In a 2-4 limit game, the person in seat one upon seeing the flop was faced with a raise and four dollars to call. He mistakenly only put in two dollars. Seats four and five called the four dollars and the dealer turned a card. I said "call the floor, the card needs to go back" and seat one mucked his hand. I called the floor, and the floor made what I consider to be an incorrect ruling; that since the hand that only put in two would no longer play, the turn card should not be changed! Who's right? Or in other words, what is the correct decision when a player accidently does not make the correct call?
If I made the ruling it would be the player whom only put in two, would have to complete to four, even if he mucked his hand. The hand would not be retrieved from the muck, and the card would not be considered burned and turned without action being complete. The only mistake being fixed would be the mistake the player made by not putting the correct amount in and the only player that suffered (a perceived consequence) would be the player making the mistake.
Here is the reason why. When a player acts in turn, when there is bet that has been made, and the player puts any money into the pot he has called whatever action there is. It is nobodies fault behind the player, including the dealer who acted in turn, that the player only making a short call did not know what was going on. The practice of placing a little money in the pot to indicate a call is common. Just because the player shorts a pot it should not give him the advantage of reconsidering his call after action has happened behind him.
A player is responsible for protecting themselves. The floor person made a terrible ruling, nothing should have happened except the player whom placed two when the bet was four needs to place two more in. If you're the one not paying attention in a game, you're the one that is going to lose.
The dealer gets a poor grade here for missing the incorrect action. However it does not change the fact that the player who shorted the bet needs to fix the bet. And also if I have the chronology of the hand correct, when a floor is called, everyone needs to stop, when the player mucked his hand after the floor was called it was an attempt to influence the floor to let the player have his bet back. The player attempted to turn his mistake into an angle, the floor let him.
The action of putting any chips out (less than the bet) is a call. If you cannot cover the bet with your stack you ARE all in. If you muck your cards then it is a fold.
For example: There could be a bet that covers your stack. You throw a chip out ( a 'call' ) and then you muck your cards. You are now all in with mucked cards and your stack goes into the pot.
These are the technical rules of play...
Of course, if there was an obvious mistake such as a player made a subtle shove and you thought that you were just calling blinds and just went to limp quickly then exceptions can be made. At any casino at a 1/2 mistakes like this are common and dealers can be reasonable to genuine mistakes. I have seen dealers allow folds when such mistakes are made
I thought chips had to be raked first but according to Jon no and I find no rule that chips must be raked first.
Rule I have found is that card has to go back if betting was not yet closed. This would apply even if the remaining player(s) fold. According to this rules/irregularities.
The question here is was betting closed. A betting mistake was made but I would consider betting closed.
I agree with the answer from Jon that seat one should have been required to complete the bet.
I don't agree with the floor that player one folding was a factor. Betting was closed or not. If the floor contends betting was not closed then player folding does not change it according to the link above. If the floor contends betting was not closed then yes the turn card should be killed.
OP are you contending betting was not closed? If so you may have an argument but I would consider betting closed. Seat one was not even last to act. As a floor I would not honor you argument for this reason. If seat one shorted you should have called it immediately. Could have a situation where you saw the short immediately but only decided to call it out once you saw a turn card that was not in your favor. Not saying you did see it earlier - just pointing out how it could be abused.