What to Announce When Dealing?

[Poker Jack]

Hi there,

when I work as a card dealer (tournament), I announce the following:

- Initial bets
- Raises, Re-raises, all-ins, incomplete raises/all-ins
- at showdown: each player's hand, the winning hand
- number of players still in the hand before dealing the next board card ("Three players to the flop" - "Heads up to the turn")
- new blind levels
- seat open
- breaks


Do you think that I should add anything?


Examples:

Player A bets $1200 on the flop.
I announce: "Bet: Twelve-hundred!"

Player B raises $1200 to $2500
I announce: "Raise to $2500!"

Player C and D fold.
I announce nothing

Player E calls
I announce nothing

Player F goes all-in for $3500
I announce: "All-in for $3500, incomplete raise!"

Player A calls
I announce nothing

etc etc.

[72]

i deal at a casino, cash and tourneys. when a player shoves all-in, i only announce "All-in" but not the amount, until asked, then i break it down for a total.
also, the only time i announce how many players are in the hand is when it's heads up. "Heads up."
announcing an incomplete raise when one pushes all-in? never heard of that one being announced.

[Nerre]

- number of players still in the hand before dealing the next board card ("Three players to the flop" - "Heads up to the turn")

In addition to that, the number of players who are all in.

[Poker Jack]

announcing an incomplete raise when one pushes all-in? never heard of that one being announced.

In my experience, many players don't notice an incomplete raise which results in confusion when they try to re-raise an incomplete raise. Announcing the fact that a raise is incomplete prevents players from performing an action that is not allowed and, in this specific case, accidentally and unintentionally revealing info about their hand.
Many players don't think about incomplete raises, at all, or are too lazy to do the math in their head before acting.

[Squiggly]

There was recently some debate at the PokerTDA forum regarding chip counts and announcements. If I am not mistaken, all-in actions are not counted or announced by the dealer unless asked for by the player yet to act.

[Gobbs]

announcing an incomplete raise when one pushes all-in? never heard of that one being announced.

In my experience, many players don't notice an incomplete raise which results in confusion when they try to re-raise an incomplete raise. Announcing the fact that a raise is incomplete prevents players from performing an action that is not allowed and, in this specific case, accidentally and unintentionally revealing info about their hand.
Many players don't think about incomplete raises, at all, or are too lazy to do the math in their head before acting.

Doesn't matter.  You shouldn't prevent them from giving a tell in this situation.  It's not your job and you're inadvertently evening he playing field by not allowing weaker players to make mistakes.

KC

[Dr. Neau]

Welcome back, Gobbs.

[72]

There was recently some debate at the PokerTDA forum regarding chip counts and announcements. If I am not mistaken, all-in actions are not counted or announced by the dealer unless asked for by the player yet to act.

that's how i do it.

[72]

announcing an incomplete raise when one pushes all-in? never heard of that one being announced.

In my experience, many players don't notice an incomplete raise which results in confusion when they try to re-raise an incomplete raise. Announcing the fact that a raise is incomplete prevents players from performing an action that is not allowed and, in this specific case, accidentally and unintentionally revealing info about their hand.
Many players don't think about incomplete raises, at all, or are too lazy to do the math in their head before acting.

Doesn't matter.  You shouldn't prevent them from giving a tell in this situation.  It's not your job and you're inadvertently evening he playing field by not allowing weaker players to make mistakes.

KC

that's also why you shouldn't announce how many players are still in the hand, until it's heads-up. the players are supposed to pay attention to it. dealers too, but keep it to yourself unless asked.

[Poker Jack]

Doesn't matter.  You shouldn't prevent them from giving a tell in this situation.  It's not your job and you're inadvertently evening the playing field by not allowing weaker players to make mistakes.

KC

So, following that logic, why do I announce raises, or bets? By announcing a raise, I prevent a player (who's inexperienced, or just not paying attention) from just calling the initial bet (not the raise!), thus, making it obvious to others that he most likely holds a hand in his calling range, not his (re-)raising range.

I'm not trying to be nitty here, or anything, I'm just a bit confused now.

[Dr. Neau]

that's also why you shouldn't announce how many players are still in the hand, until it's heads-up. the players are supposed to pay attention to it. dealers too, but keep it to yourself unless asked.

Almost every dealer I've seen announces the number of players as he taps the table before the flop.

[Poker Jack]

that's also why you shouldn't announce how many players are still in the hand, until it's heads-up. the players are supposed to pay attention to it. dealers too, but keep it to yourself unless asked.

So, why, all of a sudden, do I announce that it's heads-up? I mean, the remaining two players should pay attention to the fact that they are the only players left, right??

I don't get it.

The reason I do announce certain things in the first place is to give players a brief summary of what's going on, in case they missed it, or in case they didn't see it/hear it (from the other side of the table, for example). This prevents some mistakes that cause confusion and waste time.

[Nerre]

Almost every dealer I've seen announces the number of players as he taps the table before the flop.

The Professional Poker Dealers Handbook says you shall.

[Gobbs]

Doesn't matter.  You shouldn't prevent them from giving a tell in this situation.  It's not your job and you're inadvertently evening the playing field by not allowing weaker players to make mistakes.

KC

So, following that logic, why do I announce raises, or bets? By announcing a raise, I prevent a player (who's inexperienced, or just not paying attention) from just calling the initial bet (not the raise!), thus, making it obvious to others that he most likely holds a hand in his calling range, not his (re-)raising range.

I'm not trying to be nitty here, or anything, I'm just a bit confused now.

First, you shouldn't announce bets, only raises.  Basically, the dealer's function is to control the action, not be a play-by-play announcer.

Somewhere along the way, experienced dealers, players, etc. decided announcing raises helped the dealer control the action and the benefit outweighed the drawback of hearing he dealer's voice.  In most cases, though, the dealer's chatter should be minimal.  For example, it's why, initially, when calling the action, the dealer points to a player with an open hand and looks at him instead of telling him the action is on him.  Only when a player does not respond to this silent prompting should the dealer speak.  The less the dealer says, the better.

KC

[72]

Doesn't matter.  You shouldn't prevent them from giving a tell in this situation.  It's not your job and you're inadvertently evening the playing field by not allowing weaker players to make mistakes.

KC

So, following that logic, why do I announce raises, or bets? By announcing a raise, I prevent a player (who's inexperienced, or just not paying attention) from just calling the initial bet (not the raise!), thus, making it obvious to others that he most likely holds a hand in his calling range, not his (re-)raising range.

I'm not trying to be nitty here, or anything, I'm just a bit confused now.

First, you shouldn't announce bets, only raises.  Basically, the dealer's function is to control the action, not be a play-by-play announcer.

Somewhere along the way, experienced dealers, players, etc. decided announcing raises helped the dealer control the action and the benefit outweighed the drawback of hearing he dealer's voice.  In most cases, though, the dealer's chatter should be minimal.  For example, it's why, initially, when calling the action, the dealer points to a player with an open hand and looks at him instead of telling him the action is on him.  Only when a player does not respond to this silent prompting should the dealer speak.  The less the dealer says, the better.

KC

Well said!

[Poker Jack]

First, you shouldn't announce bets, only raises.  Basically, the dealer's function is to control the action, not be a play-by-play announcer.

Somewhere along the way, experienced dealers, players, etc. decided announcing raises helped the dealer control the action and the benefit outweighed the drawback of hearing he dealer's voice.  In most cases, though, the dealer's chatter should be minimal.  For example, it's why, initially, when calling the action, the dealer points to a player with an open hand and looks at him instead of telling him the action is on him.  Only when a player does not respond to this silent prompting should the dealer speak.  The less the dealer says, the better.

KC

I agree that the dealer should say as little as possible, and in a perfect game the dealer wouldn't have to announce anything.
It all comes down to where you are working. When you work at a casino where everything is a little bit more "elevated", you probably don't have to announce as much as if you were dealing at a local tournament with lots of undissciplined, inexperienced players and where there is quite some noise going on.

In a private card club where there are ten to twenty gentlemen and ladies gathering around an oak table in the backroom of a golf club then you probably don't have to announce anything.

[Gobbs]

I never change my dealing routine (except in training situations).  The standards and rules are the same no matter where you are.   In fact, the more standard you can make your actions as a dealer, the less you actually need to talk.  A good dealer can control the table by establishing a consistent pattern and rhythm.  When done properly, most players get far more out of their poker experience.

KC

[Poker Jack]

I completely changed my dealing routine on the basis of the suggestions here and it works very well. Thanks to you all.

I announce:
- raises
- all-in
- when the hand is heads-up
- new blind levels
- seat open
- all shown hands at showdown
- winning hand

That's it. I noticed that players pay more attention to the game because they can't rely on my "running commentary" anymore and don't want to look foolish.

[R-Ho]

I completely changed my dealing routine on the basis of the suggestions here...

As it is good to say less, it is also important to use standard terminology. In your OP, you use 'incomplete raise'. There is no such thing. The word 'incomplete' does not appear anywhere, under any context, in Robert's Rules or the TDA rules.

Robert uses the terms 'undersized bet' and 'less than a full wager' to better describe such instances.

[Poker Jack]

As it is good to say less, it is also important to use standard terminology. In your OP, you use 'incomplete raise'. There is no such thing. The word 'incomplete' does not appear anywhere, under any context, in Robert's Rules or the TDA rules.

Robert uses the terms 'undersized bet' and 'less than a full wager' to better describe such instances.

You're right. I don't remember where I picked up the term 'incomplete'. It's not standard, I give you that, but in the WSOP rules it says

The minimum allowable raise will be equal to the last complete raise.

So, if there's such a thing as a complete raise, one might assume that there is such a thing as an incomplete raise, as well.
Since I don't announce 'undersized' raises, anymore, it doesn't matter anyways. But thanks for the advice.

[Jambine]

...... I don't remember where I picked up the term 'incomplete'. It's not standard.....

The phrase "complete the bet", applies to structured limit  7 card stud (not Hold-Em).

[R-Ho]

The minimum allowable raise will be equal to the last complete raise.

So, if there's such a thing as a complete raise, one might assume that there is such a thing as an incomplete raise, as well.
Since I don't announce 'undersized' raises, anymore, it doesn't matter anyways. But thanks for the advice.

I realize I'm splitting hairs, and its no easy matter to write rules, but I find the use of 'complete raise' a little strange and/or redundant. A bet is either a raise or it is not, so I don't really understand why the rule writer feels the need to use the word 'complete' as a modifier. Anyway, this isn't a thread about the writing of rules so I'll leave it at that.

[Nerre]

I think the opposite to an "incomplete raise" is not a "complete raise" but a "valid raise".

You could argue that it would be better to say "invalid" instead of "incomplete", but since an "invalid raise" can't be "to big" I think using "incomplete" works too. It tells you that the raise is "invalid" and has to be completed to become valid.

But completing it doesn't necessarily make it complete, because complete implies that it can't become bigger.


Edit: Added a small word to clarify.

[Poker Jack]

But completing it doesn't make it complete, because complete implies that it can't become bigger.

Well, in the circumstance that I am talking about, the raise really can't become bigger than the minimum raise allowed. So, to make an 'incomplete' raise, or bet, complete, you have to fill it up to the max. amount allowed in this instance. It indeed can't become any bigger than what is allowed, so, it's completed... 

Whatever, I sound like the Emperor: "Something, something Dark Side... something, something complete..."

[Poker Jack]

Just as an update on this post:

In the last few sessions where I dealt, I did not announce anything except all-ins, blind levels and hands at showdown, or if a player asked me what the action/bet amount etc. was.

I did limit my announcements because a wanted to see what the effects are on the game (talking about tournament play here).

I noticed:

pros
- players are more focused
- players chat less
- players are more eager to make their intentions clear by verbalizing their action
- players tend to announce their intentions out loud to the table (not just the dealer)
- overall, players communicate much better with one another (and not just with the dealer)

cons
- now and then, a misunderstanding as to the amount of a bet is discovered long after the original bet occured
Example:
Player A bets announces "3000!" and bets a T.5000 chip.
Player B bets T10.000 (call)
Player C calls T10.000
When I return T7.000 to Player C after betting is complete, he is surprised because he thought the bet was T10.000.
While this does not happen frequently, from time to time, it does, but surprisingly is not considered a big deal (at least not in tournament play)
While I did not have trouble with this, it certainly presents a major downside to my trial method.

Concluding, I must say, that it overall improved the game. Players are really playing more together because the dealer does not constantly remind them of his presence by announcing stuff that any man/woman who pays attention to the game already knows. And if you don't pay attention you are punished right away. And in case you didnt get something, or can't see what the bet is, there's always the dealer you can ask and who has been paying attention all the way. The dealer mostly interferes when there is an error made.