All in for less

[joonka]

I'm going to do all I can to keep this one coherent.  It's more of a story about a series of rulings in one hand than an actual question.  Still, I'm curious to see what people think of the rulings that took place.

1-2 NLHE cash game.  Card room with paid dealers. 

- Player A raises to $17 (a raise of $15). 
- Player B goes all in for $31 (a reraise of $14).
- Player C asks if Player A has an option to reraise and is told "no" by the dealer (Player A had raised $15 and Player B had only reraised $14).  House rule is that there has to be a complete raise to reopen bidding.  Player C then calls the $31. 
- Player D asks if Player A has an option if Player E goes all in (Player E has $39 total).  The dealer tells D that A still has no option to raise.  Player D then calls the $31. 
- Player E goes all in for $39. 
- Player A then calls for the floor (not the dealer) and asks if he has an option. 

RULING 1: The floor says "yes".  E's reraise ($8) combined with B's initial raise ($14) was greater than the amount A had initially raised ($15).  A can now reraise.

- Player D says he wouldn't have called had he been given correct information by the dealer. 
RULING 2:  The floor allows D to take his bet back.

- Player E says he wouldn't have shoved his stack of $39 into the pot had D (and C) not called. 
RULING 3:  E is allowed to take his bet back

- Player C, watching everyone else get their money back, decides that he'd like his money back too and says that the dealer told him that A had no option.  He claims to have asked the same question that D did but that is quickly shot down.  There was no discussion about "what if someone else reraises" when he asked his question.  But C still persists and is clearly not happy that A can now reraise.
RULING 4:  C is forced to keep his $31 call in the pot.  He is particularly upset by this ruling.

While all this is happening, another floor person comes over to the table and asks A to announce if he's going to call.  If A is just going to call, he thinks the other players should have to leave their money in the pot.  A tells him to go away.  He's not going to announce his decision until everything else has been decided first. 

In the end, the original floor person suggests everyone taking their money back and killing the hand.  To play it out would undoubtedly leave some people feeling upset by the rulings.  All agree.   

My question:  Who should be slapped first?  The dealer who gave bad information or the 2nd floor person who had a terrible suggestion?

[William]

Dealer gave poor info. This stuff happens. Isn't supposed to but does.

The subsequent rulings were all correct.

2nd floorperson shouldn't spout an alternate ruling like that. This should be discussed away from the table among the floorpersons first.

[Jambine]

.....This should be discussed away from the table among the floorpersons first....

  X 10

[Martini]

I kinda find it hard to fault the dealer telling Player C or D what he did since it is really easy to respond to that answer purely in the context of just the active players. The most complete answer of course would be to say that Player A cannot raise unless there someone else raises him before it before it gets back around to him.

I also would also say that players are responsible for knowing the rules and that they should not rely on the dealer though of course the dealer is there to help. Is the dealer's word the final say? If the dealer accidentally misread the board and awarded the pot to the losing hand you can expect the player with the winning hand to insist that the dealer's word is NOT the final say.

I can't even fault the dealer for not calling the Floor over earlier since Player A went ahead and did that for him.

Good on Player A for telling the second Floor to get lost. That was ridiculous to ask if he was going to raise or not.

Rules are rules. Dealer did not give as complete an answer as he could have but again, no player is going to hold the dealer to his word when it is to the player's advantage to have the rule override what the dealer said so I say the reverse should apply too.

First Floor should stick to his guns and tell everyone that their bets stand and let Player A decide what to do.

Second Floor should have had the common sense to not interfere but since he was planning on asking Player A his action he didn't have that much common sense anyway. First Floor should have pulled Second Floor to the side to discuss in private.

[joonka]

Thank you Martini.  I always appreciate your input. 

I think a better title for this thread would have been "The difference between a good / bad floor person".  When A called for the floor, he specifically asked for First floor, not Second.  First floor runs the room.  Second is his right hand man.  First floor is a serious card player and has the respect of the people who play in his card room.  Second floor is a nice guy who often says foolish things.  Consequently, Second is often the butt of the joke in the cardroom.  It's good natured, but still, it is indicative of the way people think of him. 

Generally, I liked the way First floor dealt with the issues. 

- I thought he was right to allow D to take his bet back.  D had acted on bad info from the dealer.  You could fault D for not asking a better source for his information, but at least he deserves some protection for asking a good (and specific) question.  It's hard to want to punish him for not knowing he got the wrong answer from the dealer.

- I wasn't crazy about letting E take his money back.  He's clearly having a case of buyer's remorse.  Regardless, for E to say "I only put my money in because everyone else was in but now that one person (D) out of 4 has been allowed to take his money back I change my mind" is a weak argument.  I'm not even sure why E complained.  Is there really such a mathematical line of demarcation which delineates the necessity of putting your money in vs 4 players instead of 3 regardless of your cards?  In a cash game no less?  Besides, if A shoves, and that forces C (or D had he still been in the hand) to fold, how does that not work in his favor?  Now he's all in against less people but with the same money in the pot.  That's great for him.  E should have kept quiet and let A shove.  Or if A simply calls, he gets (pretty much) what he was looking for in the first place. 

- I thought First floor was right to force C to keep his money in the pot.  C had asked if B's raise had reopened the bidding to A.  C was given the correct ruling by the dealer and acted on that information.  C never asked if subsequent raises by players (who certainly had the option available to them) would reopen the bidding to A.  C changed his story when he tried to angle shoot his way out of the pot by saying he asked the same question as D.  Give First floor credit for making a ruling which clearly upset one of his customers, C.  You can argue (and I readily concede the point) that everyone else at the table was a customer too.  All I will offer on this point is that C was clearly the squeakiest wheel at the table.  I play in other games where all of C's complaining might have bought him more sympathy. 

- I thought First floor made a sensible suggestion (not demand) to kill the hand and return everyone's money. 


FWIW, everyone but B flipped their cards over and the hand was dealt out for fun.  E and his powerful 78 off suit would have rivered his gutshot and cracked A's aces, C's ducks and D's mighty 64 of clubs.  The poker gods work in mysterious ways...

[Nerre]

It is dangerous as a dealer to give straight answers to questions like that.

The best thing would be if the dealer told the rule and the current situation.


But what bothers me here is that player A waited until the other players had acted before he called the floor. To me that really looks like angle shooting. What happened between the dealers incorrect information and player A's turn that he couldn't figure was going to happen?

If he knew from the beginning that the dealers info was wrong, why didn't he call the floor earlier?

If he didn't know the dealers info was wrong, why did he call the floor?

[William]

You can't fault Player A. Raising this question before D and E acted would have given information about his hand.

I think Player A made the right decision to get a floor ruling when it was his turn to act and not before.

[Martini]

I missed the detail where the dealer told Player D completely incorrect information so the dealer actually does have a part in this mess.

Again, I go back to the notion that you wouldn't see Player D complaining if the mis-information somehow worked to his favor. I don't think players should be allowed to freeroll on misinformation from the dealer.

[joonka]

Again, I go back to the notion that you wouldn't see Player D complaining if the mis-information somehow worked to his favor. I don't think players should be allowed to freeroll on misinformation from the dealer.

That's a good point.  I hadn't considered the possibility that D knew the dealer's ruling was wrong.  If he knows enough to ask the specific question about E's potential reraise, he must have at least suspected that the dealer's answer was wrong. 

[stooks99]

I also would also say that players are responsible for knowing the rules .........

I wish more people would have this mentality.  The dealer is there to do certain things, and a few other things in extreme cases.  I feel like people use the 'extreme' cases as the norm. 

[Blaster]

I take it this was not in Atlantic City or Las Vegas ...