Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

that story of your friend and the extra $1k is crazy.
WTF is up with that horrible ruling?

I don't know for certain but I think being barred from the poker-room just means the poker-room...not the rest of the casino or the other properties. But certainly they could take such drastic action if they wanted to.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

This very same thing happened to me. I began cutting my chips down for a bet, and a guy called prematurely. Floor gave me the option that whatever was already cut down stayed in the pot, I could then bet whatever I wanted to and the call was binding.

I obviously went all in.

This is the correct ruling afaik.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Player 2 is obligated to call what Player 1 had already cut into the pot ($200) because that was clearly his intention. However, Player 1 should not be deprived of making whatever bet he wants because he was not done acting. Therefore, Player 1 may increase his bet size to whatever he wants, which Player 2 is not obligated to call.

[/ QUOTE ]


So if I only want to call as little as possible then all I have to do is say, "I call" while he's still cutting his chips? If he's especially slow at cutting his chips when he is betting then I can essentially only have to call $25 or something every time my opponent is intending to bet $100.

In other words, I don't think this is correct either.


[/ QUOTE ]

i don't see why no one can grasp this. the out of turn call doesn't affect in the least how much player 1 can bet. it only affects how much player 2 is FORCED to call. In the original scenario, assuming $200 of the $400 is cut out, I would rule that Player 1 can bet any amount from $200-allin. Player 2 is bound to call any amount up to $400 (I would also accept any amount up to $200). If Player 1 chooses to bet more than the $400 he has out, fine, but Player 2 should not be bound to it.

In your example, if you start yelling call the first time a $25 chip hits the table, you're forced to call that amount, but not more. If you do this multiple times, you should probably get kicked out or at least KITN.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
i have a friend who has at the bellagio and got involved in an all-in pot where the other player had loaned his buddy next to him $1000 from his stack w/o announcing it to the table and only the dealer knew. (obv his buddy was waiting on chips) So they get it all-in and after my friend calls his all-in and loses the hand the other player tells him he had loaned his friend $1000 while waiting for chips. Floor rules it's in play despite it not being in front of him/no one at the table knowing except the dealer and the two players (sitting right next to eachother). The worst part iirc was that the player shoved his stack in the middle and announced all-in, so all of his chips in front of him were in the middle. Keep in mind that there's $100, $500 and $1,000 chips in this game so it's pretty easy to ship someone $1,000 w/o it being noticed. Floor ruled he had to pay it or be barred for life.
-Tex

[/ QUOTE ]

How much is $1K in this game? I'm a 2/5 player, I'd probably be willing to pay a $100-$200 fine to avoid being barred, so I suppose I might be willing to pay $1000 in a 10/20 NL game. I wouldn't be real happy and would probably be on this floor and dealer's ass until the end of time in the $1K case, but I'd likely pay it.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry if this has been mentioned already, but how is Player 2 shooting an angle by saying call prematurely?

[/ QUOTE ]

He knows Player 1 is going to be between $100 and $400. He says "call" before all the chips are down, meaning he is going to call whatever Player 1 is going to bet. If he thinks Player 1 is weak, then Player 1 now knows there is no chance Player 2 will fold. He was probably going to bet $400, but if there was any chance he was bluffing, Player 2 gets (on long term average) a cheaper showdown, based on the probability that Player 1 might stop short and only put down $100 or $200.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it ensures that he wins only $100 or $200 when his opponent is bluffing and pays at least $400(possibly more as we see in this story) when his opponent is not bluffing.

Explain to me again how exactly that is beneficial.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

This kind of commonsense fairness is fine when an honest error is made, or a one-time aberration due to frustration. But angle-shooting regulars just don't get that kind of benefit of the doubt, because if they do they will just keep taking advantage of the non-angle-shooting players again and again. I think this was handled perfectly.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never been in a game where everything on the table wasn't in play, whether it was "hidden" or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words you have never played live NL in a room that actually has $5k chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this an attempt at a flame?

I play the Bellagio 10/20 and occasionally 25/50. "Hidden" is a very relative term in this game, especially with the similarity between $20 and $1,000 chips and $500/$5000 chips. If you don't know to ask "do you have any big chips?" you shouldn't be in the game.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
This kind of commonsense fairness is fine when an honest error is made, or a one-time aberration due to frustration. But angle-shooting regulars just don't get that kind of benefit of the doubt, because if they do they will just keep taking advantage of the non-angle-shooting players again and again. I think this was handled perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real problem is that the term "angle-shooting regulars" should not be allowed to exist. If you remove the angle shooters the room will be more pleasant for everyone involved. It is generally a bad business practice to allow someone that shoots angles to chase away the honest players.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never been in a game where everything on the table wasn't in play, whether it was "hidden" or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words you have never played live NL in a room that actually has $5k chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this an attempt at a flame?

I play the Bellagio 10/20 and occasionally 25/50. "Hidden" is a very relative term in this game, especially with the similarity between $20 and $1,000 chips and $500/$5000 chips. If you don't know to ask "do you have any big chips?" you shouldn't be in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was just an observation. If you play at Bellagio you have in fact played in a room where hidden chips don't play. That is just how poker is played. There are some places in the east or midwest that might consider hiding your chips a viable tactic, but generally places with an expereinced floor staff understand this. In places where poker is their primary business the high denomination chips are larger to prevent any sort of misunderstanding.

Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This kind of commonsense fairness is fine when an honest error is made, or a one-time aberration due to frustration. But angle-shooting regulars just don't get that kind of benefit of the doubt, because if they do they will just keep taking advantage of the non-angle-shooting players again and again. I think this was handled perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real problem is that the term "angle-shooting regulars" should not be allowed to exist. If you remove the angle shooters the room will be more pleasant for everyone involved. It is generally a bad business practice to allow someone that shoots angles to chase away the honest players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've talked to several people who were in the game at the time and none of them felt like it was an 'angle-shoot' by Player 1.