Ruling on dealer error on DBBP
I put out my ante, order a drink, chat with waitress who is always good to me.
Dealer is putting out first board and I say, "where are my cards?"
He's a good dealer. He admits he made an error and forgot to deal to me. Errors happen. No problem. Dealer verifies my money is in the pot. But he has to call the floor.
What is the proper ruling?
8 Replies
By the floor being an idiot.
If OP hadn't noticed until substantial action occurred, I'd say he gets his ante back as he was never even dealt in, but the hand continues. OP says he spoke up as the first board was being dealt, so I can't fathom how SA has happened already.
Misdeal, but it's a situation the floor has likely never seen which means you may get a random ruling. Their brain may lock into "substantial action" mode when they see the flop.
With only 1 of 2 boards out, Floor rules that there has been significant action, so it's nit a misdeal.
Floor also rules that I can't have my ante back even though I've not been dealt into the hand.
Bizarre.
Just got off the phone. The director of poker operations called, apologized, refunded my ante, and offered to buy me dinner.
A room I've worked at treats the second board as the point of significant action. I've not heard of one board being SA anywhere. I'd think it would be treated similarly to a turn/river dealt without a burn, with any action after the second board is dealt being the point of no return.
Clear misdeal. Floor also needs to be reminded that substantial action refers to betting, not the placement of blinds or antes.
What the director had been told by the floor is that 2 players had checked dark before the first flop, so that was the substantial action.
I verified with my buddy who was at the table. He said no one checked dark, and there was zero discussion with the floor that anyone checked dark. When we were still debating at the table, I had asked Floor what the substantial action was and he said it was the first flop.
I think floor realized after the fact that his ruling was laughably bad, so he created a story to justify his ruling of substantial action.
The $25 is no big deal to me. Humans make errors. It's part of the game, so no big deal. I had told the director the dealer is very good and that his human error was absolutely not a problem.
It's the lie that is aggravating. But I won't be back in that room for a week, so I'll put it behind me by then.
