Reading the discussion about what anew dealer should or shouldn't know irt rules and various situations reminded me of my own experience with a similar situation. It was my second day dealing, and I was dealing a mtt. TDA rules at the time allowed for the playrr to say raise, put oit the exact amount of the call, and then go back to his stack to raise any amount he wanted. So a player bet 350. The next player said raise, and put out 4 100 chips. (He had no 25 chips in his stack). He then went back and put out another 1k for the raise.

A player objected, saying he could only min raise bc he didnt put out exactly the call amount of 350 per the rule, but instead put out 400. So my newbie brain was recalling the rule that if he tossed out 4x100 facing a bet of 350 its a call of 350. But the other rule stated that he had to put out exactly the call amount, no more or less. So while the 4 black chips would represent a call of 350, they werent exactly 350 either. My newbie head was already overheating from things like having to make change from a player not in the hand and remembering how much went into the pot and how much went back to the player(of course that's automatic now, but 8 hours into my dealing career it seemed like solving a rubiks cube). FLOOR!

He ended up ruling he had to min raise bc 400 is not 350. Since then Ive never hesitated to call the floor and let them sort it out. In fact in our room, dealers were constantly being reminded that even if you are sure you know the rule, there are many situations where you mustcall the floor anyway as it just wasnt a dealer level decision.

Telling a dealer to call the floor is not interfering with a hand. The dealer can simply refuse the request if it is unwarranted. The only time it may be inappropriate is if you’re doing it constantly and “backseat dealing”, which is clearly not the case here.

Discretely calling the floor over is far worse than suggesting a dealer to call the floor. That’s because you’re not giving the dealer the chance to refuse the request (thus maintaining their dominion over the table).

Finally, the fact that the reg objected to it clearly shows that they at least partially knew what they were doing was wrong and there was a good chance the floor would come to a different conclusion.

Yep. No worry, we are on the same page more often than not. I completely appreciate your viewpoint on things. I can stand a bit of criticism if it makes for a good discussion.

Seems like you did 100% the correct thing telling/encouraging the dealer call the floor here.

As a player, I call the floor. I've done it several times in defense of a dealer. It doesn't matter if the dealer is right or wrong about a given decision, if a player is abusive to anyone at the table, I call the floor if the dealer hasn't done so already. Newer dealers who might be intimidated by a player deserve even more protection by the regs.



I like that the OP urged the dealer to call the floor and really like that OP didn't try to make any sort of ruling to "help" the dealer. Without the authority of the floor, it just makes the argument get bigger without getting closer to an end.



I also like that the floor put at least a temp ban on the disruptive player.



In my reg room, we had a player, always angry, disruptive, slowing the game even when he isn't in a hand, cursing and criticizing dealers and players. I called the floor on him twice and dealers called the floor repeatedly. I quit playing on the days he would be there and have since found out he got himself banned.