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

[MikeB]

Ken / Nick:

Thanks for the discourse; this is a great example of (at best) a "loose" all-in, and how current TDA Rules might apply, and what gaps we might have. The key question appears to be whether there is accepted action here or not. . We have precedent for this being the first matter of fact to establish as in Rule 54: "...the TD will determine if the chip behind is part of accepted action or not (Rule 46)".

While Rule 54 doesn't directly apply to this situation (the topic is chip(s) found behind later)... the idea that first establishing whether there's accepted action (or not) does apply.

If you rule that A accepted B's total action, then each is obligated to pay or win B's total chip push. If you rule that A did not accept anything beyond a call from B, based on the appearance of the action being an all-in undercall, then can the bet be anymore than A's total bet, with mistakes to go around after that?

Which brings us back to B's apparent shove of ALL his visible chips.... it's not yet in the TDA Rules, but probably should be considered, a set of "standard gestures", of which a shove of all chips is highly likely to be supported as tantamount to an all-in, which of course it unofficially is currently. Does anyone want a player remaining in the tournament if they lose after shoving every chip they have forward, regardless of whether they declared all-in?

Greatly appreciate this thread. See new suggestion thread "Official Gestures" here: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1058.msg9180#msg9180

[Nick C]

Ken,

I guess the easiest way for me to express my thoughts is to give the following example: Player A bets, Player B silently-and knowingly- pushes his wager forward with a buried extra 10,000 count chip. He is holding a powerful hand and expects that if he announced his raise, Player A might not call.

You are leaning more in the direction of putting the blame on Player A (Accepted Action), which is probably why we disagree on this one. By the strict written rule, your decision is in compliance. However, this is a situation when I would rule against Accepted Action. Substantial action has taken place, two streets have been dealt, neither player brought any attention to the all-in or the raise, and the dealer was oblivious to everything because he failed to ask the players to table their hands. What about some blame falling on the silent raiser? Does Accepted Action over-ride making your intentions clear...and substantial action? Mike, also agreed that after two streets were dealt, it's too late.

 

[Tristan]

Lets simplify this a bit.

If A bets and B shoves (what looks like a similar stack) and A and B both table their cards and the dealer runs the board out.  What call do you make if B has slightly more chips Nick?

It seems like the only difference between this and what happened is that the players didn't table their hands. 

[Nick C]

Sorry Tristan,

I don't think this one is that simple. If the players and dealer were aware of the all-in, of course they would have tabled their cards, and possibly might have missed the "slight difference" you referred to. Let's not forget that two betting rounds also transpired.

If the situation were as simple as you described, with a slight difference, that could be much easier to settle but do we really want to start considering how close the actual call is? I don't... and many will argue the amount should have little to do with a ruling.

I'd rather remove the extra chips of the uncalled raiser, if he loses, than force the opposing player to add more chips if the all-in were to win.

[Tristan]

Nick, I'm referring to this:

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).

I'm still not sure if it was tournament or cash based on what pastor said.  If it was cash they most likely would not have tabled their hands til the end and the situation described can happen on a regular basis on a cash game.

Unless I see an understandable reason for making another ruling, most times if it looks like an all-in and a call and it sounds like an all-in and a call, I'm going to rule it an all-in and a call.

[K-Lo]

What about some blame falling on the silent raiser?

I guess I just don't see why the raiser should be blamed here. He pushed all of his chips in and protected his cards.  There was no string bet, no hidden chips.  This is a binding wager.

The opponent has the option of asking for a count. He could have asked the dealer to verify that the all-in player was covered. He also has the option of stopping the action if he believed that there was still action to be had. My concern is that if you allow him to only be liable for the amount of chips he initially put forward in this situation in the case where the all-in wager is actually greater, you give him the incentive to not say anything, even if he knows for a fact that there is an irregularity. It becomes a win-win situation if he stays silent and plays ignorant because he can never lose more than he put forward even if he intends to call the all-in wager no matter what the count.

[Nick C]

Ken, I can't imagine you in that situation and reacting the way the silent raiser did.  After the flop, your opponent makes a bet, you push all-in. Wouldn't you expect the dealer, or the other player to recognize your all-in? Wouldn't you stop the action when it's obvious that the other player has not called your all-in raise? Furthermore, how could you not be puzzled by: the dealer not asking for the proper bettor to begin action? If the dealer did recognize the all-in (thinking both players had equal amounts in the pot), why didn't he insist that the cards be tabled before he burned and turned, not once but twice?

There's too much wrong with the original post. I can't replay the described situation and believe that it could ever happen. I also can't believe that you would see no fault, or blame directed at the raiser.

[Brian Vickers]

Just wanted to add my two cents, and it is to agree with what Tristan has said above: If it looks like an all-in, and both players have played the hand as if they are all-in, then I treat the outcome as an all-in and call.

Now, does this situation qualify, and would I take the same approach in cash and tournament? 

Had this been a tournament situation and had the two players tabled their hands prior to dealing the turn and river, I would have absoultely paid off the winner as if it had been an all-in situation, and I have done exactly this multiple times in the past.

Had this been a cash game situation, and the players had not tabled their hands (as is often the case with all-ins in cash games) then it becomes trickier.  Can we declare that an absence of action is accepted as action itself?  Let's look at the (albeit slightly limited) facts:
Player A made large bet, Player B pushed out the entire stack. 
Dealer put out the turn and river without further comment or action by either player. 
Players exposed their hands. 

Now, as a former dealer I can tell you that on a cash game if the bets looked close I would have counted down the stacks to make sure the call was less than the original bet, if it appeared "obvious" that Player B's call was less than the original bet and was all-in, I would have announced "all-in and call" but would NOT have made the pot right before running out the board.  I want to get those hands out, and when two players are heads up and all-in, I will never make the pot right first.  As a manager and instructor I will instruct dealers to never make the pot right prior to running out the board in this situation either.  Again this is if it is clear that all bets are covered, but by not making pot right first you can push pot to the clearly large stack if he wins and save a lot of time or make pot right if smaller stack wins and take exactly same amount of time as if it was made right before running out board.  In this scenario, I believe the dealer assumed that B had a smaller stack size for whatever reason and did like he usually does, but where he failed was to announce the "all-in and call" and had he announced this then the players would have had an extra opportunity to correct the action.  Had he announced this and the players did not say anything and let the board be run out, then I definitely would have paid off the winner as if it was an all-in.

In the original poster's scenario I am still leaning towards and accepted action and call simply because neither player said anything on either street and then turned over their cards at the showdown.  Why would they not check on turn or river if they weren't under the impression that they were all-in?  Had one player spoken up prior to the showdown, I would be inclined to allow a bet and option to call on the river, but since the players entered showdown and one players entire stack was across the line, I would rule all-in and call in this scenario.