Four players, A through D, were contesting a pot after the flop. Player D had been the pre-flop raiser. After the flop was dealt, the first two players checked, and the Dealer announced the betting action as "Check, check, check." Hearing that the action had been checked to him, Player D then proceeded to putting out a bet. This all happened in the span of a few seconds.

As Player D was betting -- chips in hand, across the betting line -- Player C spoke up and said that he had not checked. Player D responded, "the dealer just said 'check, check, check. The action is on me." Player C complained some more, but neither bet nor checked. Player D then continued to place his bet.

The Dealer said nothing while all this was going on. Players B and C folded after Player D's bet was made. Then, after some more grumbling, Player C folded, too.

After the hand, Player C continued to complain, and so Player D asked the Dealer, "did I mishear you? Did you announce 3 checks?" Dealer confirmed that is what he had asserted and confessed, "It was my fault."

Assuming Player D did not see the action himself such that he knew that Player C had not acted -- e.g., because he was looking at the board after the cards were dealt -- is he entitled to rely on the Dealer's announcement of the action? Stated differently, if a player takes an action based upon a dealer's announcement, whose rights take precedence: the player who acted on the mistaken announcement, or the player who lost his action because of it?

Dealer's are human and mistakes do happen. In this case here IMO the Dealer should've 'taken action' once C spoke up about him being passed over. Player C should've had the opportunity to act.

Normally Player D's action would stand 'if' Player C decides to check, but in this case here it sounds like Player D hadn't quite finished his betting when Player C spoke up, thus I would allow Player D all actions, but action is on C not D at the moment.

Sounds like an inexperienced Dealer who froze in the moment. Player C should've continued to 'fight' for his right to act, but didn't. And once D is allowed to complete the bet and A and B fold it's really too late 'at that time' to back things up.

By rule it's up to any Player to protect their action. Player C attempted to do so but then 'let it go'. Player D is responsible to follow the action and got fooled by the Dealer.

Another key Dealer mistake ruling has to do with bet sizing, if the Dealer announces an incorrect bet size any calling Player is responsible for the real bet size, not the announced bet size.

In most, if not all, of these cases the Floor should be called just to confirm (and take responsibility of) how to proceed.

In this case here I blame Player C the most for not continuing to protect his action, then the Dealer and least of all Player D. We really aren't in the blame business, but you can go whatever direction you want. The Dealer made two mistakes .. 3 verbal checks and then not stopping the Players from moving forward before figuring out the spot, with or without a Floor's help. .. GL

Sounds to me like he spoke up in time.
"Player C, action is on you."

As soon as Player C speaks up, the dealer should have paused all action and clarified.

If dealer admits to the mistake at that time, then action is on Player C and perhaps Player D starts chirping.

C is the one most responsible for protecting their action. They gave a small effort and gave up.

Dealer made an error, then compounded the error by not stopping the action.

D should be following the action, but doesn't appear harmed.

D is harmed here because C can now check-raise him. C gets an advantage out of this.

I bet C protests a lot harder if D tries to check instead, if C really wanted to bet. It sounds like he spoke up in time here but there's really no reason to insist that you be allowed to bet when the guy behind you is betting.

Even without this error why couldn’t C check raise? I’m thinking it’s more likely that C wanted to bluff, was denied that opportunity by the error and then chose to fold rather than trying a check/raise bluff. Obviously I don’t know that for sure, but it certainly fits C’s actions and explains why C didn’t really fight too hard to protect his action. He probably figured D’s bet meant D hit something and a bluff wasn’t going to work anyway.

If I’m right, then D was harmed because the error caused C not to bluff. Of course it’s possible D was bluffing too and it was a “First bet gets it” pot, in which case C was harmed.

Like others said, dealer should have allowed C to act, but even had that happened, C gained information from the error he should not have had, namely that D was planning to bet.

Mistakes happen no big deal. The problem here is what happened after the mistake and player C speaking up. If the dealer just says “hold up, I am sorry it’s player C’s turn” this thread probably wouldn’t even exist.

If the dealer does say it, is Player D's action out of turn (ie binding)?

Player D should be held to the same standard as anyone acting out of turn correct?

Even if the dealer made a mistake its the players responsibility to follow the action.

Once he places an out of turn bet, its still player C's action and if he checks then the bet stands, and if he bets then its new action and player D gets to continue as he wishes.

Gotta love the indignance when player C speaks up and player D bets anyways.


There was an issue at the ME FT a couple years ago where the dealer miscounted an all in and gave the player who called wrong information. He objected when it was discovered that it was more than he was told but he was still forced to call that amount because its his responsibility to follow the action.

I would give him all options.
So from now on, every time the dealer tells me it has been checked to me, I'll confirm with every player involved to see if they really checked?

Well you should be watching the action so you know that everyone checked.

But yea, if you arent paying attention maybe you ask some kind of question to the dealer/table. "its on me?" "everyone checked?". You dont have to ask each individual. If I dont see someone check and the dealer tells me the action is one me I always do that.

When player C says "i didnt act" and players D's response is "dealer said check, check, check" and bets, player D is acting out of turn, regardless off any dealer mistake. Then from there the rules on an out of turn bet are pretty clear, the bet stands if player C checks and doesn't if he bets. At least with TDA. Player C didnt assert himself and protect his action so theres no point in complaining after though.

Yeah it’s a mistake, one that could be potentially costly in some other situation. In this one I chalk it up to “no harm no foul.” I would gently remind the dealer to “pay attention, please” after the hand is over.

The person most being harmed in this situation is player D, not player C btw. Player C may have potentially saved money if he was going to stab the flop. He also had the opportunity to check raise player D.

Every player could have been harmed. We don't know if anyone was actually harmed.

D didn't follow the action. They acted OOT and if anyone is going to be harmed it should be the person who doesn't follow the action and causes an irregularity.

In theory, players A and B may also be harmed. If everyone knows C can check raise, then A and B have more difficult action.

That's like saying shooting into a crowd isn't harmful if you happen to miss everybody. Actions with negative expected outcomes are harmful. It doesn't matter if you're lucky enough to not cause actual harm. That's results oriented thinking.

Put more simply, C's EV goes up and everyone else's goes down when D acts OOT.

Yes, A and B are also harmed why D's OOT action. EV is being taken from them and given to C. It's not as bad for A/B than for D though.

I really find it hilarious how whenever this situation happens the person who get's apologized to is C. C is the only person who benefits.

I'm not that interested in debate, but just wanted to mention that IMHO the potential for harm and actual harm are different things.