Mini-main event on the GUKPT in Leeds (UK).

I'm getting short on day 2 and am looking for a good spot to shove for obvious reasons.

I'm in seat 1 in the BB and it folds around to the SB in seat 10, who limps.

I'm in the middle of saying "All-in" and moving my chips forward when the dealer quickly deals the burn card and deals a flop of 559.

I obviously point out that I hadn't been given the chance to act before the flop was dealt, which is corroborated by the guys in seats 2, 3 and 4 and the floor is called.

Floor rules that my all-in must remain in the pot and I'm deemed to have checked the flop???

Nobody else seemed to think that was right but not sure what could/should have happened?

I am confused. They say your all-in must remain, but the SB was not reauired to call your all-in?

And I don't get the part of saying you checked the flop, I thought you were all in?

Or are they saying you went all-in on the flop OOT?

None of this makes sense.

You shouldn't have to have your all-in remain after everyone has seen the flop. Someone with x5 would probably have folded to your all-in but now knows he flopped a set.

I guess they treated as if he checked preflop and then went all in blind on the flop. Terrible ruling. The preflop raise should have stood, with the flop being redealt if the other guy called.

It's not clear if this is a rule dispute or a fact dispute. If it's a rule issue I don't understand it.

If it's a fact dispute then they may be saying he in fact checked before the flop and made an oot bet after (blind or otherwise). Not sure what the dealer other players would say happened so it's hard to tell .....

Sounds like you got screwed.
But why didn't you say "STOP" when he burned? when he dealt the first board card? the second? the third? or at least speak up before he turns over those 3 cards?

OP should have stopped the dealer as he would have felted 4 cards one at a time before the flop came out. Assuming OP didn't have a chance to act pre-flop, the small blind would be able to call or fold to the all-in, and then the flop would be re-dealt if needed.

I would like to assume that the OP explanation is badly worded and go with Psands thoughts that maybe the dealer claimed you checked. However, if OP floor exp. is word for word then it makes absolutely no sense at all, besides how can you check when you are AI.

As stated, I was in the process of saying all-in and moving my chips forward when she (as it happens) was dealing.

I've no idea how others who replied didn't understand this in the OP.

You didn't have a chance to act pre flop and now floor is making you go allin post flop? And now sb gets to decide? Lol.

Horrible ruling.

Should be - flop gets shuffled back in. You go all-in. Sb acts - calls or folds. If calls, new flop.

Precisely.

The only good news was that the SB had missed the flop and folded to my all-in/check.

I also went on to finish 3rd for almost £3k.

As described (slightly confusing probably because of the floor's ****ty ruling) the floor made a ruling that made absolutely zero sense. Action should be backed up and flop re-dealt if SB calls your all in.

That doesn't answer the question you are responding to, but if the implication is that she dealt faster than you could stay "STOP!" then alright. Understand that it's difficult to imagine.

The OP is utterly Lynchian. Our brains are telling us that B cannot logically follow A, so we must have misunderstood A Of course, as Suit said above, it could be confusing due to the floor's ruling.

If the ruling made sense, there'd be no reason to post. I gather OP was fairly certain ruling was absurd. Prolly just wanted to make sure he wasn't missing something. Or like, yeah this happens often. Or at least has happened to someone else in the history of poker.

Congrats on surviving and making some money.

Your description of the action is still confusing (or incorrect). As written, you said that you were required to have your all in bet stand and check the flop. What appears to have happened is that the floor required you to check preflop, and then ruled your action as an out of turn all in. So, it was a check\all-in, not all-in\check (as that would make no sense to check after being all in).

Sorry of this seems a little nit picky, but it was terribly confusing trying to understand the sequence of events.

Based on this, the floors ruling is correct if the dealer feels that you indicated a check preflop. If you, and several other players, are insisting that you did not act, then his ruling did not make sense. If you hesitated at all when the dealer was dealing a premature flop (which is what seems like may have happened here), the floor may be inclined to not give you the benefit of the doubt and may think you are only protesting because you want another flop. In which case, his ruling makes sense.

You were in the 1 seat. Didn't you see the dealer burn a card?
And then deal off 1, 2, and 3 cards face down?

This can happen quickly, but how long does it take to say "stop"?

If you like the flop you don't say anything?

The dealer ****ed up. Nevermind.

Well since being nit picky. He can't check out of turn.

Yes. But could OP have prevented it? Did OP decide to see if he liked the flop before speaking up?

Trips. Not a set. And the diff matters.

I am confused, where did I indicate an out of turn check as a possibility?

What? A ruling can make sense and still be misunderstood by the person relaying it, which seems more and more to have happened here. And that's far from the only other reason people have found to post.

Sorry I misread what you wrote.

I don't mind reshuffling a premature turn or river, but I'm loathe to do it on the flop. The player has a duty to stop the dealer from putting out a card before the action is complete (I know 99% of you don't like this, but tough luck, this is your responsibility whether you like it or not!).

I understand that it's tough to do that on the turn and river, a dealer can snap those out pretty quickly, and sometimes a player is helpless to stop it--but a flop? Nuh uh.

Maybe the UK has different dealing procedures than USA#1, but over here, you can't snap out an unexpected flop, short of complete and utter dereliction of the duty I described in my opening sentence.

This ruling in the OP that no one can follow? Makes perfect sense to me. You don't get to look at the flop, and THEN say, "Hey, let's back this up." You had plenty of time/notice to prevent this, and you chose not to. The flop stands. When you let this flop happen, you effectively checked your option.

As for the rest, that the all-in was binding: I'm giving OP "gross misunderstanding of the action" protection. He clearly thought he was betting last round, not this one. Take back that bet, it never happened.

Of course, if this room enforces a betting line, or doesn't understand finer points like "gross misunderstanding protection", the floorman's hands might be tied here.

if this happened on the turn, it sounds like you would have ruled differently.

This at least gives some logic to what might be behind the decision.

Fwiw, lately I've had to stop dealers more often when it's my turn to act. This is because I've been working on slowing down my decision making and correcting some hasty decisions. So, I've noticed how frequent it actually happens. I've been able to stop the action every time. Diligence is important.

Since 3 players concur with action, I don't like the decision. But now at least I can understand some possible thought behind it.