I'm very confused. Floor rules it a binding raise and everyone folds to you. Now you're trying to make it a non-binding raise? What about all those who folded - but might not have folded absent his non-raise? Floor should have stopped your negotiations immediately and continued with hand including the raise. How is this significantly different from raising people out of a pot and then agreeing to chop? What have I missed?????

I guess I'm missing something here. Like I said, I'm not trying to nitpick for the reasons most would nitpick here, but what do you mean by "race for the pot" if it doesn't mean just running out the rest of the board?

Yeah this is confusing. What did you think was happening when you agreed to the call?

More to the point: what did you think was happening when you both flipped your hands over?

We're having difficulty reconciling:
1) Agreed on the flop to not "treat this as a real hand" and flip the cards over.
2) Surprised/annoyed that you were not given the opportunity to bet the turn.

I don't think it is confusing at all
1) First player bet
2) Second player, meaning to call, makes a very large raise
3) First player gives second player the option to treat accidental raise as a call, and then check it down
4) Everyone seems to agree, but then house enforces the outcome of the hand as if there was no side deal.

So they all should have played make-believe on the turn and river, acting as though everything was normal and the hands weren't turned up? I guess that's technically true, but it's an odd thing to be concerned about.

They agreed to end action, chop the overbets, and just play for the original pot (the pot before the accidental raise). What he was concerned about was the house seemingly being on board with this, then not allowing the winning player to rebate the raise back, like they had agreed to.

How is this any different than the SB and BB chopping?

There's a difference between the dealer putting out the turn and river after the hands have been turned up on the flop, and splitting a pot in a completed hand which one player won. Where I play that isn't allowed, and the pot has to be pushed to the winning player.

There's also a difference between the blinds chopping a pot where everybody folds preflop, and two players betting/raising everybody out on the flop and then agreeing to take back their raises. If two players raised me off of a decent hand on the flop and then made a deal after I folded, that would seem pretty sketchy to me.

I can see that point of it being an angle, but angling with a partner or not, I'm willing to bet that raising 10x pot with just top pair is -EV.

Main issue is that floor watches us negotiate, said nothing, dealer dealt cards going along with our stated plan and then they went against what we had agreed upon after the hand had played out. The floor could have simply just said "You can't do that" instead of watching silently in what kind of felt like entrapment.

Still no answer to what exactly you thought was going to happen?

We both assumed given that we openly negotiated directly in front of floor and dealer that we'd be allowed to follow through on our plan instead of having to "go for a cigarette" and exchange money outside.

I really don't understand why this is so contentious - just a silly little story I shared - never thought so much would come of it.

I agree! It's amazing how so many in these forums like to argue for the sake of arguing.

So many nit picking about rules, hands, etc. Post a story, read, enjoy!

Sorry to nitpick. When someone tells a story about something where they agreed to do something, and then that exact thing happens, and then they complain about what happened and it's the point of the entire story, I think it's fair to ask some questions.

I feel like I read a different post than you did.

OP agreed with villian to pull back the accidental raise amount with opponent and check it down, just playing for what was already in the pot. Dealer quickly pulled in the raise amount though, then ran out the board. Hero though villain should have won only the amount previously in the pot, but instead he won the full amount, including his accidental raise (and hero's call).

If floor didn't want to let them pull back their bets and raises, he should have said so. Then hero would have reraised, and villain likely would have had to fold.

Luckily, villain was a good guy, and paid hero the required amount in cash, away from the table.

Nevermind. Deleted (can't delete on phone for some reason)

Yes, and?

There were multiple ways to read the post, each with completely different meanings, and the replies became super confusing if you read it the unintended way the first time.

There is only one way to read the story in a way that it makes sense. I understood it perfectly the first time I read it and am as baffled as others seem to be by all the questions and nit-picking. But with all of the nitty personalities on this forum I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

Edit: Ok, I see where a lot of the confusion may have came from. This phrase:

Seems to have been interpreted as "I was surprised that the dealer put out both the turn and river without either of us acting because we each had 20k+ in chips behind" and this wasn't the intended meaning. He clearly meant to convey, "The dealer dealt the turn and river without either of us acting, so this means that the dealer was not only aware of the deal, but complicit in its execution as well. How can the staff refuse to acknowledge that there is a deal to take money back out of the pot (which was probably suggested because of the initial incompetent ruling), but accept that there is a deal not to make further bets on the turn and river?"

Jesus guys. Dead horse.

Ferguson is dead?

Oh, I'll take one last swing at the horse.

My confusion came from: "we agree that I will call, we flip our hands over, take back the bets and let the winner take the pot in the middle and shake hands on this."

To me that reads like they actually flipped their hands over and took back their bets (it's that second "we" that's the issue, to get really nitpicky), whereas they only agreed to do that but never actually did. That's why people (or at least me) were confused why he was surprised that no betting was allowed on the turn/river, because I thought the hands were turned over.

Okay. The way I read it, I thought YOU thought there would be further betting "because you had chips behind" and that you were upset that it was just over right there. I see that now that you were mainly just upset over the bets not being able to be pulled back (as I read it, you had physically done this so I was confused on that too). All good. Nitpick over, carry on!

=P

Oh my god, can we sticky this somehow?

Ending warmed my heart...

faith in humanity restored