You're the floor...

What did V1 say to V2 when V2 said "I'll call if you call"? V2 had to call before V1 had an option.

Does it seem like V1 and V2 know each other? Do they have a history of doing things like this?

I don't know if V1 said anything or not, but he called and V2 then called out of order.

Sent from my SM-A546V using Tapatalk

Probably handled correctly as far as it goes here. Certainly can’t be a misdeal. All that the floor could do is kill one or both hands and killing hands is really a nuclear option. BTW, V1 did nothing wrong. You can’t blame him for V2’s actions.

This does point out a cash game reality. Any penalty should happen after the hand but what options does floor have. At min he needs to pull the instigator aside for a serious discussion. But this likely means almost nothing to that V2. The only real other option is time off but I bet short of a week+ V2 still doesn’t care. Now if it is a repeat offense (for this or similar) you can give V2 a real ban like year or life. There just are not many punishments that matter to a cash rec short of long bans.

That's pretty much always a warning in a cash game. If they keep doing things like that they'll face some sort of penalty. Even if they'd already received warnings for this kind of stuff, the hand would typically play out and any penalty would happen after the hand.

If both villains hadn't called the ruling would be more difficult. V1 folds, do you force V2 to call? V1 calls then V2 wants to fold or raise, do you force them to call?

V1 acted out of turn after V2 said “I’ll call if you call”. That’s not “nothing wrong”.

what would you like the floor to do? kill their hands?

I don’t think there’s anything more to do except what the floor did.

Hand keeps going, both players get a first warning, or if they’ve had a warning, a night off.

Tear up v2’s cards and make him eat them

If the floor had simply said that room policy was a warning and play on, I would have thought that sucks, but that's part of the price of poker in a public room. It was the explanation that 3 in the hand meant he couldn't do anything else that I find stupid.

further info...

When the room mgr came on the floor, I went and asked him. He said that if the action was exactly as I described, he would kill both hands, make them both forfeit a BB and the hand would be over.

That surprised me. I honestly expected V2 to have his hand killed for cheating. I didn't expect V1 to get anything more than a warning.

The mgr said he would educate the floor and I told him I thought the dealer did absolutely nothing wrong and there were no hard feelings for the floor, that I was happy just to understand the ruling.

I was about to write a post that would have said that I would have killed V2's hand for cheating if I was the Floor. He would get his $10 back. I also would have told him if it happens again he would be banned from the room.

Overt cheating cannot be allowed. Period.

I would have given V1 a warning as well because what he did seems like he was part of the cheating. But I wouldn't have given him a chance to take back his $10 call given he might have been doing it because there was another caller and now that the cheater is out of the hand he shouldn't benefit.

OP says “ they both call”. I do not see where op says V1 acted out of turn.

But even if he did, the ruling is still standard. Only real penalty is time off after conclusion of the hand. I have never seen a hand killed for an OOT call.

3rd post in thread.

Ok. Had not read. So now both Vs are guilty but still do not see killing their hands. Both get a serious warning and maybe time off. This is still more than room mgr proposal for V2. Note that V2 was already going to pay a BB.

Still I would gladly see both banned for weeks, months or forever. Frankly killing both hands but allowing them to continue playing is imo a cop out by the mgr. it allows him to appear to punish them while still making money from them.

Ofc since my opinions carry no weight, feel free to disagree.

It's unfortunately common for floors to make statements like this for theoretical hands but not when faced with the actual players involved. Also, they tend to listen to the dealer first, who might have described things differently. Plus the other players would likely chime in and give their side of the story.

I have simply never seen a ruling like you describe.

I've never heard of such a ruling, either. I suspect the room manager after getting stopped by a player complaining about this might have just said it to placate the player.

If they are problem players, then a rest of the night ban makes sense. Otherwise, a warning is enough. TBH, I'd be silently thanking them for calling, even if I was bluffing. More money for me.

I 100% agree with this. I think the ruling was correct but this justification of "three people in the hand" makes no sense to me. Seems like getting the answer right for the wrong reason.

If V2 has anything resembling a history of shenanigans like this, I'm handing him a rack but still not killing his hand in the moment.

I've known the Mgr for years and asked him numerous times if a situation, in his room or not, was handled correctly. He's not sided with me sometimes.

He also knows I can be trusted and will ask me Qs on occasion to settle a dispute when I'm not in the disputed hand such as, "Did you hear him say call?"

So we have a good relationship and I believe I can trust him to give me an honest answer.

I also started my Q to him that the problem wasn't enough money to matter, I just wanted to understand the ruling.

Sent from my SM-A546V using Tapatalk

Seems like you should ask him what he meant by the "three players" comment. As you explained it, we don't have enough info into what he was thinking to know if it makes sense or not.

He may have meant something like if only two players were in the hand, then the table talk and acting out if turn would be acceptable, because there was no one else who could be harmed. But if there are more than two players, the general rule is that there should be no table talk and players must act in turn.

Have not read the responses as of yet.

IF .. IF .. V1 gave a response to V2's statement as to what he might do, then we have a 'real' Floor situation where warnings are given out for table talk/collusive behavior. Otherwise the Dealer should be able to just tell the Players that they can't talk like that, much less talk like that with multiple Players still in the hand.

V2's statement, while leading, is just table talk until V1 gives some sort of reaction beyond "It's your turn to act sir."

It really stinks that the burden of avoiding a rule violation falls on V1. Either way, V2 should be talked to by the Dealer immediately AND after the hand for reinforcement. GL