Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

I don't really understand the problem in a 2-5 spread game, but I suppose in a NL game that Player C (uninvolved player) might have some beef from an implied odds perspective if he's the last folder. If he thinks the pot is protected by the AI player, he might not be willing to continue headsup in a sidepot. If after he folds the pot becomes contested on later streets, he may feel he's been screwed.

I don't see how this could arise in a limit pot, but maybe it could.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Two folks are wagering and they apparently are agreeing what the wagers were. You really want a 3rd person uninvolved in the hand to be able to throw a fit and prevent them from completing their transaction?

[/ QUOTE ]
i just want the cardroom to enforce its rules--it's the dealer's job to run the game, so when player A put more money on the table during the hand, he should've been told he can't.

or how about in a limit game, 2 players are headsup and want to go all-in. i've been told that they have to actually go thru the process of raising and re-raising. why can't they just go all-in as long as they agree to it?

i mean, you really think it's a good idea to let players negotiate among themselves whether to ditch the table-stakes rule? if that's the policy, then whenever i have the nuts at the river i should always ask my opponent if he minds me putting more money on the table. it can't hurt, right? if he says no, then fine, but if he EVER says yes, even once out of a thousand times, then YAHTZEE.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
i just want the cardroom to enforce its rules--it's the dealer's job to run the game, so when player A put more money on the table during the hand, he should've been told he can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ta trait of a nit. "I want rules enforced because they are rules. Period end of discussion."

Question for you.

Who was injured in this scenario?

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

Having reread RR's original post I'm thinking I'm less comfy with the ruling that the money plays. I'm not positive both players were informed and consenting.

Let us say we're playing NL2/5 with a $500 cap and I start the hand with $1000 and you start with $500. As the river is dealt you pull out $500 and set it on the table beside your remaining $50 in chips and announce "all-in". I'm gonna call assuming I'm calling the $50 in chips since we all know you can't add money during the hand, and I'm just figuring you're getting out the cash to prepare to rebuy (or more likely to make me think you're preparing to rebuy, or even more likely to make me think you're thinking that I'm thinking that you want me to think you're about to rebuy). It's just... not done--you don't add cash during the hand. UNLESS both players agree to it, in which case I'm in the camp of letting the adults play.

Not so sure RR's case isn't similar.

IF both players are informed and agree what the bet was, then yeah, I want the extra cash included in the wager. But if neither player was, or only one player thought the cash was playing, then no. And it's just not at all obvious here.

But I stand by the claim I ain't letting some squeeky 3rd person at the table influence this. Doesn't matter what the peanut gallery wants to happen, all I'm gonna care about is what these two players thought they were wagering. First we settle the wager, then we see if we can placate the audience as well.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i just want the cardroom to enforce its rules--it's the dealer's job to run the game, so when player A put more money on the table during the hand, he should've been told he can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ta trait of a nit. "I want rules enforced because they are rules. Period end of discussion."

Question for you.

Who was injured in this scenario?

[/ QUOTE ]
i've been injured. let me explain.

you are confused about my position on this issue. i don't care in the slightest about the rule itself, i just want to KNOW what the rule actually IS. if you're telling me the rule is that players can SUSPEND table-stakes as long as they agree to it, fantastic! then that's the rule i'll play by! it would essentially be infinitely +ev for me.

i've been injured insofar as i wasn't aware of the true nature of this rule until now. i'm also injured if you allow the players in THIS hand to do it, but DON'T allow me to do it (and by "it" i mean ask my opponent if he's willing to let me add money to my stack) when i'm holding the dead nuts on the river in an uncapped nl game.

so, just to make sure, you're saying that (in some casinos) the table-stakes rule can be suspended if the players in the hand all consent, correct?

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
IF both players are informed and agree what the bet was, then yeah, I want the extra cash included in the wager. But if neither player was, or only one player thought the cash was playing, then no. And it's just not at all obvious here.


[/ QUOTE ]

The key here is the other player (that did not add money) raised the river heads up because he liked his hand. Now the other player calls (he was unaware that he couldn't add money to his stack). He was in position to lose the extra bet on the end so he his entitled to collect it. You cannot create a situation where he can lose a bet but if he wins someone is going to speak up and say that isn't allowed. This pot was being pushed to him when someone spoke up and said he added money.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

Hmmm... Messy. I'll accept that line of reasoning. The wisdom of Solomon, again.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
so, just to make sure, you're saying that (in some casinos) the table-stakes rule can be suspended if the players in the hand all consent, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not really that the table stakes rule can be suspended, its that the players can agree to accept action which is essentially increasing the amount fo their stake.

The table stakes rule is much more significant then the rule that you can't add money during a hand.

I would not allow two players left in a hand to agree "To suspend the table stakes rule" because this would also allow a player to win the hand simply by betting an amount more then the other player had and thereby forcing a fold.


AND NO YOU HAVE NOT BEEN INJURED THE PLAYERS DOING THIS EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT COULD BE DONE.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

I'm gonna guess that you won't find many poker rooms that will regularly let folks add to their stack during a hand even if all impacted parties agree. RR is on the record in another thread saying he wouldn't allow it. I'm on the record saying I think it should be allowed if everybody in the hand agrees. He works in a casino and I program computers. He has the wisdom of the ages in knowing what works and doesn't work. Philosophically, I see no harm in it. In practice, it could get pretty unpleasant I imagine.

I doubt you can mosey up to the suits in Bellagio, Caesars, Mirage, Venetian, Wynn and get them to agree to this. But if y'all at the table agree to it and the hand proceeds, I would like to hope the floor people won't demand the money come back and will refuse to let the cash be passed under the table (or in the restroom).

I actually saw a 2/5 hand at Caesars where the dealer and a floor person watching allowed someone to retract a bet. Guy bet like $300 on the turn. Other player gave the usual "why so much... I'd call less" response. Only this time they both agreed to make the wager $100 and he'd call. Guy doing the "why so much" actually held the nuts. He lost the hand to like a 3-outter on the river. That's one of those classic "too smart for your own good, you dumbass" poker moments. Afterwards, a 2nd floor person who had walked up in the middle announces "THIS WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN AGAIN, GOT IT? ONCE A BET IS MADE, IT STAYS. NEVER AGAIN!!" But he didn't try to undo it. Action offer and accepted and all that.

Re: A floor call and table stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
"THIS WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN AGAIN, GOT IT? ONCE A BET IS MADE, IT STAYS. NEVER AGAIN!!" But he didn't try to undo it. Action offer and accepted and all that.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of things happen that we would prefer not happen, but once they occur that is the situation you are in. This thing tonight, I would rather the dealer notice the money coming out and tell the player it would play next hand. The dealer didn't notice it and it was in play.

As far as NL players wanting to bet some extra money I would allow it as long as there wasn't a legal issue with it (there are some places that forbid side bets etc).