Hi all,

5/5/15 PLO5, V1 raises, V2 re-raises to $100, V3 calls $100, V1 4! to $165, V2 jams $500, V3 puts calling chips out (around $170), V1 thinks this is a call of the $500 and re-jams $1,500 for a side pot against V3, V3 says "wait, I thought the bet was only $165, I didn't see V2 jam for $500." Dealer says OK, you can take back your money. V1 decides he's not interested in being HU against V2 and mucks, thinking he's only in for $165 too.

V2 says V1 is committed to the $500 since V1 went all in. V1 says no, V3 changed the action by deciding he wasn't calling the $500, so the all in no longer stands. Floor rules V1 must pay V2 $500.

What's the rationale for the ruling?

Thanks,
DT

No way to tell what that particular floor's rationale was. But I could see it going something like this: V3 has the RROP rulebook example for claiming gross misunderstanding as he put out the amount of chips for a call of the bet prior to the raise to 500. So if the room allows gross misunderstanding, then he gets to take back his bet. V1, first off, was an idiot for mucking prior to getting a ruling. So much so, that it could almost be an angle shot to get out of the 500 he is in for.

When V1 says the action changed that's not typically how that is ruled. Calls dont change action. When V1 rejammed to 1500 he did so facing a 500 bet. After V3 pulls his call back V1 is still facing a 500 bet. So action to him has not changed.

Ruling “gross misunderstanding” on V3 but not on V1 sounds wrong to me.

Make V3 put in $500 and let V1’s all-in stand or let V3 of the hook for nothing or $165 and give V1 all his options. The fact that he doesn’t have cards anymore should dictate his next decision.

The action that changed was not the call of $165 - it was the misunderstanding that the call was of the full $500. Once the dealer permitted V3 to pull back his call, that changed the action considerably, at least from V1's standpoint, no?

Yeah, someone who mucks after pushing $1500 forward deserves whatever happens.

First of all, KITN to the dealer for making a ruling about V3 taking his bet back. Dealers don't make rulings. The dealer must call the floor to make a ruling that allows V3 to take back his $170 "call". The dealer allowed this mess to get much much worse by not calling a floor over. (Then he did it again by not protecting the muck or V1 by allowing V1 to muck his hand while there was still confusion going on, though we don't know enough about how it went down to be sure that he could have really prevented that.)

Second, I am a fan and proponent of the gross misunderstanding rule, but even that rule only applies if there is no action behind the mistaken action, at least according the the RRoP rule:
The dealer should have called the floor, then explained what happened. Then the floor has a tough decision to make.

By (RRoP) rule, V3 should be forced to call the $500, because action proceeded behind him before the action was stopped and he indicated he thought he was only calling $165. The floor could alternately use Rule 1 to say that V3 can take his chips back and reconsider, since he clearly put out chips in an amount that called the $165 bet, not the $500 raise. Or (if following TDA rules) he could tell V3 that he must leave the $165 in, and either complete the call to $500 or forfeit and fold.

Then we proceed to V1. If V3 is required to call 500, then V1 is required to jam to 1500, which should be uncontroversial (for V1, anyway). If V3 is allowed to take his $165 back and reconsider, V3 should be allowed the same. If V3 must leave his $165 in and he forfeits it and folds, then I would allow V3 to either forfeit 165 and fold, or continue with his jam.

V1 mucking his hand during this confusion is extremely idiotic. Even if he feels like he should be given this option, there is no way you should do this in this situation without a floor ruling to clear up the mess in front of him after he's jammed for $1500. Mucking your hand and "assuming" you'll be allowed to only be in for 165 is about the worst possible thing he can do. I'll do my best to protect V1 if I can, but he is the one who has most to lose, and other than the dealer he is the one who acted most stupidly.

As played, and as described, and given that it happened as it did, as a floor I would probably let both V3 and V1 skate for $165 and a forfeit of their hands and a stern warning that it could have gone much worse. But holding either to $500, or holding V1 to his $1500 jam, whether or not any of them still have cards, would not be an absurd ruling, and V1 in particular has no one to blame but himself for mucking his hand while this is going on. This is especially true at a 5/5/15 PLO game, where presumably no one is a beginner.

And, again, dealer gets a KITN for starting off this shitstorm.

First - v3 being allowed to forfeit $165 and fold is reasonable, and seems like a standard ruling. V1 really needs to pause and make sure the action is correct to protect himself.

V1 should owe the full amount of his jam, whether or not his cards are live. Potentially floor could explore retrieving his cards from the muck. You can't jam and change your mind about wanting to commit the money - it's essentially cheating and opens the door to massive angle-shooting.

V2 not calling the full 500 is not sufficient grounds for V1 to retract his bet. While i am slightly sympathetic to the argument that the action has changed 'enough' for him to re-evaluate his action, in most cases allowing him to change it is more harmful than the alternative of allowing his bet to stand and playing out the pot with slightly different postflop SPR/dynamics than it would have been. I could see effective stacks being a factor in a ruling for floor if multiple players are super-deep; but if V1 put in the majority of his stack then he doesn't get to take it back. Again, the onus of self-protection is on V1.

It seems floor took this view as well, but decided to let him off for $500 because a larger loss may have felt extreme or alienated the players - which is really not that awful of a compromise depending on how deep players were. Equities in PLO run close enough that winning a big pot without contest is often a fantastic result and may have satisfied V2.

So one player is allowed to change their mind from call to fold but the other player who went all-in based on that call is not allowed to change their mind once he learnt about the new situation?

That is an odd situation for sure wtf

1) Dealer should protect the muck
2) Action behind means V3 should be required to call 500 but I could see the floor ruling all 3 ways reasonably
3) The raise to 1500 should pretty much always stand and the guy got lucky he was held to 500 dollars only
4) Dealer should call the floor

If you allow V3 to roll back his action based on gross misunderstanding, then you have to allow V1 his full range of options. It isn't a case of 'action changed' (since technically it didn't), but that action was rolled back to allow V3 to fold.

I guess you could argue that V3's undercall really represented no action, and that V1 acted out of turn, but that seems abusive as he is acting to V2's apparent call.

I would be tempted to rack up and walk out and self 86 myself before I paid the $500 (I wouldn't do it, as I am a wuss, but it would be tempting)

He was held to the full bet of $1,500, but V2 was all in for $500. So he was not lucky at all.

The situation changed, but action to V1 did not change. It was a raise to $500 with V3's call, and a raise to $500 without V3's call.

Then he was lucky that villain didn’t have 1500 in his stack because losing the full amount of the all-in is the correct decision.

How do you justify rolling back one player's action, but keeping another player, who acted in turn after the prior player acted, bound to his action? Either the prior action occurred or it didn't. If it did not occur, then you roll action back, and V1 should have his full range of options.

I don't get that ruling.

lol if your playing 5-5-10 5 card PLO and doing well pretty sure getting 86'd from all MGM properties over 500 wouldn't be a great decision...

As for the ruling I would go with the with dinish and let the caller forfeit his 165 or call the 500 and keep his hand live. Would also give V3 the option of 165 forfeit...I mean he pretty much has the odds to call any 5 cards given he is closing the action and only has to call 335 more to win like 770...so it's not like V2 is at any great disadvantage letting V1 forfeit his 165

If V2 had put in $1500, V1 wouldn’t have. That’s the whole point here. V1 shoves to get all-in in a larger side pot with V3. If V1 knows that V3 can take his action back and do whatever he wants, that all-in would have never happened.

That’s a pretty common PLO situation where players suck up being a dog in a preflop all-in with a relatively small stack to be able to play a larger side pot with another player.

V2 gets option to call the 500 or forfeit the 165 based on 'gross misunderstanding' rules. This is pretty much textbook example and V2's claim that he thought the bet was 165 and not 500 is credible.

While v1 is affected by v2 decision, it does not rise to the level of gross misunderstanding and action has not changed. Two important considerations are a) if v2 did recognize v1 thought he was only calling 165 he has a super-lucrative chance to angleshoot

And b) v2's rush to muck and/or otherwise follow the guidance of a green/floundering/lost dealer undermines his credibility to contest any ruling the floor makes


It's hard to evaluate how much the dealer worsened the situation - floor did not allow v1 to take back his bet like dealer suggested he could. In any case, dealer did not give v2 the same permission.

But i applaud floor's decision to hold v2 accountable for the 500 - players at these stakes shouldn't be coddled by floor if they don't take any steps to protect themselves

I don't think anyone would object if rooms wrote a more comprehensive set of rules around "significant action" for omaha games, but until they do, it's a pretty good rule and prevents A LOT of angling / mind-changing.

The 4! 165 throws me off for some reason.

Sounds like dealer made a bad ruling and then floor sorta ruled based on what the dealer should have ruled. Probably just let them lose the 165 but not particularly egregious to make them pay 500. Maybe rule based on player history.

V2 only piping in at the end is also strange.

If you look back at my original post, I actually favor making V3 put in 500 because of the action behind him. All I said was that I could reasonably see a floor making all 3 decisions here (make him forfeit 165 or call, make him put in 500, or let him get away with putting in 100).

The biggest idiot in the hand is the dealer. Imo what the dealer did is suspension worthy. Making his own decisions in a high-ish stakes game is abhorrent.

I've read this op like 5 times and it just such a mess. V1 is a moron

“You call 17, you call 22.”

Seriously though, you think you/villain 1 was correct to just muck your/his hand without confirming with dealer/floor what your options are?

By the way, underrated but villain 2 is an a-hole.