Pot bet wildly miscalculated by dealer, 5-5-10/20 5card PLO Aria

You may not recall it but the rules are pretty clear that is the reality. You protect yourself. If you depend on the house protecting you, then you will be disappointed some of the time. Just the reality. Now will floor sometimes correct it? Sure they can under rule 1 but don't count on it. There are many mistakes the house can make which cost you money. But at some point (depending on the particular mistake) the error will stand.

Remember that in most jurisdictions, the house cannot reach into my stack and pull chips to make you whole. They can tell me I have to or I will be banned. They can tell me the next time I come in I have to make a error right but they still can't make me. Once it is my money, even if wrongly acquired, they won't take it. The can ban me. They probably won't even detain me. They might ban me or even call the police to arrest me but the house will NOT forcibly take chips away. They might even refuse to cash me out (that starts getting iffy in many jurisdictions.)

Now, if a dealer is continually making mistakes, the players are going to take it in their own hands by 1) leaving or 2) by protecting themselves slowing down the game as you mention. Both of these will cost the house $ (and the dealer even more $).

But the most likely outcome if a dealer is an idiot making mistakes all the time is they won't be dealing there very long.

Your opinion is different than mine, but doesn't make it not correct.

I would see it the same as someone saying "All in" the dealer counting it as 25k and the person saying call. The person saying "all in" has an intention of betting all of their chips, however many there are. The person calling is intending to call 25k, with the understanding that is how many chips the person has.

I understand that the rules don't always work out that way, and it's just too bad, but maybe that should be looked at.

The bettor might HOPE when they say pot that the dealer makes an error, but by saying "pot" before the dealer counts or states a number, their stated intention is betting exactly what's in the pot. When a count is stated by the dealer and called, the caller is intending to call the amount that was stated.

And not sure exactly what remedy the caller has when the dealer says "1600" and is wrong, esp when the floor rules against them in violation of the direct rule. How many times per street should I as the caller ask the dealer "are you sure?" or demand a recount?

Thx for all the input and opinions.
I feel we sometimes got a little „off track“, but that’s cool (and normal)

Let me summarize:
1. even on the pure rules based ruling there seems to be no consensus.
2. but the main point i was trying to make (and get input on):
Let’s say the pure ruling is she has to call the full amount no matter what … shouldn’t there be some kind of wiggle room for the floor, due to the fact, that the mistake the dealer made was so massive?

I think yes, and I’m also convinced that in another room (or with another floor) the ruling would actually have been different

Disagree with your reading on point one. I see a VERY clear consensus on the pure rules question. Actual (common) rule was quoted. Any discrepancy I see on pure rule can be attributed to changes in exact details on the action. But as originally presented call is full actual pot.

IOW, the pure rule is pretty clear. Whether it is optimal or could be improved is def a point of debate. As is how much flexibility floor has based on the size of this error.

As clarified by Pokerbros, under the pure rule, it is 100% offered and accepted b/c substantial action occurred (at least one fold plus a call) before the amount was adjusted.

You’ve completely changed the scenario now. If you had posted what actually happened correctly the first time you would probably get a consensus

grunching.

not much else to say

if one person is being an ******* and disagree about it tho I think table can say whatever insult they want thrown at him too

i added something i forgot/also didnt think was so important, but realized it was after reading responses from "rules-safe" people. yes.

There was in fact a solid consensus of the rules based on the op. There is a consensus based on your updated scenario. The consensus differ because the rules cover the two scenarios differently but clearly.

The “rules” cover your two scenarios differently, and give a specific clear answer for each one.

Except…

Almost all rulebooks also have the “Floor can do whatever if it’s for the best of the game”, so any rules question you ask also has to deal with that.

thats what i said multiple times now ... i think the floor did a very poor job here.
and i stand by that assement.

No you have not. In fact you recently specifically said that on a pure rules basis there was no consensus. There are actually two near unanimous answers for the two different scenarios you presented.

So there is more than a consensus on those questions. There is a direct rule based answer for each question.

As to this floors split the baby decision, personally I hate these wish washy decisions. If there is major misunderstanding, give her back the undercall with all choices but only if not action behind or make it a full call.

Note in the updated scenario with substantial action the rule decision is the smaller amount is the bet so there is no undercall.

Maybe OP doesn't know what "consensus" means.

very constructive, ty