Answers to Let's Play Floorperson - Part I

In my last column, I presented four scenarios and asked readers for opinions regarding the decisions that should be made in each case. Here are some of the responses to the first scenario:

The Game: Pot-Limit Hold'em

The situation: Four players remain after the flop; the dealer burns and turns the turn card. Player A bets $400, Players B calls $400, and Player C calls $400 and raises $400. As the action gets to Player D, he stops the action and says, "Wait a minute; the pot was only $200."

Your job: You find out that the pot was indeed $200 before the action began. What should you do with the betting that has taken place?

John wrote: Correct Player A's bet to $200, Player B's to a call of $200, and Player C's to a call of $200 and a raise of $400.

John McKethen wrote: The betting must revert to the first bettor, Player A, as his bet was too much and therefore illegal. It should be corrected to $200. Player B then calls the $200. Neither of these bets can be changed. Player C must then correct his bet to a $200 call and a $200 raise. He cannot raise twice the bet or the pot. Player D now can do whatever his little heart desires, including muck his hand. The action had not been completed, so it must be corrected.

Duke wrote: Player A's bet of $400 cannot stand. It must be reduced to a pot-sized bet, and thus is $200. Give $200 back to Player A. Player B then may call this $200 or raise it to $400; he has no other options and certainly cannot fold. Likewise, Player C must not be given the option of folding nor the option of raising by more than $400; therefore, he should have the choice of a call, a raise of $200, or a raise of $400. This preserves the intent of the players and prevents player B from changing his mind to a fold after having seen Player C's aggressiveness. Player A has no cause for complaint, nor does Player B, as it was a bet pot and a call of a bet in both cases. Player C shouldn't have cause for complaint, as he was raising the larger value anyway, and no players have been excused from the hand who otherwise would be paying him off. And Player D will probably gripe about this for just about any reason, but inasmuch as he hasn't acted, he has less voice than the other players, and if anything, he has more information now about the hand than he had before.

Jeff Okamoto wrote: I would say that since action occurred after the initial mistaken bet, it must stand. I would remind the table to take care in making their bet sizes, and when the dealer got out of the box, would remind him (in a gentle way) to do so, as well.

My ruling: I am not surprised that almost all of the readers who e-mailed me elected to back up the action and correct the bets in some form. My first reaction also was to back up the action and correct the bets. After thinking about it for a few minutes, I changed my mind and agree with Jeff.

Player A bet $400 into a $200 pot. Player B called $400 and accepted the action. Player C called $400 and raised $400, accepting the action. Now, it reaches Player D, and he states that he isn't calling an $800 bet, because the original pot was only $200. At this point, Player D has accepted the action of players A, B, and C. All players involved in the hand have accepted "substantial action." By backing up and correcting the bets, you are allowing each of the players to gain too much information about the other players' hands. Although the dealer originally should have stated the "overbet," it is ultimately the players' responsibility to protect their hands and assets.

Editor's note: Michael O'Malley can usually be found playing online at partypoker.com as Rzitup. To learn more about Michael, go to www.rzitup.com.