Unique Casino/dealer error

R

Ricey07

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
11
Chips
0
This happened to me on Saturday night in my local casino and I'm interested in people's opinion on the action taken.

I was playing 5/5 NLH and at the time had a stack of around $600

I'm in late position and the turn makes my hand 2-pair. Guy in early position bets out approx $50 and there are 3 callers. I count out a raise to $300 and declare my raise and put my chips in. I now have $100 left after the pre-flop and flop betting.

Early raiser Guy in early position has a lot of chips and tanks for a bit. He has a flush draw. Whilst he is tanking I pick my chips up and have them in my hand. He is 2 to my left and can see me clearly. After a while he puts out a stack of green $25 chips, which was approximately $500. He did not declare a raise.

The dealer then counts out his chips and returns him the difference to match my bet, making it a call. The whole table knows the guy meant to call.

Before the river guy declares he's drawing for a flush and then says he didn't know I still have chips in my hand. $100.

The river comes a jack that didn't make his flush, however it paired another jack on the board. With the chips in my hand I put my hand over to bet and the other guy slams his cards over (face up) onto the board, as a fold before I have time to even drop my chips.

I show my cards and the dealer is shipping me the post (over $1000). At this time a player at the end of table points out that the other guy actually now had the winning hand as we now had 2-pair (the jack counterfeited my original 2-pair). His kicker was better.

He had no idea that his hand was better after folding and immediately called the floor manager.

After 30 minutes of reviewing everything the casino ruled that my opponents bet on the turn effectively was a raise and that he won the pot. The whole table knew it wasn't a raise and that the dealer declared it a call.

I pointed out that had I not shown my cards after my opponent folded
I would have won the pot. He folded his hand, albeit face up and my chips never hit the table before he chucked his cards in.

Loads of debate at table after that the casino messed up and should have paid us both.

All comments welcome.
P
 
Jillychemung

Jillychemung

Stacks & Stacks
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Total posts
8,250
Awards
1
Chips
124
IMHO this was the right ruling. Unless he verbally said 'Fold' or 'Muck' his exposed cards speak for themselves and it's an obligation for players to point out the winning hand if the dealer doesn't recognize it.
 
duggs

duggs

Killing me softly
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Total posts
9,512
Awards
2
Chips
0
IMHO this was the right ruling. Unless he verbally said 'Fold' or 'Muck' his exposed cards speak for themselves and it's an obligation for players to point out the winning hand if the dealer doesn't recognize it.

if the action isn't closed thats clearly not true, player has money behind
 
R

Ricey07

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
11
Chips
0
Although he threw his cards in face up it was clearly a snap-fold to my movement of putting all my chips in.

When i argued with the floor manager he was not concerned by this, they argued that his turn bet should have put me all in. I pointed out that the dealer declared the bet a call and the villain did not argue at the time. There was no actual intent from him to go all in at that stage.

So the casino just flatly said it was all about the action on the turn. I fail to see how they can go back and change the way the hand played out after that dealer error?
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
Chips
0
Not thrilled that they went back to the turn bet. If villains stack of $25 chips was correct for even a min raise, then it could be a valid complaint, and if anything, your last 100 should be taking if the villain actually won the pot.

He could never have bet you out of the pot, and it was possible, since you were holding your chips, that the dealer didn't realize you still had chips. Villain might not have complained after some of his chips were returned because he too was unaware that you had chips left. Lesson there is leave your chips in plain sight.

Tacky situation for sure.
 
R

Ricey07

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
11
Chips
0
It was clear that after the turn card came that I cut chips out and announced a raise. My chips were on full view at this stage. I did not go all in, which is why the dealer declared a call.
 
T

Teofealter

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Total posts
55
Chips
0
The dealer shouldn't have assumed that the villain was calling when he had bet extra chips. The dealer should have confirmed this first verbally with the villain if he meant to raise or just to call.
 
R

Ricey07

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
11
Chips
0
Teo,

It was accepted that the dealer made an error.

His intent was to call, which is why the dealer made the error.

What I'm still wondering (and considering) is taking this up with the casino as I've never seen a situation like this one before and wanted a few opinions first.

Thanks
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
The dealer didn't make an error on the turn. Assuming the other player actually did throw out $500 and didn't declare a verbal raise he was only calling. The amount he threw out was not enough to be a legal raise and without a verbal raise declaration there was no intent on his part to add more chips to what he was putting into play. It was a call.

As to the river play the only person to blame is yourself for exposing your cards.
 
R

Ricey07

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
11
Chips
0
WV,

The amount of chips he put out on the turn was more than 50% of my raise, which is why the casino took their position.

Everyone at the table, including the dealer knew that he was calling as it was clear that i hadn't gone all in on the turn.

In hindsight I should have not shown my cards on the river, however I only did this after he had thrown his cards in, which everyone also knew was a fold as he'd declared he was only drawing on the turn.

Not saying there weren't a number of mistakes, but the view of many experienced players at the table was that the casino could not take the chips back from me.

Thanks
 
L

love that omaha

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Total posts
199
Chips
0
I would've definitely waited for the dealer to muck your opponents cards and quietly collected the pot without ever showing my cards unless directed to. I have seen other situations like this before including one of my best friends having AA mucked by the dealer after he went all in with a full house in a 1600 dollar pot. The two things you could have done to avoid this calamity is to release the 100 dollars in your hand into the pot to clarify his fold and not shown your own hand unless directed to by the dealer. That being said, this is clearly an absurd ruling and situation.
 
R

Ricey07

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
11
Chips
0
I know all the things I could/should have done, that's not really my point.

The point and question is was the casino ruling fair and correct. Not one player at the table who saw the action unfold and how it all played out agreed with how the casino handled it.

I only showed my cards after villain threw his cards in and the dealer was collecting the cards.
 
M

mrmochapb

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Total posts
30
Chips
0
this hapened to me once at foxwoods casino in connecticut i had a migrane headache, and i had 10/9 diamonds we were to the river and i didnt realize a third diamond dropped i exposed my cards to fold never said fold tho and threw my cards on table player realized i hit flush, nad the cards as long as they never touch the muck and you dont say fold the cards are live
 
R

Ricey07

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
11
Chips
0
He announced a fold whilst throwing his cards in.

The casinos argument was not the action on the flop but on the turn, where villain was quite happy (at the time) when chips were pushed back and a call was announced. This was clearly a case of dealer error and having spoken ton at least three other floor managers their view is the call should have stood and the action continue to the river where he folded after my action to go all in.
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
He announced a fold whilst throwing his cards in.

The casinos argument was not the action on the flop but on the turn, where villain was quite happy (at the time) when chips were pushed back and a call was announced. This was clearly a case of dealer error and having spoken ton at least three other floor managers their view is the call should have stood and the action continue to the river where he folded after my action to go all in.

IMO the strangest thing about this is the floor's justification for giving him the pot - nothing that happened on the turn matters, I don't know why they'd even bring it up?

It doesn't matter that the amount he put out on the turn was more than 50%* above your raise - he can put out 99% of your raise on top, but unless he's put out at least enough for a FULL raise then it'll correctly just be deemed a call and he'll be given back the remainder. The dealer did everything right on that street, so I can't see why it would come up again.

Obviously if you hadn't have exposed your hand on the river you would have been awarded the pot. And IMO they should still have awarded you the pot. I mean, can anyone tell me: how is this different to showing a bluff after an opponent has folded to your river bet?

There are rules that allow your opponent's hand to be retrieved from the muck and "unfolded", but that's generally only in the case of dealer error, or if they player mucked their hand as a result of incorrect information being given to them. The dealer didn't make any mistakes in this hand that I can see, and your opponent wasn't given any incorrect information.

* the "more than 50% rule" applies only to limit games, IIRC
 
R

Ricey07

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
11
Chips
0
Good post.

However the rules of poker state

'In the absence of a verbal declaration of "Raise," if a player puts in chips equal to 50 percent or more of the minimum raise, he will be required to make a full minimum raise. Otherwise, the action is deemed a call and the excess chips should be returned to the player'

Now, when the action got back to me I still had $100 left. Without remembering the specifics, a conversation ensued in regard to was the bet a call or raise. The villain accepted it was a call and the dealer continued after returning chips to villain.

If we follow the rules of poker it should have been declared a raise, albeit villain never intended to raise, just call.

After the betting action was agreed the river was dealt.

Even if this was a dealer error can the casino retrospectively go back and change the action that followed? I can't see how?

Three more hands were played, with me holding all the chips before the action was halted.

Cheers
 
R

Ricey07

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
11
Chips
0
I just spoke with another experienced player at the table. Another key point he makes is that villain actually stood up and declared a fold on the river and threw his cards face up into the muck.

The casino cameras won't hear the verbal declaration but the video will be clear as to this is what happened.

Under what rules can a mucked/folded hand ever win a pot?

Crazy!
 
Jillychemung

Jillychemung

Stacks & Stacks
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Total posts
8,250
Awards
1
Chips
124
I just spoke with another experienced player at the table. Another key point he makes is that villain actually stood up and declared a fold on the river and threw his cards face up into the muck.

OK I'll change my opinion now. Yes the floor made the wrong ruling.
 
D

da_goat

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 4, 2014
Total posts
81
Chips
0
This was a bad beat from the poker room. You should have won the hand.
 
OzExorcist

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Total posts
8,586
Awards
1
Chips
1
OK, I see what they were getting at now. I see a few major problems here:

First of all, the call vs raise thing is only an issue because villain used $25 chips - if it had been a single oversize chip the extra would have correctly been returned and his action deemed a call. Here's the rule (emphasis added):

14. String raises are not allowed. The dealer should enforce obvious infractions to this string-raise law without being asked. To protect your right to raise, you should either declare your intention verbally or place the proper amount of chips into the pot. Putting a full bet plus a half-bet or more into the pot is considered to be the same as announcing a raise, and the raise must be completed. (This does not apply in the use of a single chip of greater value.)​

And there's this too, from the NL/PL section of the rules:

11. If a player tries to bet or raise less than the legal minimum and has more chips, the wager must be increased to the proper size (but no greater). This does not apply to a player who has unintentionally put too much in to call.​

So what matters in this case is exactly how much was in the stack of $25s that villain put out. If it was a full stack then it was $500 and yes, the dealer should have ruled it a raise and made him increase the amount to $550 total. If it was under $425 though ($300 + $125, half of your $250 raise), then it should have been ruled a call and the extra returned to him.

That's a whole other mess though. Did the floor end up ruling on exactly how much he'd bet? Did the dealer count the bet down and announce the amount?

Assuming the amount was $425 or higher yes, the dealer did technically make an error by ruling it a call instead of an undersize raise that needed to be brought up to the correct amount... BUT we're making a big assumption there, and that's that both the villain and dealer knew you still had chips behind.

That brings up the second issue - there's an argument to be made that villain (and very likely the dealer too) didn't realise you still had chips behind at they time they were correcting his bet, because you had them in your hand. If the dealer, or villain, thinks you're all in for $300 then neither of them did anything wrong.

In fact, I think this has a lot to do with what happened. You say yourself, villain only acknowledged you still had chips after the bet was corrected - at the time he thought he was calling an all-in (which would explain why everyone else at the table thought he was just calling too). And contrary to what you might think dealers don't keep track of exactly how much you're playing at all times. Nor are they expected to, in my experience.

So if you've made a substantial bet, and the dealer can't see your other chips because they're in your hand, they've probably assumed that you're all in and that's why the extra was returned to the villain - as far as the dealer knew, villain really had just put in too many chips to call an all-in bet.

Regardless of how it happened though, what I'm struggling to find is the precedent/rule for how to correct that error, given how the action went. There's this rule (again, emphasis added):

16. All wagers and calls of an improperly low amount must be brought up to proper size if the error is discovered before the betting round has been completed. This includes actions such as betting a lower amount than the minimum bring-in (other than going all-in) and betting the lower limit on an upper limit betting round. If a wager is supposed to be made in a rounded off amount, is not, and must be corrected, it shall be changed to the proper amount nearest in size. No one who has acted may change a call to a raise because the wager size has been changed.​

I read that to mean that the mistake needs to be corrected before the betting round has been completed - but once the betting round is over (when the dealer raps the table and deals the river, in this case) everyone's made their bed and they need to sleep in it.

That would make sense, as it's unfair to all the other players in the pot if they're required to make good on a mistake that happened much earlier in the hand. But it doesn't explicitly say that, it just implies it.

I also don't know what that would mean for the board cards - I would have thought that if you're going back to correct a betting error made on the turn, then a new river card needs to be dealt too (as the dealer has, effectively, dealt the river card prematurely).

SUPER-LONG STORY SHORT: if villain did indeed put out $425 or more, and both the villain and dealer knew that you had chips behind, then the ensuing action is a gawdawful mess, and it seems like the casino staff piled mistake on top of mistake. I honestly have no idea how you're supposed to rectify it - there doesn't seem to be any explicit remedy in the rules.

If villain only put out $400 or less (and the villain/dealer both knew you had chips behind) then you 100% got screwed, the pot should have been yours because it's a clear bet-fold-show sick bluff situation on the river.

It seems the reality is somewhere in between those two situations though, buried under about a foot of mud :p So my advice is always leave your chips on the table in full view, and never expose your hand until you have to at showdown.

Under what rules can a mucked/folded hand ever win a pot?

Crazy!

That'd be this rule:

2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.​

This does actually all hinge on how the casino rules on the turn action - if it's ruled that the villain had incorrect information (assuming that you were all in, or not knowing that his turn bet had been ruled a raise and he'd actually put you all in, for example) then the floor is correct to unmuck his hand and award him the pot.
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
On the river though, his opponent clearly knows he has chips remaining or else he wouldn't have announced a fold.
 
R

Ricey07

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
11
Chips
0
Oz,

Very good post.

I spoke with them last night and the main floor manager has no idea how they came to this decision and needs to speak to them before paying me out. He basically agreed with everything I said.

To answer your question, I believe that when they reviewed footage villain had out a stack that was more than 50% of my raise. Therefore by the rules it should have been declared a raise.

However when the action folded back around to me I clearly had and showed my chips and asked if it was a raise or call. At this stage villain declared it was a call and was happy to get the difference back. When I initially raised it was clearly announced as a raise, not an all in.

Yes, if the rules had been applied I would have called, but that's not what happened.

We then had the action on the river where villain folded after I bet my remaining chips. The manager last night actually corrected me and said my chips actually did make the table, followed by the snap fold.
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
What kind of douche was your opponent that he even thought he deserved to win the pot anyway?
 
R

Ricey07

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
11
Chips
0
wv,

He has plenty of form.

He actually had no idea he had the best hand until it was pointed out after the dealer was passing me the chips.
 
itsmebobd

itsmebobd

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Total posts
89
Chips
0
Although he threw his cards in face up it was clearly a snap-fold to my movement of putting all my chips in.

When i argued with the floor manager he was not concerned by this, they argued that his turn bet should have put me all in. I pointed out that the dealer declared the bet a call and the villain did not argue at the time. There was no actual intent from him to go all in at that stage.

So the casino just flatly said it was all about the action on the turn. I fail to see how they can go back and change the way the hand played out after that dealer error?
EDITED for my dumb error
Did his cards hit the muck? This is why folding face up is a good idea for bad players, as the "cards speak for themselves", meaning if he has the better hand he wins. He should have won the pot, just because the dealer makes an error doesnt mean that a hand folded face up doesnt hold. So unfortunately for you, u dont win. Also, how could u possibly win without showing your hand? You have to show to win....
 
Last edited:
Casino Reviews - Mobile Casinos - Real Money Casinos - iPhone Casinos - Android Casinos - Online Casinos - Canada Casinos - UK Casinos - href="https://www.cardschat.com/new-zealand/casinos/">NZ Casinos - href="https://www.cardschat.com/in/casinos/">India Casinos
Top