Dealer "advises" player

[Steven]

When is unrequested dealer advice appropriate?

At final table there were multiple limps to the big bind who has a big stack -- BB raises to 10000 in seat 2.
Seat 5 then goes all-in for 40000. Dealer puts all-in button in front of Seat 5 (I don't remember for sure if she verbalized it at tis point)
Seat 8 then thinks for a a few moments and pushes 10,000 across the line. One or 2 chips are released but the remainder of the stack is in his hand. He appears to be unaware of the all-in re-raise by Seat 5.
The dealer then "reminds"  seat 8 that seat 5 is all-in. Seat 8 then proceeds to pull his chips back,including the two released chips.

It seems to me that the 2 released chips need to stay.
Since he hadn't released the rest and tda does not use forward motion, then maybe the rest can be retracted.
But I question whether the dealer should NOW be "re-offering" the un-requested advice that one player is all-in.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[chet]

IMO, at a minimum the two released chips need to stay in the pot.  I am a bit confused by your statement that seat 8 pushes 10K across the line but released only 1 or 2 chips.  What is the value of those chips, do they constitute the entire 10K.  Based on the Accepted Action theory (whether you are in favor or not) as I understand it, I could also support a ruling that the whole 10K has to stay in the pot.

Personally, I don't have any problem with the dealer making it crystal clear that seat 5 was all in.  I don't think that constitutes in appropriate advice as he is not suggesting any form of action from following players, it is informative only.

Chet

[K-Lo]

Agree with Chet. I was also a bit confused by the question.

[Nick C]

 I think Steven was referring to a stack of 500 count chips with a total of 10000 in hand; one or two were released but all crossed the line. That's what I got out of it anyway.
The fact that Steven said "the player was unaware of the all-in re-raise from the player in seat 8" would indicate a gross misunderstanding. If there were no response from any other player (substantial action), I would have no problem allowing the player to retract his bet and reconsider.

[chet]

OK K-Lo and Nick, but neither of you answered Steven's real question about whether it was correct for the dealer to inform Seat 8 that Seat 5 was all-in.  Steven posted;

A.  The dealer then "reminds"  seat 8 that seat 5 is all-in.
and
B.  But I question whether the dealer should NOW be "re-offering" the un-requested advice that one player is all-in.

Again, I have no problem as long as the statement is informational and not advisory.

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet,
I wasn't there but, the dealer put the all-in button in front of seat 5; my guess is that "all-in" was announced but not heard. I find nothing wrong with a dealer repeating or clarifying an unclear bet before substantial action. Stopping a possible time consuming misunderstanding is the duty of a good dealer.

Yes, it was correct for the dealer to inform the calling player that there was a raise in front of him.

[K-Lo]

Hi Chet:

Yes, I agreed with you on all points.  I don't see a problem with the dealer telling the player that seat 5 was all-in if the player's actions seem to suggest that he was aware of this fact.  It is informative, and I don't see it as coaching.

If I read between the lines, I think Steven's question might have had to do with the effect of applying the rule that says "chips that go into the pot in the turn must stay in the pot". I believe you can allow the player to withdraw the entire bet under the gross misunderstanding rule (and I agree with Nick that this is a perfectly viable approach based on the principles in RROP, especially if the 10K represents a lot of chips compared to the average stacks at that point in the game, although I might be less inclined if the 10K was a 'nominal' amount).  However, I expect many TDs would lean towards committing wagered chips to the pot and give the player the option to top-up the bet to a call or fold. 

So, if the TDs at the venue tend to consistently apply the rule where chips must stay in the pot (and then giving the option to call or fold), the issue then becomes should the dealer stop the player from putting any more chips into the pot when it is clear that the player may not have heard the all-in.  In this example, if the dealer waited until the player put all 10K chips in the pot before saying anything, then the player might potentially be forced to forfeit the whole amount, whereas if the dealer stopped the player "mid-bet" (i.e. only after having a put a few hundred in), the player might only have to forfeit say 500 or 1K. 

If that indeed is the real issue that Steven is trying to get at -- i.e. should the dealer advise the player mid-way through a bet that rates to be incomplete -- then my answer would still be yes - I think the dealer can still let the player know that seat 5 was all-in.  I don't support the idea that the dealer should be obliged to stay quiet, knowing that the player probably didn't hear the all-in, and wait until the whole 10K is placed in the pot, just so can seat 5 could potentially get a bigger windfall.  I don't see why Seat 5 should be entitled to a "maximum" penalty of 10K from the player. 

[Nick C]

K-Lo,
I agree, why should a dealer be silent when he knows a player is about to act on an unclear bet? Forcing players to put chips into the pot, when they really didn't want to, is no different than allowing any other form of chip dumping. Like K-Lo said, why should any player be the recipient of a bigger windfall of chips?