finer points like "gross misunderstanding protection", the floorman's hands might be tied here.
I would agree with what you say here if this stuff applied to the OP, but it clearly doesn't. OP says he was starting to say "all in" and moving his chips BEFORE the dealer even started to burn and put out the flop. What else is he supposed be able to do to stop a dealer from acting, if he is already saying and doing that? If the dealer isn't paying attention to that stuff, he is not going to pay attention and have time to stop himself from dealing if OP somehow interrupts himself from saying "all in" and suddenly says "dealer, stop".

It certainly is annoying and bad that the flop needs to be redealt here, but that seems to be the only option. Even that is bad for the OP though, because his villain now gets to know some of the cards left in the deck before he makes his decision to call or not. So even if the floor makes the perfect ruling for this situation, the dealer has still screwed things up and harmed OP.

YTF, I have played at your table, and you are a very good dealer. But sometimes I don't think you realize how crappy some other dealers actually are.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
09-23-2017 , 03:36 PM
Quote:
YTF...sometimes I don't think you realize how crappy some other dealers actually are.
On the contrary: it is because I'm *acutely* aware of this, that's why I approach these with, "It's the players' responsibility to control the dealer in these spots."

99% of the players don't seem to be aware of this responsibility. Their reaction is, "That's not MY job! That's HIS job! That's why we pay rake/tips/etc!" They cling to this false belief, even after suffering preventable, unfortunate rulings like the one ITT.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
09-23-2017 , 03:41 PM
True, it's the players responsibility to make sure they don't get screwed. But it is the job the dealers are getting paid for.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
09-23-2017 , 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by youtalkfunny
On the contrary: it is because I'm *acutely* aware of this, that's why I approach these with, "It's the players' responsibility to control the dealer in these spots."

99% of the players don't seem to be aware of this responsibility. Their reaction is, "That's not MY job! That's HIS job! That's why we pay rake/tips/etc!" They cling to this false belief, even after suffering preventable, unfortunate rulings like the one ITT.
You infer but don't directly state that, as reported, the dealer made an error. THEN it was the player's responsibility to correct the dealer. Which I agree with.
(I don't necessarily agree that OP had time to do it, but defer to your pov/experience from the box.)

I understand that the dealer made a mistake is a premise to your point and would be redundant to explicitly state it.

Just making sure everyone is on the same page.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
09-23-2017 , 04:01 PM
Yeah, of course YTF knew the dealer here made a mistake. I wasn't sure he knew that some dealers would be paying no attention and would keep dealing no matter what the player said or did. There are some mistakes that just can't be stopped by another person.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
09-23-2017 , 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steamraise
Yes. But could OP have prevented it? Did OP decide to see if he liked the flop before speaking up?
Er, no.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
09-23-2017 , 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by youtalkfunny
I don't mind reshuffling a premature turn or river, but I'm loathe to do it on the flop. The player has a duty to stop the dealer from putting out a card before the action is complete (I know 99% of you don't like this, but tough luck, this is your responsibility whether you like it or not!).

I understand that it's tough to do that on the turn and river, a dealer can snap those out pretty quickly, and sometimes a player is helpless to stop it--but a flop? Nuh uh.

Maybe the UK has different dealing procedures than USA#1, but over here, you can't snap out an unexpected flop, short of complete and utter dereliction of the duty I described in my opening sentence.

This ruling in the OP that no one can follow? Makes perfect sense to me. You don't get to look at the flop, and THEN say, "Hey, let's back this up." You had plenty of time/notice to prevent this, and you chose not to. The flop stands. When you let this flop happen, you effectively checked your option.

As for the rest, that the all-in was binding: I'm giving OP "gross misunderstanding of the action" protection. He clearly thought he was betting last round, not this one. Take back that bet, it never happened.

Of course, if this room enforces a betting line, or doesn't understand finer points like "gross misunderstanding protection", the floorman's hands might be tied here.
As I was the only one there, you'll have to take my word that I didn't have "plenty of time" to notice the dealer, and it certainly wasn't the case that I "chose not to".

Only the dealer knows what she was thinking, but I looked down at my cards, saw A6o and as I was verbalising all-in and getting my hands behind my chips to effect a smooth shove of my stack, she was already dealing the flop.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
09-23-2017 , 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackem790
As I was the only one there, you'll have to take my word that I didn't have "plenty of time" to notice the dealer, and it certainly wasn't the case that I "chose not to".

Only the dealer knows what she was thinking, but I looked down at my cards, saw A6o and as I was verbalising all-in and getting my hands behind my chips to effect a smooth shove of my stack, she was already dealing the flop.
It might help if you told us if the floor gave an explanation why they ruled this.

Or did they just say that flop stays?

If no explanation, dunno why you didn't ask right then or after tournament.

If no explanation, please ask next time you go how they would rule (since might not recall.)
Is this ruling correct? Quote
09-23-2017 , 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackem790
As I was the only one there, you'll have to take my word that I didn't have "plenty of time" to notice the dealer, and it certainly wasn't the case that I "chose not to".

Only the dealer knows what she was thinking, but I looked down at my cards, saw A6o and as I was verbalising all-in and getting my hands behind my chips to effect a smooth shove of my stack, she was already dealing the flop.
The floor won't know that, and will have to rule in a way that minimizes risk of angling. While I have not seen it done, it is a very possible angle to not act, or act ambiguously, then start to act as the flop is being dealt in order to free roll a look at the flop.

I was playing in a tournament today and I kept track of how long it would take to deal a flop. While it is possible to be so engrossed in thought that the dealer can table the flop before you notice, it seems unlikely. You should have had plenty of time to say 'hold on'.

Once the flop was out, the floor was in a tough spot. His ruling is reasonable. Rolling back action and shuffling the cards back into the deck would also have been reasonable.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
09-23-2017 , 07:56 PM
"I'm in the middle of saying "All-in" and moving my chips forward when the dealer quickly deals the burn card and deals a flop of 559."


"Only the dealer knows what she was thinking, but I looked down at my cards, saw A6o and as I was verbalising all-in and getting my hands behind my chips to effect a smooth shove of my stack, she was already dealing the flop."

Next time, just say all-in. No need to spend time touching your chips.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
09-23-2017 , 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackem790
Only the dealer knows what she was thinking, but I looked down at my cards, saw A6o and as I was verbalising all-in and getting my hands behind my chips to effect a smooth shove of my stack, she was already dealing the flop.
It's not worth it to keep describing these events because we will always find opportunities to say "STOP" on this side of the screen. Notice how you describe going all-in as a multi-step process while you describe dealing a flop as if it's the flicking of a light switch or the pulling of a trigger. There is only a before and an after, no during.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
09-23-2017 , 08:10 PM
Also did the dealer not collect the pot before dealing the flop?
Is this ruling correct? Quote
09-23-2017 , 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albedoa
Notice how you describe going all-in as a multi-step process while you describe dealing a flop as if it's the flicking of a light switch or the pulling of a trigger. There is only a before and an after, no during.
2017 POTY.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
12-11-2017 , 01:45 AM
If you hadn't acted, then it's a premature flop. State that this flop will not stand, and complete preflop action. The flop cards then get reshuffled into the deck, and then without burning again the flop is redealt.

That's how I would have ruled if multiple players backed you up and said you hadn't acted. Dealer mistake, it happens.

However if dealer insisted that you checked, I would have to back up my dealer. I would make sure the dealer is 100% certain you checked, then get the other side of the story from you and the other players at the table. If multiple players insisted you didn't act, I'm ruling a premature flop.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
12-11-2017 , 05:39 PM
I don't mind the ruling.

Protect your hand. This includes saying "Stop!" to the dealer before any flop cards are turned over. If you had done this, there would be no issue. Even if the Dealer had turned over the flop after you said "Stop!" your argument now stands a chance of winning.

You don't get to see the flop and then press your case. I get that you were in the process of saying "all-in" while the flop was being turned over, but had they ruled that the flop must be held up so you can bet, it opens the place up to several types of angles.

Hopefully you can learn from this experience to pay attention to the dealer. Sometimes there is nothing you can do. But at least now you are aware of the possibilities.

Glad you finished high in the money.
Is this ruling correct? Quote
12-14-2017 , 07:55 AM
This ruling is incorrect, see the GUKPT rules:

Quote:
The flop will be dealt in one action

Prior to the completion of any betting round if the Flop/Turn or River is exposed in error by
the dealer, it will be shuffled back into the remaining live deck.

As the three card flop is dealt at the same time the whole flop will be replaced if a player facing a bet was not given the option to call or raise.

If a player’s option was to check then the flop will remain and the player’s
option will be taken as a check.

The muck and burnt cards are excluded and only live cards will be included in a re-shuffle
Is this ruling correct? Quote
12-14-2017 , 08:54 PM
plus the dealer easily can interpret a players hand coming down to his chips as a check. you know they are expected to keep the game moving. players job is to make actions that cant be interpreted wrong.
Is this ruling correct? Quote

      
m