Agreed. Seems like it should have been pretty straight forward.

Do tell

It would be much more interesting if SB meant superlative boobs.

Initially, Floor did not realize I was in the hand at the 1 seat. Floor also did not realize that V3 had bet before V2 acted. V3 had bet, V4 was attempting to raise, and V2 was attempting to call V4 out of turn. Before ruling on whether V4 could raise, Floor was corrected by the Dealer regarding the action among V2, 3, and 4. After the Floor decided V4 could not raise, he looked to V1 (skipping by me) and asked V1 what he wanted to do. I interrupted to act before V1, and that got straightened out. Even after the hand though, while I was talking with the Floor about it, I doubted whether he fully understood the order of the first actions by Vs 2, 3, and 4.

I'm getting confused again.

V4 bet out of turn. As I suggested earlier v2 wasn't trying to bet, her throwing in the Sb was her trying to call v4's raise way out of turn

But if V2 were calling V4's raise, she would be putting out 2 bets instead of 1. Either she was oblivious and simply leading out or she was calling V3's out-of-turn bet, out-of-turn herself.

It really looks like the staff and most of the players in this card room have no idea how to play poker.

Yes

V2 isn't calling V4's raise, he's trying to "square up" V3's action by putting in one small bet.

This is the way I see it:
OP is first to act. When the floor rolls back action to him, HE is the one who changed the action by betting. After that, everyone is free to do what they want. Floor got it right as far as I can tell.

P.S. OP needs to learn what the definition of "check raise" is.

I don't see how I could have possibly been the one who changed the action. I also don't know what V1 did if not a check raise. To recap:

OP (in seat 1 UTG): checks
V1 (in seat 3): checks
V2 (in seat 5): doesn't act
V3 (in seat 6): bets
V4 (in seat 7) attempts to raise; v2 then immediately attempts to put a single bet in

Floor rules that V4 cannot raise but is calling a single bet. (After mistakenly first looking to V1 for action), Floor then looks to OP for action, and OP calls the bet. V1 then raises. Floor then rules that V1 changed the action which permits V2 and V3 to pull back their bets.

So I guess V2 was deemed to have checked? Otherwise, shouldn't the floor be starting the action on V2 rather than deciding whether V4 is raising or calling? And if so:

I don't see why V4 should not be allowed to raise. How does V3's acting out of turn by betting eliminate V4's option to raise such bet?

And I don't see how V1's raise changes the action. V1 checked and everyone behind him then acted (except V2, but his inaction appears to have been deemed a check, so he acted by checking). Everyone behind V1 already acted after V1's check, so that chain of action is over. One of such people behind V1 bet which brings the action back to V1 with the betting re-opened. V1 can now raise starting a new chain of action. It isn't a change in the action. The prior action is over. This is new action.

You seem to see why this was such a CF. The Floor never explained his ruling on what V2 (or V3) had done initially. If either of them had been deemed to have bet, the other should have been deemed to have called....at least in light of the only clear ruling at that moment which was that both V2 and V3 had put bets out and they were staying out. This then led to another ruling that made no sense: V4 was not allowed to raise.

While I agree with you that V1's raise would better be considered "new" action, I wouldn't quibble with the semantics over the Floor's calling it a "change in action." Whether it was new or changed action, it still made no sense to me why the Floor then permitted V2 and 3 to withdraw their bets. Also since V1 raised after everyone else had acted, the only consistent ruling I could understand would have been to permit at least me (and perhaps V4) to withdraw their bets like V2 and V3 were permitted to do. Of course, the obvious and better decision would have been to treat V2 an V3 as live bets with an opportunity to fold, call, or raise after V1s action and give V4 and me the same opportunity to respond to the action before us. That's why I thought this Floor's decision was stupendously bad.

suit has it right. this is a simple decision.

I thought so too. But the way the Floor was talking to me after the hand, he was making me think I was an idiot for having any problem with what had happened. He kept insisting he was doing exactly what would be done in every other room.

The collective responses here make me much more comfortable with the strong feeling I had at the time that the Floor had screwed the pooch. It's not the first time I've had problems in this room. And I don't recall ever having problems elsewhere. I doubt I will return there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

overall things happen in a game. all you can do is avoid being the one where it costs you.

and the times you have no control, some times you benefit and some times you dont. it all evens out over a lifetime. in general most times there is a decision the squeaky wheel wins so you should overall get the best of the decisions that are close.