Must've missed this in OP. Game changer .. Dead hand for B, although a small bit of a raised eyebrow to Player A for not stopping action nor showing 'in turn' either. That is an extreme stretch for sure ...

There's no way I'm allowing Player B to freeroll a new Flop against A's remaining stack. GL

I think you must be reading a totally different thread...

WHAAAAAAT?

Player A exposed his hand after the premature board runout. Now you are going to let this guy decide what to do after seeing those cards. How did everyone else get that benefit??????

False.

+1, chillrob gets it

I can't tell at what point Playbig2000 flipped the switch, which makes it an A+ troll imo.

relax, the OP was edited after I read it.

I don't think that's accurate, since you quoted the entire OP as edited in your first post, but either way I don't fault you for ignoring posts whose sole contribution is to call someone else a troll.

We're going on 60 posts of people responding almost exclusively to you in good faith that you read and comprehended the thing you quoted. It would have been an A+ troll if I was right, and your posts would have made a lot more sense.

There is ne thing that he must know that his opponents could be confused about .... whether he acted.

When the dealer starts putting up a board, his opponent could think to himself ... oh I guess he called. But he will always know he didn't act yet.

And yet the player will receive 100% of the punishment.

You don't know that.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Isn't that what you're advocating? Killing his hand, and he forfeits $10?

Has anyone from the "player had adequate chance to speak up" side even proposed a punishment for the dealer?

we do know, it was in the OP.

doesn't anyone read the OP anymore at least im not the only one

Dealer discipline is not conducted in public, that does not mean there are never consequences for dealers making errors.


It is also possible that the opponent is the one actually suffering the loss .... perhaps had the error not occurred he would have won more than the $10

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Like psandman said, there are two separate mistakes.

Player didn't stop the action? Correct ruling is dead hand. Maybe it saves him money.

Dealer gets a write up. Maybe a talkin to. If he has history of this kind of thing he definitely gets at least a talkin to.

First of all, claiming that killing his hand might have saved him money is super results oriented. Killing his hand costs him $10 plus the probability he would have called times his equity. To trivialize that is both a really bad ruling and really bad PR.

Plus, it puts you in the awkward position where the stronger his hand is, the more likely he is telling the truth and the greater the dealer error, but the greater his punishment. Conversely, if the player had a legitimately tough / EV-neutral call and was not 100% honest in speaking up, he barely gets punished.

We (B&M) generally shy away from killing hands for this exact reason. It's a really drastic action and rather indiscriminate.

---

Secondly, I agree punishing the dealer helps in the sense that it's better than nothing. But the more you stress it's going to be done privately, the more unfair it seems to the player at the time. And it's hard to argue that a "talking to" costs the dealer even close to the equity the player had in the pot.

Let's try and put some numbers to this. If you were capable of making the dealer pay a monetary amount to the player, what would that figure be so that in your mind the punishments were proportional? Or do you think giving a dealer a private "talking to" is really sufficient to calm down a player whose hand you just killed?

That is not what i was saying. What I was saying is his opponent may have also suffered here as well, not that I would tell the player we saved him money .... just that when this happens it is possible that other players besides the guy whose hand is killed are losing out as well.

My piinting out it is done privately was addressing the claim that it doesn't happen. I said we don;t know that the only person punished is the player whose hand was killed. And I was told that I was wrong. My point is that unless we are the dealer or managment we dont know what did or did not happen to the dealer.


A "talking to" is not the point. Nor is the point to calm down the player. The point is that while a dealer is not likely to be fired for single a error. But the accumulation of these incidents moves them along a line towards being fired. Quantifying the impact of one error is not an easy task .... but when a dealer does lose a job its a pretty hefty penalty.

I actually believe the player whose hand was killed should bear the worst of it because I believe he is the party least likely to have made an innocent error. I think he is most likely the party taking a shot here.

I also feel even if you feel his error is innocent he is the party who had the last clear chance to stop this from being amplified beyond a simple burn and turn.

[QUOTE=answer20;52734376]Robert's Rules ... Irregularities #15 ... If the dealer prematurely deals any cards before the betting is complete, those cards will not play, even if a player who has not acted decides to fold.

This is pretty straight forward here ... It's somewhat reinforced in the Hold'em section but there's nothing that directly states 'board', only single streets. Can we really drag significant action into this since 3 streets have passed but there really was no 'action'? Has Player B 'timely' notified the Dealer of the error once he started paying attention again?

Not relevant in the slightest, the decision will be based upon house rules which will be interpreted by the floor that responds to the call. We know three things for sure, 1.) it is the players job to protect their hand and action. That is pretty universal through out poker. 2.) Significant action has passed. 3.) the cards have been dealt properly and I order. I do not think it can be a miss deal too much action and no errors in card distribution. I do not think you can force him to call if no one heard him call and no one saw him indicate a call. I do think you can let him call as he has significantly more information after being able to see the turn and river. I think his hand has to be declared dead but I do not know for sure.

It is the players job to protect his action, not the dealers.

[QUOTE=Playbig2000;52737178]How many people were at the table? All the players were to blame, but the official fault is on the dealer.

You are absolutely wrong on this, its the players job to protect his action, the dealers does not have an official obligation to do that. It also does not matter if he is rec or pro. Rules apply to all equally.

Nailed it

Originally Posted by psandman View Post
If I go to sleep on the highway and a distracted driver doesn't see me and runs over me .... who is at fault? Its both of us .... me for sleeping on a highway and the driver for not paying attention to the road. We don't have to say only one person is to blame.
according to the insurance company you were 100% at fault.

Wrong again, depends entirely on other circumstances. if the distracted driver stayed in his own lane the entire time and the sleeper crossed over, the sleeper is at fault. If the distracted driver crossed over and the sleeper was in his own lane than the distracted driver is at fault. Your judgement and analysis of things are terrible.

He now knows the flop, turn and river. even if the cards are reshuffled he gets a free try to hit. The problem comes with his current opportunity to cheat the system. If he missed he can claim he didn't act and have a second shot if he did hit he can play it off as if he called. This is a fairly well know angle shoot.

OH, I took for granted that this highway didn't have a designated sleeping lane. Things may be different were you are from.