Not sure how I feel about this floor ruling

I was involved a pot last weekend where the flor manager was called over and made a ruling which I strongly disagreed with. Here are the specifics as best as I can recall.

The game is $1/$2 nlh at Foxwoods Casino. I am sitting on the CO with about $180. A player in early position bets $10. MP calls and I over call with [7h][8h]. The Button calls as does the BB. The pot is $50.

The flop comes [3h][4c][Td] and it is checked around to the button who makes it $75. I am prepared to fold if it comes around to me but the BB flats and the OR folds. The pot is about $200. I'm getting about 3:1 direct odds to call and I do. the pot is $275.

The Turn is [6h] making my flush. The pot is $275 and I'm not going away no matter what happens. The BB checks and after thinking for a moment on the best way to get value from a set or a naked flush draw I decide to shove all in for my remaining $95. The Button tanks for a good while but eventually calls for his entire stack.

Here's where it gets interesting. The BB is fumbling with his cards but is clearly IMO ready to fold but before he actually does, the dealer deals the river card, it's a harmless brick. The BB immediately says "Hold on, I haven't acted yet." The dealer apologizes and the BB says, "No harm, I was going to fold anyway." I show my flush but the Button protests that "As the BB had not yet acted, the river card is a misdeal and must be redealt." He does not reveal his cards but he obviously has outs.The floor is called over and rules in his favor. I was livid. As I only have a weak flush, I'm fading any heart, or any paired card, I'm not sure which.

My problem with the ruling is that the misdeal changed nothing other than possibly giving the BB a free card. If the River had worked in his favor, a case could be made that he could simply pay up the turn bet and collect the entire pot despite whether or not he intended to call the turn. I would be understandably upset but I could live with that. But the river was a blank, and the BB folded. The hand played out exactly as it would have without the misdeal. All is as it should be.

What purpose does re-dealing the river card serve other than to give a player a free card which he has done nothing to warrant? As it turned out the river was another blank and with much relief and unneeded drama I took down the pot. I even tipped the dealer. Had I lost the hand I'm not sure I would have taken it in such stride. I probably would have called for another floor manager. In retrospect I should have insisted that another floor manager be brought over immediately but I was assured by everyone at the table that as unfair as it seemed, that was the correct ruling.

Correct or not, floor rules are made in an attempt to restore a hand to it's intended outcome in as much as is possible. I'm just not sure how this ruling served that purpose. Wouldn't a greater injustice have been done to me had the board paired and I lost to a Full House?

Incorrect. The only player that mattered had already acted. Now if the BB had seen the card and then decided he wanted to call the card should have been redealt.

Bad ruling, glad it worked out in your favor

I agree poor ruling. I usually take it to agree with the floor ruling whatever the outcome though, and take the fair with the unfair, it usually evens out over time.

I have seen a similar situation. There was side pot possibilities on the river though, the first river card was re-shuffled into the stub and the river was re-dealt.

Whether the ruling was in accordance with the house rules depends on what those rules say. For example, Robert's Rules include this in the holdem section:

"5. If the dealer burns and turns before a betting round is complete, the card(s) may not be used, even if all subsequent players elect to fold. Nobody has an option of accepting or rejecting the card. The betting is then completed, and the error rectified in the prescribed manner for that situation."

Arjonius said:

Whether the ruling was in accordance with the house rules depends on what those rules say. For example, Robert's Rules include this in the holdem section:

"5. If the dealer burns and turns before a betting round is complete, the card(s) may not be used, even if all subsequent players elect to fold. Nobody has an option of accepting or rejecting the card. The betting is then completed, and the error rectified in the prescribed manner for that situation."

Click to expand...

That's pretty clear. Still, the house has the right to enforce the rules or not based on the circumstances and the often do make exceptions. I don't doubt that the floor manager adhered to a strict interpretation. I guess when you're running a card room with 100 tables they don't have the time or resources to investigate the details of each and every situation that may arise. Still, this rule makes absolutely no sense and seems to serve no other purpose than making the floor managers job easier.

It seems that giving every floor person the prerogative to decide when to enforce a rule or not could open up a far larger kettle of fish.

I think the floor ruling is correct, just imagine the time a heart comes or the board pairs you can request a re-deal as well. The card makes it unfair on both players that have put money in on the turn as the BB should not see a free card before deciding.

Effectively that river card will always be re-dealt as one of you will always be unpleased with the outcome so it really makes little difference.

I hate to say it (because the button was clearly angle shooting trying to get a new river) but I think the floor got this one right. The rule is clear, and the floor's action has no real effect on your EV for the hand.

OzExorcist said:

I hate to say it (because the button was clearly angle shooting trying to get a new river) but I think the floor got this one right. The rule is clear, and the floor's action has no real effect on your EV for the hand.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I just saw this. Been away from the site for a while.
Right or wrong the decision clearly effects my EV. As originally dealt I won a pot of $275. Now I'm forced to suffer through a re-deal where the villain has between say 14% and 20% equity depending on whether he's chasing a FH or a higher flush, lets just call it 17%. If we played it out 100 times, I'd win $275 83 times for $22825 for an average win of $228.25/hand. So I have in fact sacrificed $46.75 in EV, or Sklansky Bucks or whatever you want to call it. I'm still not convinced it was the correct call on the part of the FM and I'm sure the villain in this hand would have screamed bloody murder if the tables were turned and it was I who called the floor over after he hit his 7 outer on the river and he was forced to play it out again as an 83% dog.

Here's the relevant rules from Robert's Rules Section 5, Hold 'em (assuming Foxwoods follows Robert's Rules or some close approximation of them):
(emphasis added by me)

Rule 5 is very clear, and so is the action in your case - the betting round wasn't complete because the big blind hadn't acted yet, and therefore the card can't be used.

If they follow Rule 8 and reshuffle the deck stub before redealing the river then your EV isn't affected because the way the river was "originally dealt" was never going to be allowed to stand. It's simply not valid to compare your EV on the redeal to the "original deal". It should be unchanged compared to when you and the button got your stacks in though.

Like I said, it's an unfortunate situation because the button was clearly angle shooting to get a better river card for himself. Even angle shooters can be in the right from time to time though.

Four Dogs said:

Correct or not, floor rules are made in an attempt to restore a hand to it's intended outcome in as much as is possible. I'm just not sure how this ruling served that purpose. Wouldn't a greater injustice have been done to me had the board paired and I lost to a Full House?

Click to expand...

Technically this isn't correct either. The actual line in Robert's Rules is this:
Note that it references "fairness", not "restoring a hand to its intended outcome". Nobody knows that the big blind was definitely going to fold, even though he claimed he was going to afterwards. It's not fair to you or the button that the big blind should get to make his decision with more information than you. It's not fair to the button if he's drawing and he's denied the opportunity to get a better price on his draw by having the big blind fold - after all, he hasn't done anythig wrong either.

It sucks for you to go through this, you've clearly done nothing wrong, but I still think the floor made the right decision, both in terms of fairness and a strict interpretation of the rules.

And think about it this way - if the misdealt river had've been a card that put the button ahead, instead of a brick, would you have complained when the floor ordered it to be redealt?

Nice post Oz. Ty