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

I mean the dealer shouldn't spread the pot.

I agree with you. I was pointing out that it is unfair to make it only the caller's responsibility if the dealer's amount isn't binding. Why does the onus fall on the caller?

They would have to give it at some point or how will the players know how many chips to put in the pot?

That's a really good point. The bettor put the wrong amount it -- why does he get to change his action but the caller doesn't get to change hers except to acquiesce the bettor's and dealer's mistakes?

Fair enough, but announce that it's not binding? Dealer: "I think the pot is X, but if I'm wrong, that's on you." LOL. I guess if the floor just got it right that's all we need 😉 And this decision was not right.

By verify, I am not saying even the next player. If the dealer just gives a size and you believe it is wrong (as in this case the diff was so large just a ‘feel’ for size would say dealer is wrong. You can (and should) ask the dealer to confirm with an actual count of the pot. This is an option and actually a responsibility. The rule of poker is clear. You call you call the true bet

Even in NLHE, if the bet is all in and you ask how much, the dealer does have to tell you the bet size. But the responsibility is the same, player is responsible to match the actual bet size. If dealer says wrong size you can and should request physical count.

Not for this much of an error but for over $100 error, I have asked for verification. I have seen physical count errors but those are easy to point out. I have seen a brain fart where dealer stacked greens in stacks of 5’s, miscount number of stacks of reds. Forget to include 1 or 2 green/black. Etc. But those are easy to spot and correct.

The tough spot for me is when I am not in the hand and dealer gives wrong count. Should I correct him? Just stay out? When a hand is over the answer is clear, make sure right amount goes to right player. But during the hand, many say speaking up violates OPTAH. Personally I will try to subtly prompt dealer to check and correct but will make sure correct amount is known.

I agree that it is not good that dealer/house gets off for their mistake but I don’t know of a better answer. The bettor isn’t anymore responsible for dealer miscount than is the caller.

If the error is immediately caught before anything else changes or might influences caller, maybe we can give caller some slack but that is a big maybe. Consider this. Caller knows the stated amount is low. Calls and puts out the stated amount. He is free rolling the error amount. Loses, he loses less than actual bet. Wins and he can insist that pot isn’t right and request the full pot bet be made up. There could be an action offered and accepted argument made but we do not know how a floor decides. There is a chance the free roll succeeds.

Really no good solution. It falls back to protect your hand which means much more than physically guard your cards

Did the bettor even know of the error? Maybe he is angling which is bad but angles are within the rules. The fact is bettor made a legal knowable size bet. He is not making any decision based on a third party input. Maybe bettor is now asleep, flirting with player next to him, making a dinner order. How do we know he is even aware of the error?

If you request information from third party, how is the other party responsible for actions he has not part in. He did not request the info and he is not acting on the info.

I agree spreading the pot has always been at best borderline. But stating the size of all in bet is an exact parallel that can have the same error situation. I push my chips in, dealer miscounts. Is there a rule I must say something? Doesn’t even have to be all I. I push $X silently into pot. That is binding on me but the dealer miscounts, you call and I win the smaller amount? That simply opens up the angle opportunity for the caller. But again the difference is I did not involve the 3rd party. You did and you chose to rely on that information which you could request a verification. Why am I now responsible for an error I had nothing to do with?

He doesn’t get to change his action. He is bound to put in the full amount of the verbal bet. You can even ask for that to happen before you act. And again, you can ask the dealer to do a physical count including stacking pot. Cant have pot stacked in HE but you can have bet stacked.

As to announcing it is not binding, since that is the rule why is such announcement necessary. Does dealer now annouce every rule?

Because the bettor did not request and rely on the dealer information.

What if player asks what is pot, dealer understates the dice, player bets pot. Now someone else says dealer was wrong. What is bet? AFAIK, but very very seldom play PL games, the bet is the full pot not what dealer said.

In this case the bettor requested the info and used it. Thus bettor is then responsible.

I'm not sure I understand your question, but players should be able to trust the pot size announced by the dealer in PLO. Yes, they get it wrong sometimes, but we shouldn't have to "verify" every time (would be a nightmare), and since it was only one person to act, she should absolutely be able to take the call back exactly because the dealer was wrong. It's not as if the bettor noticed, either. He was told the pot size and put that amount in the pot -- why didn't he verify? What price does he have to pay for putting in the wrong bet size?

Basically, the caller is being punished for the dealer's mistake -- I don't see how anyone can argue with that.

The rule is fairly clear (even if the wording used in the rule has a major editing error in it). It just feels unfair for the specific case where the stated pot amount was significantly too low and the error is caught after one but not two (and not zero) players have acted behind.

Unfortunately they do not give an example where the pot size given is too low, and then player B calls, then the issue is discovered. Furthermore, they do not give an example where the amount of discrepancy is much more significant. When both these things happen, as in the OP, the directed ruling seems very poor for player B.

@dinesh
The exemple you just quoted is exactly like in the OP, the dealer has stated an amount too low compared to the real amount.

The many saying that speaking up would violate OPTAH would be wrong imo.

Yes but in the example player B folded, so he doesn’t care if they go back and increase the bet amount. In the OP player B called and was then forced to call an extra 45% more, which is insane.

reminder:
floor also offered that she could surrender the first call amount (1600ish) and then fold ... even more insane imo, like a "slap in the face"-ruling

The main problem with the players in the hand agreeing for her to take back is that they might reveal their hand if they are adamant the 1625 stays, assuming they realize she is gonna call the rest being so committed.

Not to defend the dealer (because they clearly effed it up), but in PLO it is the players responsibility to know what the pot is. Sure they can ask the dealer, but that doesn't absolve the player for not knowing either. I know this is a cop out (and as a player first and foremost I find it irritating) but the player technically is just as responsible as the dealer for knowing the pot.

In NLHE the player is responsible for knowing the action. PLO doesn't change this, it just places a further burden on the dealer to identify any illegal bets.

I probably said this at the beginning, but if we're allowed to bet 'pot', and players aren't allowed to count the pot, then the dealers have to do so, or the game won't work at all.

You guys are telling us we can't trust the dealers first 'estimate', but we have to trust his second 'count'.
I guess the estimate is done quickly and therfore is less reliable, but the speed doesn't really help to move the game along, so there's no reason to do the estimate, and then later have to do a more careful accurate count.

The dealer should, instead, do a fully valid count, taking whatever time he needs to do so. This will take more time now, but it will save time when you need to actually move am exact number of chips from one player to another, as a second count will not need to be done.

Wouldn't this be easier, less frustrating for everyone, and nearly eliminate the problems that lead to these kinds of posts? If not, what am I missing?

the thing is:
nobody asked for a count at first and the dealer also didn't count, bc he was a good dealer and usually knew exactly what the pot was ... only in this spot for some reason he was totally off

I think this hits the nail on the head. For some reason the dealer thought 700 + 400 = 900. Wrong? Of course. Maybe he was distracted. Maybe he was tired. Maybe he was stupid. Maybe his wife just told him she was leaving? Who knows.

Dealer was wrong. Absolutely no doubt. None. Kick him in the nuts. He deserves it. Absolutely.

However all of this doesn't absolve the player of knowing what the action (pot) is. That is the players responsibility just as much as it is the dealers. To argue otherwise ignores the rules.

And how exactly is the player supposed to know, assuming he's not a math whiz?

well, plo players usually know the pot size, when i'm in a hand i know the pot exactly, on all streets, it's almost automatic (habit), and no, you don't need to be a math whiz to do that ... i even know it most of the times when i'm not in a hand ... but wasn't paying attention in this pot for some reason, so didn't react (say something) at first myself.

but: this lady clearly wasn't (a plo reg), so she didn't know, but relied on the dealer.
and do we really want to punish not so accomplished players for that?

again: understand all the reasoning (rules based), pot was announced etc., but bc the error was so big (from the dealer), i'd at least wish the floor would have factored that in a little when making the decision, that's all i'm saying

Right some people can keep track in their heads, but not the people you generally want to play with.

JimL, do the rules really say that the player has to know the pot size at all times? I find that very hard to believe.
Does it say anything at all about what a player should have to know, and when the dealer should be doubted, vs when he should be trusted.
The rules being given (or assumed) here simply don't work together.

B: In pot limit, if a player underbets the pot based on an inaccurate count, if the pot count is too high (an illegal bet), it will be corrected for all players anywhere on the current street; if too low, corrected until substantial action occurs after the bet.

The bold does it for me. There was no substantial action. Seems very straightforward. If one call is substantial action then the term "substantial action" is moot.

And expecting the average rec to know the pot size is insane. I've been playing with the same group for a year, and they still don't know how to count a PLO pot -- the dealers still have to ask me sometimes.

Just to make clear to everyone, substantial action is two in-turn actions where at least one puts money in the pot, or three in-turn actions otherwise. I don't think there is much argument over whether there was substantial action after the incorrect pot bet, there clearly was not.

The issue is whether the rules as written are fair in this situation (read: one in-turn action that was a call, then a correction for a significant increase in the amount of the bet that was called after the fact).

It's much more harmful to force her to call or forfeit what she already put in, thus it seems pretty clear to me that no matter how the rule is written it's not adequate for this situation and rule#1 should be invoked.

There is literally no harm if the ruling is take back the money and decide based on the actual bet amount. The only (small) argument I can think of is that caller might have gotten some sort of live tell based on the call of the incorrect amount.