Pot bet wildly miscalculated by dealer, 5-5-10/20 5card PLO Aria
Just happened, I’m in the game:
Guy announces pot on turn, dealer says that’s 1625, Asian lady calls, then someone says that’s not right, dealer counts the pot, turns out it’s way off, pot is actually 2345.
Asian lady was already hesitant to call the 1625, and now says don’t wanna call that, can I take it back. Whole table basically agreed, but floor was close by and dealer called him over for a ruling.
Result: she can surrender the 1625, or call the full amount.
Thoughts?
This is one of those spots where floor could reasonably choose 3-5 different options without any one clearly being best. Floor's decision seems fine, even if players disagree with the reasoning, the reasoning is easy to follow.
I don't think this is a good "Action offered and accepted spot," though the amount of chips left behind both players for river could change my view (its not stated in OP).
If the player who bet pot was ok with lady folding there is no need for floor to rule differently.
Imo if the dealer calls an amount, a player
bets that amount, and another player calls that amount, it should be too late to change the amount. The amount was way off, but it was within reason enough that multiple players believed it before anyone pointed out the error.
Imo if the dealer calls an amount, a player
bets that amount, and another player calls that amount, it should be too late to change the amount. The amount was way off, but it was within reason enough that multiple players believed it before anyone pointed out the error.
Well, doing it that way would punish the guy who bets (he has the right to the full pot amount) … don’t like it.
As has been said before, a sensible „middleground“ ruling is best imo … let her choose to either take back her call or call for the full amount
The real (deeper) problem here is that all rulings always protect the house: they don’t loose money either way, but I pay money (rake) to play in a correct environment… the error is so huge that it clearly affects the game outcome, but the only person punished is the girl who makes the call based on wrong information given by the dealer
Yeah this isn't action offered / accepted. A bettor who bets "pot" is not assumed to agree to whatever number the dealer says next.
Imo if the dealer calls an amount, a player
bets that amount, and another player calls that amount, it should be too late to change the amount. The amount was way off, but it was within reason enough that multiple players believed it before anyone pointed out the error.
That’s not the sequence of events described in OP.
Well in the description it says the lady.was 'hesitant' to call the 1645. Which means the 1645 sat out there on the table for let's say, maybe at least 5 seconds. After enough time passes and another action is taken, it would seem a bet has to stand.
How about if this action happened on the turn, then the river card gets dealt, and then a player says, 'hey the turn bet was wrong?'
Maybe the floor ruling is correct. It's hard to draw the line. If the actual pot is 2250, and the dealer announces 2225 and a player calls, then it seems clear the call has to be binding for the full amount. If the dealer (perhaps language barrier issue) accidentally says 225 and a player says call right away obviously we have a different issue.
Well in the description it says the lady.was 'hesitant' to call the 1645. Which means the 1645 sat out there on the table for let's say, maybe at least 5 seconds. After enough time passes and another action is taken, it would seem a bet has to stand.
The OP doesn't mention that the bet ever "sat out there on the table". It says the dealer said 1645. The better could've been busy trying to count the pot himself while this was happening, replaying the action, trying to figure out why he thought the count was wrong, etc.
The bettor was a whale and had no clue about pot size (in this hand or others)
The bettor needs his guarantees here. You can lobby for a change in the rules, but "pot" means the real size of the pot. He hasn't offered anything else through his silence, and we can't force him into an agreement that he had no part in making. That would be terrible.
This dude wasn't even equipped to know what he was agreeing to, but imagine if he were aware of the pot size but hadn't heard the dealer's mistake. Imagine if he woke up to his opponent paying off $1,645. He would rightly feel freeroll'd for over $700.
Same as "all-in" in a NL game barring some hidden chips. These are well-established responsibilities and protections
The bettor needs his guarantees here. You can lobby for a change in the rules, but "pot" means the real size of the pot. He hasn't offered anything else through his silence, and we can't force him into an agreement that he had no part in making. That would be terrible.
This dude wasn't even equipped to know what he was agreeing to, but imagine if he were aware of the pot size but hadn't heard the dealer's mistake. Imagine if he woke up to his opponent paying off $1,645. He would rightly feel free
I agree 100%, you gotta protect the whale, not his fault … but what about the girl, Doesn’t she deserves protection as well???
The (big!!!) mistake was made by the house, but they face no consequences whatsoever… this is my whole point
I agree 100%, you gotta protect the whale, not his fault … but what about the girl, Doesn’t she deserves protection as well???
The (big!!!) mistake was made by the house, but they face no consequences whatsoever… this is my whole point
Based on the rules of the game she agreed to play, no she doesn’t.
The OP doesn't mention that the bet ever "sat out there on the table". It says the dealer said 1645. The better could've been busy trying to count the pot himself while this was happening, replaying the action, trying to figure out why he thought the count was wrong, etc.
He said the lady was 'hesitant' about calling 1,645. That seems to imply it was less than a snap call.
In the plo games I'm most experienced in, we are used to dealers miscounting pots. Within a second there's almost always an experienced player who catches the error.
How about if another player had also overcalled the 1,645 before the error was pointed out? Do we make both callers add another $700? At what point do we all agree it's too late?
He said the lady was 'hesitant' about calling 1,645. That seems to imply it was less than a snap call.
In the plo games I'm most experienced in, we are used to dealers miscounting pots. Within a second there's almost always an experienced player who catches the error.
How about if another player had also overcalled the 1,645 before the error was pointed out? Do we make both callers add another $700? At what point do we all agree it's too late?
That point doesn’t exist. The rule is clear. Pot means pot. And call means pot in this case. One, two three overalls doesn’t change. In fact they increase odds someone is free rolling.
As to protection, she can protect herself. She can request a recount. She can dispute the count and ask dealer to do a physical stack and count to allow easier self count to confirm. She can even request the floor to confirm the count. At this point I am pretty sure the correct count would be known.
Tough spot in a room that uses TDA for their cash games .. but certainly a spot for the Floor to come in with some common sense.
We do use 'significant' action in poker .. and in HU play a call is about as significant as you can get. Just let the action stand and move on. When multi-way it's more complicated to put action back on a Player who has already acted.
Cash should be more flexible .. but most of us remember the "If you're calling X, then you're calling Y" WSOP incident. GL
In PLO, dealers are usually required to give the pot when asked. If that's the case in this casino (it seems to be every time I've played PLO at Aria), the dealer made the mistake, and the player should not be punished for that. This isn't NLHE. I think she should be able to take the call back.
In some of the casinos in France, the dealer has a calculator on the table and the pot is shown on a screen above their head. Brilliant.
Sounds like France has a nice solution, though I assume the dealer still needs to ensure the correct data are entered into the calculator.
But whether this is NLHE or PLO, the rule is (most places) that if you say "call" then you have called whatever the actual amount of the bet is. The dealer error while material is not relevant to the action. The caller had the option to ask the dealer to verify the amount.
Maybe that is the way these games are played, but I think it is very bad that it should be necessary to protect oneself by asking the dealer the pot size when he has just told you what it was.
Sounds like France has a nice solution, though I assume the dealer still needs to ensure the correct data are entered into the calculator.
But whether this is NLHE or PLO, the rule is (most places) that if you say "call" then you have called whatever the actual amount of the bet is. The dealer error while material is not relevant to the action. The caller had the option to ask the dealer to verify the amount.
The dealer did give the pot size. Why should she have to ask again or "verify"? Would drive the dealers nuts if every time someone asked for a pot size the next player asked, too 😉
And PLO is very different from NLHE. In NLHE, the dealer does not have to give the pot size -- they can just spread it out -- it's up to the player to count it. Dealer made a clear mistake and the player should not have been punished for it. She called the amount the dealer stated. If that's not the case, the dealers should not be required to give the pot size when asked.
I really hate the way the rules come together in these circumstances. This is a case where "gross misunderstanding...by the dealer" is an issue. At two players substantial action would have occurred, but in cases like this where only one player has acted that player can really get screwed.
I wish the rule would specifically say that a miscount of the pot amount by the dealer that is greater than 15% (or whatever number the community thinks is reasonable) should be grounds for alternate rulings by the floor, including unwinding all possible subsequent action and correcting the bet, or leaving the bet as is and proceeding without correction. This gives the floor good cover to make a ruling in the best interest of fairness.
I've never played NLHE in a room that required the dealer to give the pot size. Never, and I've played all over the country for years (and in France).
Not sure what you mean about bettor's and caller's responsibility? Why should anyone be responsible for correcting the dealer if they don't notice? It's the dealer's responsibility to get it right. Again, if the dealer can just say anything for the pot size, why is he required to give it?
If a player notices a mistake (wrong pot size, misread tabled hand, etc.) it's their responsibility to mention it.
I really hate the way the rules come together in these circumstances. This is a case where "gross misunderstanding...by the dealer" is an issue. At two players substantial action would have occurred, but in cases like this where only one player has acted that player can really get screwed.
I wish the rule would specifically say that a miscount of the pot amount by the dealer that is greater than 15% (or whatever number the community thinks is reasonable) should be grounds for alternate rulings
It'd be even better if the room didn't require PLO dealers to give the pot size. They could be required to stack the chips (unlike in NLHE), but it would be the player's responsibility to know what pot is. That would make it much better. (Especially for those of us who know how to count a pot 😉 )
