Play is on the flop
Game is LHE
Hero is UTG. 4 villains.

The action before Floor ruling:
Hero and villain 1 check
Villain 3 acts out of turn and bets
Villain 4 announces raise and simultaneously begins pushing chips. Villain 2 sees Villain 4 acting, and Villain 2 immediately tosses in her SB.
Dealer calls floor to decide whether Villain 4 can raise.

Floor's ruling on Villains 2,3, and 4:

Floor rules that Villain 4 cannot raise but must keep his 1 bet in play. Floor also instructs Villains 2 and 3 to keep their bets on the table.

Subsequent action:

Hero seeing a 5SB + 3SB made OTF, calls.
Villain 1 short stacked check raises. All in. Villains 2 and 3 try to pull back their bets.

Floor rules on Villains' 2 and 3 action after the check raise by V1:

Floor rules that V2 and 3's pulling back bets is permissible because Villain 1 changed the action.

Villain 4 acts:
3bets (only hero is left to be raised since V1's check raise put him all in).

Hero acts and floor rules:
Hero attempts to pull back bet (now that V1 is all in for less than 2sb and Vs 2 and 3 have pulled back their bets, leaving the action as now 2 more SB from hero for approx a 4.5:1 call instead of what was a 8:1 call. But floor rules that Hero cannot pull back his bet.

Did floor get it right? Should Vs 2 and 3 have been treated as having both checked? Should V2 have been treated as having checked and V3 called? Or, as Floor explains, the action by V2 and 3 was locked in as a bet by V2, and call by V3 UNLESS the action changed; in which case V2 and V3 could change their initial action but no position seated before them could?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I wish I understood this, but I was lost at "tosses in her SB".

Small bet

V2 got skipped on the flop, v3 bet, v4 raised, and v2 put in her one bet now.

It's hard to say what the correct ruling is, because of the gibberish way it's posed.

If the floor backed the action up to let v2 bet the flop, the v4 should have the option to still raise. But if they did that then v2 and v3 wouldn't be allowed to pull their bets back because action was backed up to the point they were legal.

It sounds like some weird ruling where they decided the flop action started on v4 but I can't decipher why if you'd let the action start on v4, you wouldn't let it start on v3.

. The floor can rule either way, based on what they think actually happened. If v2 is ruled as having checked then what would v3 have called?

What was the actual ruling on v2's bet? If it was ruled that she bet, then neither v2 or v3 should be able to take their bets back, because the action didn't change. V2 made the action, v3 called it.

I'm also confused

tosses in her SB to me means she folded?

so what bets did she get to pull back upon floor ruling ?

Small bet.

?

To be fair, she may have just been betting

Not sure what the Floor is thinking here ... Here is what I see ...

1) V2 has a right to act since less than 3 players have acted behind her. She can call (Small Bet), raise or fold. Apparently she has chosen to bet the SB.

2) V3 may call, fold or raise, V2 has changed action to a bet of SB. It's possible we hold V3 to a call since we are playing Limit here, but I think it's a stretch.

3) V4 may also call, fold or raise. Really don't know what the Floor was thinking here.

4) V2 & V3 being allowed to pull bets back is something I've never heard of before and thus have no basis to allow it. V2 was allowed to act 'in turn' and V3 was apparently forced to call based on his OOT action.

5) As long as V1 all-in is more than half a bet then V4 is allowed to raise to 3bets.

6) Zero basis for Hero to pull back his SB since he acted behind V4. Either fold and lose his SB or call the 3bets. Regardless of right/wrong ruling for V2-4 Hero called SB knowing what that ruling was ... Not being unaware that V2/V3 could pull their bets back might crack a door open, but not walking thru that IMO.

In order for all this to work the Floor needs to rule that action somehow starts on V4 and V2 & V3 called OOT, WAY ahead of Hero and V1, which would allow them to pull their bets back when V1 changed action by going all-in for at least 1.5SB. I can't think of any spot where this would be the case!

The Floor should've given V4 all options (after V2 chose to bet SB) and shouldn't have allowed V2 or V3 to pull their bets back when facing V1's all-in.

I hope I got through this, but without knowing the Floor's reasoning behind how he handled V4's action we can only go by what we think 'should've' happened. GL

OK, if I understand it,

On the flop, first to act (Hero) checks. V1 checks. V2 doesn't act. V3 bets out of turn. V4 annunces raise. V2 at this point bets a single SB. Floor rules that V2's action stays in the pot, as does V3 and V4, but V4 cannot raise (???). Hero calls. V1 raises all in. Now V2 and V3 take back their action.

So, unless things are radically different in Limit than in no limit, none of this makes sense

1. V2's hand should have been ruled dead, as significant action had occurred after he was skipped
2. V4's OOT raise should have been binding, as action to him was not changed (V2 basically made the same bet that V3 made, so bopth V3's bet and V4's raise were binding)
3. Action had passed V2 and V3, they should not have been allowed to retroactively change their action

It's the flop. V2 can't 'call' anything, because there is no bet.

Action did change for V3

Very true .. and I have since edited my post to reflect this .. Action changed for both V3 and V4 by V2 'betting' the SB. GL

I still think what happens to v2 is unclear because the OP's post was very unclear. Action can either be rolled back to her, or her hand can be killed for not protecting her action. Its also unclear if her throwing in her sb meant she was trying to bet, or she too was now acting out of turn. If it was ruled she acted out of her turn though she should have been forced to put in two bets, and could only get her call back if the Allie player had enough to raise.

You have cracked open another angle on this ... But the subsequent action by Floor doesn't back it up IMO. V2's hand should never be killed here since only 2 players have acted behind when the Dealer stepped in.

If we go with V2 'calling' OOT then why would V3 be allowed to pull back his bet since it should 'now' be considered the original bet. And why also would V4 be forced into only a call of V3?

I do agree that if you consider V2 being OOT then she should be facing a 2Bet from V4.

Still a lot not making sense here .. GL

Significant action can be any amount of players as long as the floor thinks it's significant. A bet and a raise is more significant than three checks

I'm not saying it makes sense. Either the floor made several globed together mistakes, or OP is leaving something, or not explaining himself well. Like you pointed out there are is basically only way v2 can get to take her bet back. I was just pointing out there was an other path that leads to the same trainwreck

I'm so lost. Maybe that's how the floor felt!

Every new thread LCP, I skip the OP and read the first few comments instead, gives me a better feel of whether this is a discussion that might interest me.

That really paid off in this case!

I see where I got lost. SB to me is small blind. Here it means small bet.

Gibberish

At the time of the ruling, the floor -- who had been called over to decide whether Villain 4 could raise -- only said: "That's not going to happen." Then the floor tells V2 and V3 to leave their bets out on the table and V4 is only permitted to have one bet on the table. The floor did not explain (at least not loudly enough for me to hear, and I was sitting in the 1 seat as the floor was telling the dealer what to do) why this was happening. At that point, I assumed the floor had decided that either V2 had bet and V3 and 4 were calling; or V3 had bet and V2 and 4 were treated as calling.

After the hand was over, the Floor said that he told V2 and V3 to leave their bets on the table because it was "dead money" as long as the action did not change. According to the floor, when the action changed (by V1's check raise), V2 and 3 had all options available to them, including the ability to pull back their bets.

Giving V2 and V3 opportunities to fold or raise would make sense. Letting them pull back their bets made no sense to me. And if they were permitted to pull back bets, I still don't understand why I couldn't do the same thing. The action had changed for me too by a player acting after I did just like what happened to V2 and V3.

I understand your confusion about what V2 had done and why my description of her action is unclear. This was a big part of the problem. The floor never explained what V2 had done. She pushed in her 4 chips (the small bet). Had she been acting in turn, it would have been the opening bet on the flop. If the floor had decided V2 had called the bet of V3 or 4, V2 would never have been permitted to take back the "call". So, I still don't know how to describe V2's action other than she put her chips over the line on the table.

This is pretty much what I understood to have happened. As for point 6, I agreed that if V2 and V3's bets stay in play, I had no basis for being able to pull back. But When the Floor said they could pull back because the action changed (after V2 and V3's first apparent action), I see no reason why I should have been treated differently. The action changed after my first action too, and worse, I was relying on bets that the floor had ruled upon (without explaining that those bets could be pulled back). After the hand, the Floor basically told me he was following the rule, and even if he didn't tell me the rule, it was on me to know it. I doubt it was the rule.

At this point right here, the floor should have backed the action up to V2 and let him/her act with the explanation that he/she is not facing any bets at this point. If he/she checks then V3 and V4's bet and raise should stand. If he/she bets, then V3 and V4 will act in turn with all options available.

Everything after that was the result of the floor not handling the situation properly.

.

I see it your way.

Floor was definitely lost. There were some other minor details -- trust me they aren't relevant to the Floor's ultimate decisions -- that I left out that illustrated how the Floor was lost.