25 replies to this topic

[Speedy Petey]

I can't believe I am asking this because I am 99.9% sure she was wrong. I did not call for the floor because the pot was very small and I had another reason as well that I will not go into.

I was playing small stakes limit hold'em. Me and one other player to the river. The river card was dealt and I checked. My opponent, who was holding a chip in his hand, tapped the chip twice on a small stack of chips in front of him. He then placed a bet. I protested that he checked and the bet should not be allowed. One other player also said he saw him check. The dealer then said that because there was no more action behind the player that his action was not a check and he needed to verbalize his intent. She said that even after he made his checking motion, if she (the dealer) said "check", that he could correct her of his intent and still bet.

There is no way this could be true, right? A check is a check whether verbalized or not. If this guy was less than honest, his checking motion could have made me turn over my cards thinking the hand was over and he would then have had an advantage if the dealer let him bet after seeing my cards. This can't be a correct ruling in my opinion because this would allow players to angle shoot at showdown very easily. What do you think?

Thanks

[HollywoodAFD]

Incorrect

[Ouch-8s]

similar thing happened to me, with the same justification. we got to the river, i was pretty sure i was leading, and was last to act. i thought about what to do, shrugged, and reached for chips. villian argued that my shrug was a check, dealer ruled that since i was last to act, he'd let me bet, i overbet the pot, he called light, i tipped well.

[Poker Addict]

similar thing happened to me, with the same justification. we got to the river, i was pretty sure i was leading, and was last to act. i thought about what to do, shrugged, and reached for chips. villian argued that my shrug was a check, dealer ruled that since i was last to act, he'd let me bet, i overbet the pot, he called light, i tipped well.

I don't know the rule at all... but a shrug isn't exactly tapping the table. If I shrugged and was told that was a check, the floor would definitely have some 'splainin to do

[acesup85]

Well first I want to know why you didn't call the floor over if you had a complaint. Secondly some people have nervous twitches and whatnot such as tapping on their chips. A tap on their chips while they are looking at them probably means they are thinking about betting. They haven't knuckled the felt in any manner so I think he is well within his right to bet right there, and if you flip your cards up that is your own fault. IMO

[Ouch-8s]

I don't know the rule at all... but a shrug isn't exactly tapping the table. If I shrugged and was told that was a check, the floor would definitely have some 'splainin to do

yeah, true, but when i look back, it probably really did look like a check. oh well, no harm done. to me.

[MrJohn]

I'd say the first scenerio is definitely borderline. I'd definitely ask about the house rules of that one as well but the explanation that he has a bad tendency to tap the chips is reasonable.

A shrug is definitely not a check though.

[Money022]

Writing out a check, perhaps to pay a bill, while in a hand is also not considered a check, even thought it really is a check.

[chgocubs99]

Writing out a check, perhaps to pay a bill, while in a hand is also not considered a check, even thought it really is a check.

For some reason this has me chuckling.

[FARGOpokerND]

I can't believe I am asking this because I am 99.9% sure she was wrong. I did not call for the floor because the pot was very small and I had another reason as well that I will not go into.

I was playing small stakes limit hold'em. Me and one other player to the river. The river card was dealt and I checked. My opponent, who was holding a chip in his hand, tapped the chip twice on a small stack of chips in front of him. He then placed a bet. I protested that he checked and the bet should not be allowed. One other player also said he saw him check. The dealer then said that because there was no more action behind the player that his action was not a check and he needed to verbalize his intent. She said that even after he made his checking motion, if she (the dealer) said "check", that he could correct her of his intent and still bet.

There is no way this could be true, right? A check is a check whether verbalized or not. If this guy was less than honest, his checking motion could have made me turn over my cards thinking the hand was over and he would then have had an advantage if the dealer let him bet after seeing my cards. This can't be a correct ruling in my opinion because this would allow players to angle shoot at showdown very easily. What do you think?

Thanks

Bolded is that part that makes the decision right. He never tapped the FELT. He appears to be just subconsciously tapping the chips (if even..).

If I tap my shoulder twice, does that count as a check? How about the drink table?

[gatortom64]

It was a check & stop trying to nail the dealer. That is all. IMB.

[13CARDS]

PLEASE BAN ME, MODS!!

[bigcoled]

I see this alot... tapping their hands, or tapping their cards and then acting like they are thinking and make a bet... This is similar to the issue of faking bets, making motions towards the pot with chips to get a read off the players reactions, there is even a spot on TV I remember where John Juanda tried such a stunt, no protest was made in that case. I've heard of more places creating an action line, and any chips crossing that line are committed to the pot, no matter how many... It would be a judgement call in this case, as you have the floor there, they would back the dealer as stated above, but you need to make sure he is given a stern warning that he needs to be aware of his physical actions... I play alot of private tournaments in bars, backrooms, etc... We have alot of these types of things going on, so as long as multiple people are in agreement of what happened (AKA Enough people to take the fool down if he tries to start a fight) we go with that ruling... In our game that would have been ruled a check, strange but true the least fair would be the result in a cardroom... It's common the best thing you can do is not do anything until the dealer tells you to, or ask the dealer to enforce that all actions need to be verbalised, I've seen dealers be allowed to do that, it's hyper gay, but could take care of your problem...

[HollywoodAFD]

Rule of thumb: Don't roll until the Dealer has confirmed your opponent has checked.

[Royal_Tour]

I can't believe I am asking this because I am 99.9% sure she was wrong. I did not call for the floor because the pot was very small and I had another reason as well that I will not go into.

I was playing small stakes limit hold'em. Me and one other player to the river. The river card was dealt and I checked. My opponent, who was holding a chip in his hand, tapped the chip twice on a small stack of chips in front of him. He then placed a bet. I protested that he checked and the bet should not be allowed. One other player also said he saw him check. The dealer then said that because there was no more action behind the player that his action was not a check and he needed to verbalize his intent. She said that even after he made his checking motion, if she (the dealer) said "check", that he could correct her of his intent and still bet.

There is no way this could be true, right? A check is a check whether verbalized or not. If this guy was less than honest, his checking motion could have made me turn over my cards thinking the hand was over and he would then have had an advantage if the dealer let him bet after seeing my cards. This can't be a correct ruling in my opinion because this would allow players to angle shoot at showdown very easily. What do you think?

Thanks

a gesture check, is not a binding check.

If i make a hand gesture and dealer then points action to another player, or attempts to burn a card etc.. I can correct him/her and say, I didnt check yet.

a non verbal check is just assumed to keep the pace of a game movng along and such.

There is also no real angle shooting since he was last to act. You making a big deal over something like this is because you had a medium strength hand and wanted a cheap showdown.

[Mercury69]

A shrug is NOT a check.

Tapping of the chips with another chip MIGHT be a check, but I think the dealer has to rule in favour of it being a reflex motion or some kind of voodoo.

[mhoward29]

In my many years of playing live I have noticed people check in many different ways. In this case the dealer is right. Ever notice how whenever someone checks the dealer will actually say "check". Technically it isnt a check until the dealer acknowledges the check. Obv the dealer didnt acknowledge the chip tapping as a check because they didnt say "check". Stuff like this happens a lot though live, dont sweat it.

[mhoward29]

a gesture check, is not a binding check.

If i make a hand gesture and dealer then points action to another player, or attempts to burn a card etc.. I can correct him/her and say, I didnt check yet.

a non verbal check is just assumed to keep the pace of a game movng along and such.

There is also no real angle shooting since he was last to act. You making a big deal over something like this is because you had a medium strength hand and wanted a cheap showdown.

Johnny we have a winner!

[Speedy Petey]

In my many years of playing live I have noticed people check in many different ways. In this case the dealer is right. Ever notice how whenever someone checks the dealer will actually say "check". Technically it isnt a check until the dealer acknowledges the check. Obv the dealer didnt acknowledge the chip tapping as a check because they didnt say "check". Stuff like this happens a lot though live, dont sweat it.

But the dealer said even if she said check the player could have corrected her that he was not checking and would have been allowed to bet.

Also, I did not make a BIG DEAL about it nor did I flip my cards over. I saw what clearly looked like a check and wanted the dealer to make a decision.

So the dealer was right and a physical check is never binding?

[Speedy Petey]

If you called me over as the floor when "He then placed a bet. I protested that he checked and the bet should not be allowed." I would have asked the dealer if the player checked and then backed up the dealer on his/her call. In this situation, it is more "judgment call" than written-in-stone ruling. The dealer was there to see what happened and did NOT take the player's action to indicate a check. As the floor, my job here would be to back the dealer; this often happens in "string bet" rulings that can never be recreated exactly as they took place initially.

Now, the dealer's reasoning as to WHY it was not a check is baffling to me (and indicates a clear misunderstanding of the rules!!) and needs to be corrected AWAY FROM THE TABLE.

What is the rule then? I think you are a floor person, correct?