Uncovered bet: does mistake stand or backup to the flop then redeal 4t & 5th st?

[pastor]

THNL; heads up

Post flop:
Play. A: bet xx (announce)
Dealer: repeat bet xx
Play. B: push all-in xx +/- x (silent)
Dealer: didn't announce nothing
Play. A: didn't say nothing
Turn:
Dealer: open turn
Play. A: didn't say nothing
Play. B: didn't say nothing
River;
Dealer: open the river
Play. A: didn't say nothing
Play. B: didn't say nothing
Dealer: announce show down
Both play. exposed his cards
Dealer: starts counting the chips of play. B and "upsssss" here is xx + x

My decision was: pot is a wager of play. A + play. B call. (argument: 1.to many mistakes, 2. responsible of both play. to stop the action, 3. fair play)

[Nick C]

Paster, welcome to the Forum.

Your situation occurs more frequently than we would expect. In my opinion, because the turn and river cards were on board, (two betting rounds) and showdown began before the "silent raise" was noticed, I would rather return the unnoticed over sized bet to the "silent raiser" than force the other player to match the bet.

Why didn't the raiser speak out? Obviously, the dealer made a mistake and missed the raise but, players have a certain responsibility to assist the dealer whenever a mistake is about to occur. Think about it...if you raise, wouldn't you pay attention to see if the other player called?

Enforcing a rule after multiple betting rounds have lapsed does not appeal to me. It's too late.

Good question.

[MikeB]

Great example, Pastor and we may see this included in an "incorrect bets" discussion segment at the 2015 TDA Summit.

IMO you have three choices under Rule 1:

1: Back up the action to the flop, and remove the turn and river from the board. Ask A if he wants to call B's overage. If so, then you do a re-shuffle according to your pre-mature boardcard protocol, and then re-deal the new turn and river..

2: Leave the board as is, and call the total bet equal to what A pushed out.

3: Leave the board as is, and call the total bet equal to what B pushed out.

In the best interest of fairness I think Option 2 is best: B never enforced (or even recognized) that he over-bet, and if he did he didn't speak up. Sure the dealer and A have some obligation too, but when I add that the original turn and river have been dealt AND the hands exposed, I think more of this falls on B.

The best interest of the game is not quite as clear; you can make a case for each option: Getting bets straight and narrowly enforcing rules are generally in the best interest of the game over the long haul (hence Option 1). Also a strict interpretation of Accepted Action might have us at Option 3 if we decide to leave the board as is... HOWEVER, fairness can't be totally separated from the best interest of the game either. At the end of the day, the best reading for me here is that there were mistakes by all, but everyone acted as though they assumed B's bet didn't cover A. Even B himself acted that way. Both board cards and hands have been exposed... So for these reasons I favor Option 2.

Thanks for the great case! This is another twist on the "incorrect bets" topic that we are likely to see at the 2015 Summit. Here's a link to the discussion suggestion:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1056.msg9151#msg9151

[pastor]

Excellent guys,

I am satisfied with the answers and discussion. I wanted to tell you that this has happened on cash game because my opinion is, that solution must be exactly the same. The difference is only a momement of showdown (tournament – on the flop, cash – after the river). Intentionally I did not want discussion in bets value  because I want a more complex response on a  base of liability and facts.
In my case the fact is that until the end (chip count after the river) no one did not know that the silent all-in bet was higher than play. A bet and no one did not react.
Q.  Is play. B responsible to draw attention to an error?
My answer is YES. If the answer is NO, then he can required to play. A FOLD

[MikeB]

Great example, Pastor and we may see this included in an "incorrect bets" discussion segment at the 2015 TDA Summit.

IMO you have three choices under Rule 1:

1: Back up the action to the flop, and remove the turn and river from the board. Ask A if he wants to call B's overage. If so, then you do a re-shuffle according to your pre-mature boardcard protocol, and then re-deal the new turn and river..

2: Leave the board as is, and call the total bet equal to what A pushed out.

3: Leave the board as is, and call the total bet equal to what B pushed out.

In the best interest of fairness I think Option 2 is best: B never enforced (or even recognized) that he over-bet, and if he did he didn't speak up. Sure the dealer and A have some obligation too, but when I add that the original turn and river have been dealt AND the hands exposed, I think more of this falls on B.

The best interest of the game is not quite as clear; you can make a case for each option: Getting bets straight and narrowly enforcing rules are generally in the best interest of the game over the long haul (hence Option 1). Also a strict interpretation of Accepted Action might have us at Option 3 if we decide to leave the board as is... HOWEVER, fairness can't be totally separated from the best interest of the game either. At the end of the day, the best reading for me here is that there were mistakes by all, but everyone acted as though they assumed B's bet didn't cover A. Even B himself acted that way. Both board cards and hands have been exposed... So for these reasons I favor Option 2.

Thanks for the great case! This is another twist on the "incorrect bets" topic that we are likely to see at the 2015 Summit. Here's a link to the discussion suggestion:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1056.msg9151#msg9151

As a related issue, this case does raise the question of whether B did put himself all-in by pushing out all his chips. If that's the ruling, then it tends to favor Option 3. The logic here would be that A Accepted B's action, and even though there was no all-in declaration and the cards weren't exposed, betting proceeded as though both parties assumed B was all-in short.  

Arguing slightly against Option 3 and in favor of Option 2 is that A) the cards weren't immediately exposed as they should have been in an all-in; B) Player B didn't verbally declare all-in;  and C) in the absence of a definitive all-in B's bet could be seen as a multiple chip wager where the overage likely didn't equal 50% of a raise, hence it could be construed as a call.

So after sorting out the mistakes in procedure, a good case (perhaps best case) can be made for Option 3 here as well. The question under Option 3 is what amount A pays B if B wins. Most would award B's entire stack to A if A wins, but by his silence has A accepted B's overage here and must he pay off B the full amount if B wins?

[Nick C]

Mike,
Do you think substantial action should override the mistake? Two betting rounds have passed. One other issue that concerns me...after Player A Bets and Player B calls, shouldn't the dealer have pushed both bets into the pot? If so, how would either player recognize that one player bet more than the other?

The time to count the chips, or match the stacks, is before burning and turning the next board card. The situation should have been settled as soon as Player B pushed all-in, (silent or not).

Like you said earlier, all parties involved were guilty. The raise should have been announced by Player B, especially an all-in raise. Player A should have paid attention (Accepted Action). And the dealer was just as guilty because he failed to notice the raise, and he failed to announce the all-in, and he left the bets somewhere on the layout when they should have been pushed into the pot.

I'm convinced, that in the best interest of the game, the facts indicate that Player B is the most guilty (for lack of a better word), followed by the dealer and then Player A who thought he was in for the correct amount. Based on all of the evidence I will choose #2  Leave the board as is, and call the total bet equal to what A pushed out.
Keeps getting more interesting every time I read it.

[pastor]

and C) in the absence of a definitive all-in B's bet could be seen as a multiple chip wager where the overage likely didn't equal 50% of a raise, hence it could be construed as a call.

Exactly this I asked my colleagues before I posted this discussion:
Q: Could be silent ''all-in'' without any confirmation treated as a CALL, BET or RAISE? Let's say that this table use ALL IN BUTTON. In this case button certainly not been placed in front of a player B.
If the answer is CALL, BET or RAISE then we can use 50% rule (simple solution).

[Nick C]

Pastor,

I think there are times that the correct, by the book rules, can not be applied. This is one of those situations. There were multiple mistakes made by all...the bettor, the silent all-in raiser, and the dealer.
I also want to mention the use of the all-in button. I originally thought it was a great idea, and when used properly it is. However, in the situation you described, it is ineffective because the dealer was (obviously) unaware Player B was all-in. So the All-In Button would not have been used... Correct?

I believe, in the best interest of the game, the proper board cards must remain and the uncalled portion returned to the silent all-in raiser. I said it before, and I'll say it again, there is no way to ask Player A (if he was the loser) to add more chips to the pot, or award him the "extra" all-in amount, if he were the winner. Too much action has transpired. The time to draw attention to any irregularity is certainly before substantial action has occurred. In your scenario, two betting rounds and the showdown commenced before the mistake were noticed.

One other note: You mentioned using the 50% rule. That would certainly simplify things, wouldn't it? The problem that currently exists (because there is no % rule in NL or Pot Limit), the amount of the unnoticed all-in could be anything. It could require less than 10% or 10 times more than the the amount wagered. It shouldn't make a difference, under current rules, but we all know, it could make a huge difference in the outcome of the hand, and the tournament.

[Tristan]

Too many unanswered questions for me to say for sure.

Why did the dealer put out the turn and the river without either Player A or B saying anything?

Why did Player A and B not act on the turn and river?

The dealer putting out the turn and flop without Player A and B acting and Player A and B's silence implies to me that everyone thought it was an all-in, yet no one tabled cards.  This could be explained by it being a cash game...but if it was a tournament, they should have been flipped.

I guess the answers to those questions would make me rule that either Accepted Action occurred or that it didn't.  If it did, the full amount of B's bet has action.  If not, the additional portion of B's bet should be returned to him and there is no action on it.

[MikeB]

Mike,
Do you think substantial action should override the mistake? Two betting rounds have passed.

Definitely. There's just been too many streets dealt and too much card exposure. The last thing I want to do here is change the board cards.... thus Option 1 is my least fave in this scenario.

[K-Lo]

I am also confused to the fact scenario, along the same lines as Tristan. Is this an all-in or not?  Or was the action check-check all the way? This is a tournament, yes?

If both players treated this as an all-in situation, then I think we should enforce this as an all-in situation and award the pot accordingly. Even if, for whatever reason, the cards were not tabled as they should be in an all-in situation.

If both players checked the action down after the initial bet, thus treating this as a bet-call-check-check-check-check situation, then I don't see a problem treating it as such.

No way am I rolling back those board cards.

[MikeB]

If both players treated this as an all-in situation, then I think we should enforce this as an all-in situation and award the pot accordingly.

Assuming you rule an all-in, then under these conditions what amount will you award to A if he wins? If B wins will A payoff his entire bet?

[K-Lo]

If both players treated this as an all-in situation, then I think we should enforce this as an all-in situation and award the pot accordingly.

Assuming you rule an all-in, then under these conditions what amount will you award to A if he wins? If B wins will A payoff his entire bet?

If I'm treating this as an "all-in" situation, as it seems like the players themselves did, then it should be as if both players moved all-in.

More specifically, if A thought B might have him covered, thus still giving him an option to call or fold, then IMO, he must say something to stop the action and get clarification before the remaining streets are dealt. On the other hand, if A thought B had fewer chips and allowed the action to proceed on that basis, then Accepted Action applies and he is bound to call the whole amount if B actually had more chips.  Conversely, since B pushed all of his chips in, he must be prepared to lose it all to A if the hand gets to showdown; if for some reason he thinks A still needs to decide to call or fold, then IMO, he must say something to stop the action before the remaining streets are dealt.

In summary, whenever two or more players allow the dealer to complete the deal of the hand as if someone was all-in and all others have called, then the simplest and most logical solution to me would be to treat the action as if everyone involved announced all-in, and then award the pot accordingly. So in this example, if B wins the pot, A must fully pay off B, and if A doesn't have enough chips to pay off B, A is out. If A wins, B must fully pay off A, and if B doesn't have enough chips to pay off A, B is out.

Edit:  My position on this is similar to the one we discussed previously at: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=940.msg8386#msg8386.

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

I can't agree with you on this one. Too many irregularities have taken place. How does the dealer burn and turn without asking the players to act? Either he knew Player B raised all-in or he thought both players were in for equal amounts. Neither player deserves to gain extra chips in this one. Think about it...Player B raises all-in, but somehow forgets to say he's all-in...and then forgets to tell the dealer and Player A that he raised. If Player A failed to notice that Player B was all-in, why wasn't he given the option to bet after the turn? Instead, the dealer burns and turns two streets! If A wins, he only gets (from Player B), what he (Player A) wagered. This would create the most unusual situation when an all-in player loses, but continues to play with his uncalled chips. Likewise, if Player B wins, I could not expect Player A to match the extra chips from the silent raiser and the brain-dead dealer.

[K-Lo]

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning, but my main point is this: if A thought he was NOT all-in, then he should expect a) the dealer to ask him if he wants to call B's bet or not, b) to check or bet when the turn is dealt, c) to say something when the dealer attempts to deal the river.  Since A said nothing, he should be deemed to be all-in, as is B. Practically, that is the simplest solution, and in my view, the fairest. If both players allow the dealer to deal the hand as if one player went all-in and the other called, i.e. they both "accepted" those action, then that's how we should interpret the situation.

And, if player B wins and has more chips than A, why shouldn't A be held to match the extra chips? Yes, the dealer made mistakes here, but A should not be able to benefit by purposely remaining silent if the dealer is proceeding to deal the rest of the hand as if there was an all-in & call.