Narrowly correct ruling vs. fairest ruling? (1 Viewer)

[Gunnar]

For a ruling, consistency is key

There are two fair options here, shuffle the cards back into the deck and deal a new flop, or select one facedown to be the next burn card.
I dislike the second one as then players have knownledge of what card is out,
I dislike the first one as know players have 4 cards extra they know their opponent does not have.

I always deal three cards face-down and then flip them for the flop but errors can always happen

 

[upNdown]

For a ruling, consistency is key

There are two fair options here, shuffle the cards back into the deck and deal a new flop, or select one facedown to be the next burn card.
I dislike the second one as then players have knownledge of what card is out,
I dislike the first one as know players have 4 cards extra they know their opponent does not have.

I always deal three cards face-down and then flip them for the flop but errors can always happen

What about the third option that’s been discussed? Randomly select one of the four, but instead of making it the next burn card, shuffle it back into the stub.

 

[Gunnar]

What about the third option that’s been discussed? Randomly select one of the four, but instead of making it the next burn card, shuffle it back into the stub.

That is interesting and probably the fairest of them all, but to be able to rule it that way, it needs to be written out in some rules somewhere.

 

[sheikh617]

What about the third option that’s been discussed? Randomly select one of the four, but instead of making it the next burn card, shuffle it back into the stub.

I guess my issue with everyone trying to maintain the "integrity" of the hand is that once the mistake is made, it can't be undone. The fairest solution *in my opinion* is just to shuffle the 4 cards back in and deal a new random flop. I don't love it, but I love the other options even less. For me, the flop is supposed to be three random cards that create a board texture for the hand to play out on. If 4 cards are dealt in manner that can't be back tracked each side is going to argue for the board texture that favors them, for obvious reasons. Shuffling in and having a random flop to me is a neutral solution for this particular case because the burn card was not able to be 100% identified so you never know what the flop really was.

 

[upNdown]

I guess my issue with everyone trying to maintain the "integrity" of the hand is that once the mistake is made, it can't be undone. The fairest solution *in my opinion* is just to shuffle the 4 cards back in and deal a new random flop. I don't love it, but I love the other options even less. For me, the flop is supposed to be three random cards that create a board texture for the hand to play out on. If 4 cards are dealt in manner that can't be back tracked each side is going to argue for the board texture that favors them, for obvious reasons. Shuffling in and having a random flop to me is a neutral solution for this particular case because the burn card was not able to be 100% identified so you never know what the flop really was.

I don’t have a problem with that either. And though @Gunnar point about knowing those 4 cards aren’t in your opponents’ hand is persuasive, everybody has the same information advantage at that point, so there’s a measure of fairness to it.

I guess I’ve been thinking about it from a home game perspective. And though lots of people would argue that home game rules should be exactly the same as casino rules, I can’t always get there.
When a dealer screws up in a casino it matters less. He’s a disinterested casino employee and thus the enemy, and he’ll be switched out in 30 minutes anyway, so hating him seems appropriate yet harmless. At a self-dealt home game, the dealer is another player, maybe a friend, maybe in the hand, and definitely somebody you’ll be battling with all night. So I guess I’d like to find solutions for those mistakes that piss off players less?
Not sure if I’m getting my point across. But that’s the reason I’d lean toward the “shuffle one back in” solution for home games, and i’m totally fine with the “redeal the whole flop” solution for casino games.

 

[BGinGA]

I appreciate you bringing this up. I had not noticed this discrepancy and as my house rules rely on Robert's for cash and TDA for tournament, I am going to put the tda rule in for cash games in my list of modifications.

Our tournament rule is to recreate the flop if it's possible to identify the burn card via reverse-engineering (and it usually is possible, since we almost always have dedicated dealers that follow defined dealing procedures). This also applies to situations where the flop was dealt without first burning a card.

 

[ekricket]

Man, if you would follow directions and put the cards in the little painted areas on the playing field this wouldn’t happen. They put them there just for these scenarios.

Look at how happy these people are that their cards were dealt right

 

[Wils]

Simple solution: Four card flop.

Everyone wins

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

i've seen and heard a lot over the years. We should have a "rulings" section in PCF where we can talk about this stuff. I use to deal/floor and it was fun talking about random shit like this that happens. Whenever a random ruling happened in our room, we would usually include it in the shift report and then have to go over it with all the other floor so we were all on the same page. This one came up a few times.

I've been out of the casino for a few years now, so when I hang out with my poker buddies who are still working, the first thing I ask them about are the recent rulings they have made on the job. It's fun to discuss.

Great idea with the rulings section, love that.

 

[casinochipper22]

Great idea with the rulings section, love that.

here is a doozy to start off the rulings section thread... Happened in Aria a few months back. Soooo glad I never had to deal with something like this...

Player A looses a big pot, another guys gets stacked and leaves. Dealer yells, seat open. Player A buys in for 500 more right away. Announces to the table, 500 behind, chip runner grabs the 500 cash and says, 500 behind. Dealer announces 500 behind. then dealer starts to deal the next hand. After all that, player B is a table change, walks right up to the table just in the nick of time and asks the dealer to deal him in. dealer deals him in, and guess what happens after that? What could be the worst possible one in a million thing to happen after ALL that... Player A goes all in on the flop, and player B snap calls. after the river is dealt and hands are shown, the chip runner shows up with player A's 500, which comes as a shock to player B. Player A wins the pot and wants to get the full double up including the 500. player B is telling the table no efffing way. I had no idea.

floor is called.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

here is a doozy to start off the rulings section thread... Happened in Aria a few months back. Soooo glad I never had to deal with something like this...

Player A looses a big pot, another guys gets stacked and leaves. Dealer yells, seat open. Player A buys in for 500 more right away. Announces to the table, 500 behind, chip runner grabs the 500 cash and says, 500 behind. Dealer announces 500 behind. then dealer starts to deal the next hand. After all that, player B is a table change, walks right up to the table just in the nick of time and asks the dealer to deal him in. dealer deals him in, and guess what happens after that? What could be the worst possible one in a million thing to happen after ALL that... Player A goes all in on the flop, and player B snap calls. after the river is dealt and hands are shown, the chip runner shows up with player A's 500, which comes as a shock to player B. Player A wins the pot and wants to get the full double up including the 500. player B is telling the table no efffing way. I had no idea.

floor is called.

This makes my stomach hurt to think about. Do you remember the floor's ruling? Obviously not having this problem at my microstakes home game lol. 'Playing behind' to my players is when their spouse is telling them to bet or fold each street from over their shoulder.

 

[Gunnar]

here is a doozy to start off the rulings section thread... Happened in Aria a few months back. Soooo glad I never had to deal with something like this...

Player A looses a big pot, another guys gets stacked and leaves. Dealer yells, seat open. Player A buys in for 500 more right away. Announces to the table, 500 behind, chip runner grabs the 500 cash and says, 500 behind. Dealer announces 500 behind. then dealer starts to deal the next hand. After all that, player B is a table change, walks right up to the table just in the nick of time and asks the dealer to deal him in. dealer deals him in, and guess what happens after that? What could be the worst possible one in a million thing to happen after ALL that... Player A goes all in on the flop, and player B snap calls. after the river is dealt and hands are shown, the chip runner shows up with player A's 500, which comes as a shock to player B. Player A wins the pot and wants to get the full double up including the 500. player B is telling the table no efffing way. I had no idea.

floor is called.

This is really a bad spot
When Player A goes all-in the Dealer should remind the table that he 500 behind, if player B snap calls faster than the dealer can inform him of that then Dealer has to let him know that he just called a bigger All-in than the chips on the table show.
If Player B never asked for a count or got a number from the Dealer on how much the All-in is then he has to pay the 500 on top, it sucks but the hand started at the time first annoucement is made that the player has 500 behind and dealing starts. Player B joins the table when hand is "started" and missed crucial information but unless the casino is covering what player A is owed from the pot then there is no other way to rule than he has to pay.

 

[JustinInMN]

here is a doozy to start off the rulings section thread... Happened in Aria a few months back. Soooo glad I never had to deal with something like this...

Player A looses a big pot, another guys gets stacked and leaves. Dealer yells, seat open. Player A buys in for 500 more right away. Announces to the table, 500 behind, chip runner grabs the 500 cash and says, 500 behind. Dealer announces 500 behind. then dealer starts to deal the next hand. After all that, player B is a table change, walks right up to the table just in the nick of time and asks the dealer to deal him in. dealer deals him in, and guess what happens after that? What could be the worst possible one in a million thing to happen after ALL that... Player A goes all in on the flop, and player B snap calls. after the river is dealt and hands are shown, the chip runner shows up with player A's 500, which comes as a shock to player B. Player A wins the pot and wants to get the full double up including the 500. player B is telling the table no efffing way. I had no idea.

floor is called.

Player A is right. Player B is trying to take advantage of the situation. There were two streets of action where the dealer accepted verbal action from player A which is a clear indication he is playing behind. $500 is clearly a legal buy in for this game, Player B must be aware of that. The response to his complaint that he didn't know is "why didn't you ask upon realizing the dealer is taking action from a player with no chips?"

An additional announcement from the dealer may have been nice, but if you get dealt in at the last moment, it's still your responsibility to know, and player B is trying to shirk that responsibility.

He owes Player A the full amount (or whatever he had in his own stack in play at this point.) I can't imagine another ruling.

 

[KHarp1]

I'm agreeing that B has a responsibility to know the amount he's calling, but, there wasn't two streets of action...A goes all in on the flop. Where did the second street of action come from?

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

The response to his complaint that he didn't know is "why didn't you ask upon realizing the dealer is taking action from a player with no chips?"

Quick addin that Player A wasn't felted, he had chips so he was playing a stack and putting chips in, dealer might not have been announcing his remaining actual stack each time.

 

[upNdown]

here is a doozy to start off the rulings section thread... Happened in Aria a few months back. Soooo glad I never had to deal with something like this...

Player A looses a big pot, another guys gets stacked and leaves. Dealer yells, seat open. Player A buys in for 500 more right away. Announces to the table, 500 behind, chip runner grabs the 500 cash and says, 500 behind. Dealer announces 500 behind. then dealer starts to deal the next hand. After all that, player B is a table change, walks right up to the table just in the nick of time and asks the dealer to deal him in. dealer deals him in, and guess what happens after that? What could be the worst possible one in a million thing to happen after ALL that... Player A goes all in on the flop, and player B snap calls. after the river is dealt and hands are shown, the chip runner shows up with player A's 500, which comes as a shock to player B. Player A wins the pot and wants to get the full double up including the 500. player B is telling the table no efffing way. I had no idea.

floor is called.

I would think Player A would have some obligation to announce that his all-in includes his invisible $500 behind. I think the dealer has failed here too, and I'm not sure I need to decide who is more to blame to rule that player B is not responsible for the extra $500. Even if he didn’t ask for a count, I don’t think you can blame him if A clearly has about a hundred or whatever in front of him.
Isn’t there a rule about a gross misunderstanding of the action, or something like that?

 

[BGinGA]

Imo, table stakes means "chips on the table" -- if the chips aren't in your stack, well, they're not in your stack. Simple.

Not allowing players to 'play behind' solves the problem. Games that allow the practice are just asking for trouble.

 

[JustinInMN]

Quick addin that Player A wasn't felted, he had chips so he was playing a stack and putting chips in, dealer might not have been announcing his remaining actual stack each time.

Oh this actually changes things enough where I think the house eats this one. I know I like putting responsibility on players for these observations, but if there is no visual cue for player B in this spot, I am far more empathetic to his position as well as to A's position. I guess this is why some rooms use "chips behind" buttons to prevent this confusion.

If I'm the floor, I still think B owes A, but I am going to let the cage refund B and eat it. It's 4 hours of rake, we'll live with it. Not doing this might divide the game to the point it breaks. I will not be joining the "shoot the dealer" crowd on this one, however. Sounds like by all accounts he followed procedure, this is just bad luck more than anything. Maybe put a reminder out to announce chips behind whenever dealing a flop and then being done with it, would be an idea for a procedure change?

Another possible ruling would be because B was not made aware of the 500 behind, that 500 doesn't play. A probably could have afforded himself some protection by reminding the new player he was 500 behind and asking the dealer to confirm the other player understands this.

 

[JustinInMN]

Imo, table stakes means "chips on the table" -- if the chips aren't in your stack, well, they're not in your stack. Simple.

Not allowing players to 'play behind' solves the problem. Games that allow the practice are just asking for trouble.

"Playing behind" is a standard practice in every public casino. No one wants the game to pause every time there are chips in transit. (The house, nor the players.) In home games it may make more sense to avoid the practice.

 

[JustinInMN]

I'm agreeing that B has a responsibility to know the amount he's calling, but, there wasn't two streets of action...A goes all in on the flop. Where did the second street of action come from?

I was counting pre-flop as a street as well.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I guess this is why some rooms use "chips behind" buttons to prevent this confusion.

Yeah I usually hate having too many weird buttons on the table but I'd want a blinking sign lol

 

[casinochipper22]

player A had some chips in front of him which made this hand so difficult. When my buddy walked up to the table, he said everyone agreed that everyone saying 500 behind came before player b arrived. So he wasn't trying to angle here.

The consensus from most of the floors was B wasn't responsible for the 500.

I would think Player A would have some obligation to announce that his all-in includes his invisible $500 behind. I think the dealer has failed here too, and I'm not sure I need to decide who is more to blame to rule that player B is not responsible for the extra $500. Even if he didn’t ask for a count, I don’t think you can blame him if A clearly has about a hundred or whatever in front of him.
Isn’t there a rule about a gross misunderstanding of the action, or something like that?

This was pretty much the idea.

And usually with every out of the blue incident, it comes with a new procedure. Now if you buy chips at an aria table, the runner or dealer should give you lammers. Kinda like this...

"Playing behind" is a standard practice in every public casino. No one wants the game to pause every time there are chips in transit. (The house, nor the players.) In home games it may make more sense to avoid the practice.

That's pretty common. Surprised they didn't do that from the beginning.

 

[BGinGA]

"Playing behind" is a standard practice in every public casino. No one wants the game to pause every time there are chips in transit. (The house, nor the players.) In home games it may make more sense to avoid the practice.

Standard practice or not, there is no valid reason to 'pause' the game just because somebody wants to buy chips (or is in the process of buying chips). And absolutely no good reason to count phantom chips as in-play that aren't physically present at the table, either.

But if allowing the practice, Issuing a lammer in exchange for cash (and swapping the lammer for chips when they arrive) seems mandatory to avoid potential problems.