Another Headphone Decision

[WSOPMcGee]

The tournament is down to 4 tables and everyone is in the money when this situation occurs.

Button is in Seat 3. SB and BB seats 4 and 5 respectively. Blinds are 2,000-4,000.

Player UTG opens with a call. Player in seat 7 announces raise. Asks the dealer who much it is to make the call before making the raise. He puts in the call amount (4,000), while contemplating how much to raise. Immediately after seat 7 puts the call amount into the pot, seat 8 takes a stack of 5,000 chips (100,000) and thunderously slams it on the table into the pot. The dealer stops the action and informs seat 8, who is wearing headphones, that seat 7 announced raise. Seat 8 attempts to take has chips back. The dealer instructs him to leave the chips where they are, because seat 8 has actually put the chips into the pot in turn. Seat 7, realizing that these chips may be committed to the pot, announces that his action is now all-in (approx. 450,000 and has seat 8 covered).

IMO both players are attempting to gain an advantage.

Before I tell you what happened next.......  You're the Tournament Director. What is your decision with regard to seat 8's chips?

[chet]

In my no so humble opinion, seat 8's chips remain in the pot.  He now has the choice of folding to the all-in or calling.  I suspect he will learn a lesson and will be paying attention in the future.  I agree with Stuart's response in a different, but related post, that we TD's don't need to "Nanny" the inattentive players.  Our job, as I see it, is to make sure there are consistent rules and that they are applied evenly to everyone.

[Stuart Murray]

Oh my god wsopmcgee!

This must be one of the best ones yet!

Under the rules of Betting and Raising (RROP) rule 13 says the following:

13. A player who bets or calls by releasing chips into the pot is bound by that action and must make the amount of the wager correct. (This also applies right before the showdown when putting chips into the pot causes the opponent to show the winning hand before the full amount needed to call has been put into the pot.) However, if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you. At pot-limit or no-limit betting, if there is a gross misunderstanding concerning the amount of the wager, see Section 14, Rule 8.

I really am going both ways on this one, I agree wholeheartedly with Chet's response but then RROP instructs the opposite!  If I was called to the table I think it would have to go to rule 1 on this instance, given the way it has been described I feel I may be tempted to make the big raise stand, but then I do have to consider the rules, followed by the best interests of the game.  Normally I apply rule 13 of RROP when a player has tossed in the call amount not realising the pot is raised, I normally allow my players to retract their call and reconsider, but then this is something different.  I agree both players are at it in this instance and angle shooting.  By the book I think I need to be consistent and allow player 8 to retract his bet, then I would probably give penalties to both players at the end of the hand, The way you describe it it sounds like player 7 was going to 3 or 4 bet the blinds so he is obviously angle shooting.  What I would like to do about this situation and what I should do are two very different options and even as I type this it is whirring in my head!

Now I have given myself enough time to consider the rules and consider the best interests of the game I think I need to be consistent and allow retraction of player 8's bet.  I really don't like doing this but it is by the book for me.  I would love to make the big raise stand and the all-in stand but in all conciousness I don't think I would be professional in that ruling.  The dealer was slightly wrong as the action was not completed by player 7 and therefore It was not player 8's turn to act so his putting chips in the pot was NOT in turn (IMO)

Player 7's all-in bet stands, player 8's raise can be retracted.  I will also be giving penalties to both players at the end of the hand.  Sorry Chet for disagreeing!

[pokerfish]

I agree, (for the most part) that the chips stay and he may complete or fold. The action has not changed to him but also isn't totally complete so he has acted out of turn "sort of". (and head's up The prior player said raise and he, with his action in turn, reraised. Now if you think the original raiser is taking a shot, so what? He is the benefactor of this misstep. At a final table of the WPT at Borgata many years ago (and with only two players remaining) Noli Francisco said raise (in a bluff attempt on the river) and Charlie Shoten immediately said "call" before knowing the amount. Since Noli was bluffing, he then put in a min raise..... has he had a hand, he'd have moved in. Same situation here IMO. The original raiser could have doubled the bet and then folded to the RR....

As I type I can see how you could argue both sides of this.... saying raise is your action but unlike limit hold'em, NLHE your turn hasn't ended until you state or place the amount...

Eager to hear what happened. Sounds like it might have been something off the books or using combined books.... and in your opinion in the best interest of the game. That's often the case. Hard to make rulings sometimes when you're not there.... but this one should be original.... so??? Inquiring minds....


Jan

[WSOPMcGee]

Soooo...... back to the action.

After Seat 7 announced all-in, the floor was called because Seat 8 obviously wanted his ill afforded raised back. Had he not had headphones on he would've heard the raise announced both by the player and the dealer.

The first Floor person was called and was inclined to the let the player take the raise back because the action had grossly changed, even though a raise was announced. Just not how much. The other players at the table were outwardly verbalizing their displeasure with the prospect of the chips being taken out of the pot when technically, they were bet in turn, with malice and carelessness.

The Floor person then happened to see the TD and consulted with them.

The TD gave their thoughts on the situation outwardly speaking of their thought process and said they were inclined to make Seat 8 leave his chips in the pot and was about to give his final decision when Seat 8 had an outburst and stated how wrong the TD was and that if that's the case then HE TOO IS ALL-IN!! He didn't even wait for the decision.

The TD then explained that if Seat 8 would've let them finish their explanation, that they would've simply made Seat 8 leave 8,000 in chips in the pot, the minimum raise that Seat 7 could've made, and then Seat 8 would've been allowed to reconsider his further action.

I rather like this decision. IMO, both players are angle-shooting to gain an advantage.

It's very clear that Seat 7 only went all-in because he thought Seat 8's chips were going to be required to stay in the pot. It's equally clear, that Seat 8's intention was to raise also, but cried foul after Seat 7 moved all-in. 

Turned out they had similar hands and chopped. 

No penalties were given. But the headphones came off. Seat 8 paid more attention after that.

This is one example of why I like the WSOP rule of no headphones/earphones when in the money.

[Stuart Murray]

excellent case wsopmcgee,

certainly got me thinking.

Thanks for sharing!

[pokerfish]

wow, I always like a "happy ending" and this is a good, fair, and well explained decision with the reasoning process solid.
Thanks for sharing this...
Jan

[Georg]

Very interesting one! My 2 cents:

Seat 7 has not completed his action, so seat 8 acted out of turn. 7's all in stands, 8 can take his chips back because the action has changed to him. Penalty for 8 for acting out of turn after the hand.

Regarding headphones:
Why ban them only if players are in the money? Why not ban them completely?

Georg

[pokerfish]

Georg...
The action really hasn't changed.... he still is raising... he is moving all in which is a raise. That is why I liked the reasoning behind making the min raise stay in the pot under these angle shooting circumstances. As for banning headphones, considering that texting is now allowed at the table (between hands) I think this just won't happen. That said, since I personally enjoy headphones and often use them out of defense (for the constant bickering and chatter) or just relaxation and focus, why penalize the universe when only a few cause problems?> I just think we need to not cut slack to those who haven't exercised due care in following the action. There is a big difference to not hearing "raise" when the band is thumping the entire cardroom v just in your head and by choice....
my 2c (+)

Jan