All in (Except a few) rules

[rbenuck4]

OK, so I was playing 10 25 nl at the majestic (formerly the trump) in indiana. 2 times, this guy went all in by putting all his greens (25 dollar chips) and blacks (100 dollar chips) into the middle. The thing is, he still had a few reds left (5 dollar chips), and these reds played. So both times he did this, I happened to have a set so I said "put the rest in there" as I shoved enough to cover him in the middle. I won the hand both times, and he mucked his cards, so I never saw what he had.

Now I know that TECHNICALLY I put him all in and that he doesn't have to show his cards, but when he bets 1200 dollars leaving himself 20 bucks, shouldn't that be from a practical standpoint "all in."

Do any of you employ this tactic to keep from having to expose your cards, and is this ethical? Also, would it have been wrong for me to ask for him to turn over his cards (I know under normal circumstances its considered bad etiquette)?

[Photoc]

If neither player says "all in" or moves all the chips into the pot, then neither player is all in. You can't "put him all in". He can only put himself all in. You can only put yourself all in. If you say "I put you all in" and he folds, then you have't put him all in. I hate that line and I wish it was banned.

As for the seeing a called hand. Any player dealt into that particular hand may request to see any and all called hands. You paid for it, you are entitled to see it as long as you ask BEFORE the dealer mucks the cards. The dealer MAY NOT remove any cards from the muck even if they are on top. The floorman is the only one allowed to do anything with the muck in this manner.

[rbenuck4]

Photoc,

You are right, I should have used the term "last aggressor" instead of "all in." The question still stands though. Since technically I was the last aggressor (raising him 20 dollars) but he was the practical last aggressor (betting 1200 dollars), should I be allowed to see his cards without fear of being disrespectful or having bad etiquette? I know the rulebook answer, but we don't play in a vacuum.

[psandman]

A guy bets $1,200 and folds for a $20 raise and you want to see his cards? Why could you possibly want to see his cards? He isn't the guy I want poker lessons from.

[octop]

The guy called the 20 bucks
Ive done this a few times with a real assclown at the table
For example on time I flopped top 2 against a flush chasing donkey. I bet he pushed I instalcalled. ( I had AK flop was AK 4 and he had King 5 and a flush draw and he caught running fives) I flipped my cards over on the flop (even though I didn have to) and on the river he literlely sat there for atleast 30 seconds before flipping over his runner runner. I told him in plain english if he ever does that again Ill beat the table with his skull for however long he slowrolls for. Half the table was telling me I was being a dick so they started asking to see my uncalled hands. Four times that night I bet all my chips except a dollar so they would technically be the last agressor. Lets just say the guy who slowrolled on me wasnt too happy when I slowrolled my flopped set into rivered quads. the one time I lost i fired my cards separately into the muck so they would be unretrieveable.

[rbenuck4]

[ QUOTE ]
A guy bets $1,200 and folds for a $20 raise and you want to see his cards? Why could you possibly want to see his cards? He isn't the guy I want poker lessons from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, Obviously the guy called for the last 20 dollars. He just didn't want to show his cards after the hand was over.

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, would it have been wrong for me to ask for him to turn over his cards (I know under normal circumstances its considered bad etiquette)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't get started down this road. I know that it happens in low to mid limits, and it's tolerated (most of the time), but you don't really want to get into this habit.

1) A good CRM or floorman will tell you that you are abusing the IWTSTH rule, or outright embarrass you and either forbid you to ask again, or kick you out
2) No one will want to play against you, and will start turbo mucking, slowrolling and/or shooting other quasi-angles against you


IMO, if you want to see everyone's hand, stay online. This is extremely poor etiquette live, and the higher the limits you play, the less it will be tolerated.

Good luck!

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
If neither player says "all in" or moves all the chips into the pot, then neither player is all in. You can't "put him all in". He can only put himself all in. You can only put yourself all in. If you say "I put you all in" and he folds, then you have't put him all in. I hate that line and I wish it was banned.

[/ QUOTE ]
AMEN!

[radek]

[ QUOTE ]
Photoc,

You are right, I should have used the term "last aggressor" instead of "all in." The question still stands though. Since technically I was the last aggressor (raising him 20 dollars) but he was the practical last aggressor (betting 1200 dollars), should I be allowed to see his cards without fear of being disrespectful or having bad etiquette? I know the rulebook answer, but we don't play in a vacuum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope U got his money that should eb good enough. Y do U care what he had!!!!

[rbenuck4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Photoc,

You are right, I should have used the term "last aggressor" instead of "all in." The question still stands though. Since technically I was the last aggressor (raising him 20 dollars) but he was the practical last aggressor (betting 1200 dollars), should I be allowed to see his cards without fear of being disrespectful or having bad etiquette? I know the rulebook answer, but we don't play in a vacuum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope U got his money that should eb good enough. Y do U care what he had!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I think it was a fairly cheap shot for him to effectively be the last aggressor and not have to show his cards.

[psandman]

I missed the part in the post where you said he called, in fact if he called the entire post makes little sense to me because we know that the IWTSTH rule at most casinos is going to allow a player to see his hand (we can all agree that its bad etitqutee or a bad rule or whatever but that doesn't change the fact that it happens all the time) so what does he gain if he is really concerned about other people seeing his hand.

And still I don't see why you would care, Its perfectly alright with me if none of my opponents ever turn over their cards.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

CERTAIN cardrooms (that I happen to know of) are moving to the rule that only those involved in the showdown may ask to see a called hand, and even then, if the presumed winner asks to see a conceded loser, it is turned up LIVE (that second part is standard now anyway, but the first part is new, and kicks ass). Even then, this priviledge can be taken away by a floorman who thinks it's being abused. The biggie is that any floorman can see ANY HAND AT ANY TIME if they think there is good reason to suspect collusion; this includes digging through the muck.

al

[FeliciaLee]

Oh, thank you! There is a god.

I know that Dan Higginbothem has a rule in big, bold letters in his cardroom (since it's mostly seniors, I'm talking BIG letters, like 5" high, lol), that states the IWTSTH can ONLY be used if collusion is suspected, and will not be tolerated for any other reason. He routinely disallows the rule, and I have even seen him eject players who insist that they "have the right" to see a players mucked, HU hand at showdown. He has a zero tolerance policy for this angle.

[ckmo]

if it bothers you that much and its worth 20 dollars to you just to piss him off could you not just check it down.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
Do any of you employ this tactic to keep from having to expose your cards, and is this ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]

I sometimes employ this tactic, but not for that reason. Sometimes the other player isn't paying attention and putting in $200 while I leave $10 behind won't be recognized as an effective all-in. There's also a different psychological impact to "all-in for $210" vs "make it $200". "Make it $200" sounds like a carefully reasoned bet while "all-in" sounds like "I'm desperate and don't know what else to do to chase you out".

'Course most people do this by accident. They put their big stack of chips out without saying anything. Then realize it's too late to put out the last two red chips protecting their cards.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, thank you! There is a god.

I know that Dan Higginbothem has a rule in big, bold letters in his cardroom (since it's mostly seniors, I'm talking BIG letters, like 5" high, lol), that states the IWTSTH can ONLY be used if collusion is suspected, and will not be tolerated for any other reason. He routinely disallows the rule, and I have even seen him eject players who insist that they "have the right" to see a players mucked, HU hand at showdown. He has a zero tolerance policy for this angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully, good rules like this will spread around over time. BTW, where is Dan's Cardroom?

~ Rick

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
There's also a different psychological impact to "all-in for $210" vs "make it $200". "Make it $200" sounds like a carefully reasoned bet while "all-in" sounds like "I'm desperate and don't know what else to do to chase you out".

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you mentioned this I will metion a realaated dealing procedure that in the modern era I woudl estimate 90% of dealers (or I could probalby extend this to peopel working in poekr in general) get wrong. The only time a dealer shoudl announce "all-in" during a betting round is when a bet woudl other wise be illegal.

A couple of axamples. Player a Bets 100 player b goes all in for 250 the delaer should announce "make it 250 to go" he should announce the allin when the current round is over or when there is another raise, for example in this same case player c calls the 250 and player a makes it 1000 total, delaer woudl now say "750 more on the side."

The all-in shoudl be noted immediately if a bet/raise woudl iotherwise be illegal, for example palyer a bets 100 player b goes all-in for 175 this woudl be announced as "all-in for $175 total").

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully, good rules like this will spread around over time. BTW, where is Dan's Cardroom?


[/ QUOTE ]
Laughlin. The River Palms.

I know, I know, you don't have to say it. I've heard it all.

FWIW, he is trying to move up to Vegas. I think he was second in line to get the Venetian, until they realized just how much skill and talent Edna has in running a cardroom /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

He ran the Silver Star in Mississippi and did a good job, from what I've been told. His Grandfather got terminal cancer and he volunteered to move to Arizona and help out. Nice guy. Runs the cardroom sort of like the Marines, but I like that in a man /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
CERTAIN cardrooms (that I happen to know of) are moving to the rule that only those involved in the showdown may ask to see a called hand, and even then, if the presumed winner asks to see a conceded loser, it is turned up LIVE (that second part is standard now anyway, but the first part is new, and kicks ass). Even then, this priviledge can be taken away by a floorman who thinks it's being abused. The biggie is that any floorman can see ANY HAND AT ANY TIME if they think there is good reason to suspect collusion; this includes digging through the muck.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate the rule that only a player in the hand at showdown can ask to see a hand even more than I hate IWTSTH and here is why:

1) This rule feeds the mentality that IWTSTH is about having paid to see the cards not about detecting/preventing collusion. The nukber one thing you here if you complain about a player who uses IWTSTh is "I paid to see them" and I hate to promote that concept.

2) If the rule in fact is about detecting/preventing collusion it makes no sense to say that you have to pay off a player you suspect is cheating in order to determine that this is happening.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's also a different psychological impact to "all-in for $210" vs "make it $200". "Make it $200" sounds like a carefully reasoned bet while "all-in" sounds like "I'm desperate and don't know what else to do to chase you out".

[/ QUOTE ]

...The only time a dealer shoudl announce "all-in" during a betting round is when a bet woudl other wise be illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about mentioning in the above that it is mildly annoying when another player helpfully tells my opponent "he's almost all-in" and it's moderately annoying when the dealer does so without being asked. I don't try to hide my remaining chips--not really trying to do anything too sneaky--but that's a tidbit of information I want the other player to have to ask for or notice on their own.

[DeuceKicker]

Check out Robert's Rules of Poker: Section IV, Paragraph 3

Section IV: ALL-IN

3. PRACTICALLY ALL-IN
A player shall be deemed to be "practically" all-in when they have--in one betting turn--put in at least 98.5% of their chips. This is not to be confused with "mostly" all-in, which requires a player to have put in 97.75%, or "essentially" all-in, in which case a player will have committed 99.01% of his/her chips.

It appears that your opponent only put in 98.36% of his chips, so he was not "practically" all in.

[TiK]

[ QUOTE ]

I know that Dan Higginbothem has a rule in big, bold letters in his cardroom (since it's mostly seniors, I'm talking BIG letters, like 5" high, lol), that states the IWTSTH can ONLY be used if collusion is suspected, and will not be tolerated for any other reason. He routinely disallows the rule, and I have even seen him eject players who insist that they "have the right" to see a players mucked, HU hand at showdown. He has a zero tolerance policy for this angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's awesome policy. I wish it were done by cardrooms everywhere.

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
That's awesome policy. I wish it were done by cardrooms everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the reason I like this best? Between that and the shuffle machine, he is regularly getting 18-20 hands per down, per dealer. And this is in the land of snowbird, senior citizen, loose/passive paradise.

Cardrooms that regularly allow the IWTSTH abuse get like 10 hands per down, because of all of the fighting and slowing down of the game.

[PokerSlut]

I was recently in Vegas and in one of the rooms (I think Bellagio, but unsure) the dealer made both players turn over their cards when they were all-in on the flop in an NL ring game, ala tourney rules.

[n.s.]

[ QUOTE ]

I hate the rule that only a player in the hand at showdown can ask to see a hand even more than I hate IWTSTH and here is why:

1) This rule feeds the mentality that IWTSTH is about having paid to see the cards not about detecting/preventing collusion. The nukber one thing you here if you complain about a player who uses IWTSTh is "I paid to see them" and I hate to promote that concept.

2) If the rule in fact is about detecting/preventing collusion it makes no sense to say that you have to pay off a player you suspect is cheating in order to determine that this is happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I think one simple thing (other than just getting rid of this rule altogether) would be to simply require the floor to be the one to expose the cards. I think having the floor come over would reinforce the idea that asking to see someone's hand is accusation of collusion, and then the floor can be the bad guy when he tells the moron to knock it off, instead of the dealer.