Another Ruling Question
 

Any action out of turn is not binding in this cardroom.


1/2NL. I live straddle UTG, the next two players fold. Next player limps for 2, along with the next player who limps for 2 as I am telling them its 4 to go because of my straddle. First guy puts in his $4 but the second player raises to 27. Can he raise here?

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any action out of turn is not binding in this cardroom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

No there hasn't been any out of turn action. When the first player put in $2 that constituted a call, the action was now on the next player and when he put in $2 that constituted a call. he may not now raise.

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
No there hasn't been any out of turn action. When the first player put in $2 that constituted a call, the action was now on the next player and when he put in $2 that constituted a call. he may not now raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Both bets would be corrected to $4 since there wasn't a gross misunderstanding of the amount of a proper call and putting out $2 indicates an intent to limp. The fact that the straddler brought attention to the mistake ASAP seals it.

~ Rick

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

I also agree. Any out of turn action not being binding in this room is irrelevant. He called. The amounts were slightly wrong, but this is far from a gross misunderstanding and would not be good enough reason to allow him to reconsider.

Al

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also agree. Any out of turn action not being binding in this room is irrelevant. He called. The amounts were slightly wrong, but this is far from a gross misunderstanding and would not be good enough reason to allow him to reconsider.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify something that I am sure both you and Rick are aware of you that neither of you said. A gross misunderstanding of the action cannot occur preflop when there has been no raise. Missing a kill or straddle is not the same as not noticing a raise.

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also agree. Any out of turn action not being binding in this room is irrelevant. He called. The amounts were slightly wrong, but this is far from a gross misunderstanding and would not be good enough reason to allow him to reconsider.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify something that I am sure both you and Rick are aware of you that neither of you said. A gross misunderstanding of the action cannot occur preflop when there has been no raise. Missing a kill or straddle is not the same as not noticing a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean by this that neither player, now realizing there is a straddle, can elect to fold instead of limp?

--klez

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

my cardroom is much more laid back than most. We do allow a player that "didnt notice it was a straddle" to pull back his undercall and muck his cards.

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also agree. Any out of turn action not being binding in this room is irrelevant. He called. The amounts were slightly wrong, but this is far from a gross misunderstanding and would not be good enough reason to allow him to reconsider.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify something that I am sure both you and Rick are aware of you that neither of you said. A gross misunderstanding of the action cannot occur preflop when there has been no raise. Missing a kill or straddle is not the same as not noticing a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean by this that neither player, now realizing there is a straddle, can elect to fold instead of limp?

--klez

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct. If they don't notice a raise they can pull back a bet and fold if there is no action behind. A straddle is not a raise.

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
my cardroom is much more laid back than most. We do allow a player that "didnt notice it was a straddle" to pull back his undercall and muck his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough i can't think of any reason a player would want to limp only if there was no straddle, but fold if there was a straddle.

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

Is this something new since NL came into popularity?

To a mostly-limit player, a straddle has a VERY similar effect to raise on one's preflop decision: a big change in the price you pay to see the flop, a moderately small change in the size of the ultimate pot.

If I were in a pedantic mood, I would be inclined to argue that doubling the price of anything is a pretty darn gross change. Yeah, sounds silly in the context of $2 changing to $4. But it's really the relative sizes of the two bets, and their effect on the pot odds, that matters. I wonder if a rule in parallel to the one about whether an all-in raise reopens the action, at more vs less than half the size of the previous raise, might be useful here - a misunderstanding of more than 50% of bet size is gross, of less isn't?

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my cardroom is much more laid back than most. We do allow a player that "didnt notice it was a straddle" to pull back his undercall and muck his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough i can't think of any reason a player would want to limp only if there was no straddle, but fold if there was a straddle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pots with straddles tend to get raised preflop on average twice as often and end up with fewer players seeing the flop. This makes limping in with small pairs and suited connectors much less profitable.

Jimbo

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my cardroom is much more laid back than most. We do allow a player that "didnt notice it was a straddle" to pull back his undercall and muck his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough i can't think of any reason a player would want to limp only if there was no straddle, but fold if there was a straddle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pots with straddles tend to get raised preflop on average twice as often and end up with fewer players seeing the flop. This makes limping in with small pairs and suited connectors much less profitable.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree that should happen, but the weak games I see everyone limps and then the straddle checks most of the time.

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

player cannot raise his original undercall, he can however pull back his $2 and muck his cards.

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Pots with straddles tend to get raised preflop on average twice as often and end up with fewer players seeing the flop. This makes limping in with small pairs and suited connectors much less profitable.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree that should happen, but the weak games I see everyone limps and then the straddle checks most of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to move in and follow you to games...

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Pots with straddles tend to get raised preflop on average twice as often and end up with fewer players seeing the flop. This makes limping in with small pairs and suited connectors much less profitable.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree that should happen, but the weak games I see everyone limps and then the straddle checks most of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to move in and follow you to games...

[/ QUOTE ]

Come to vegas, because thats the way $1-$2 NL plays here,

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my cardroom is much more laid back than most. We do allow a player that "didnt notice it was a straddle" to pull back his undercall and muck his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oddly enough i can't think of any reason a player would want to limp only if there was no straddle, but fold if there was a straddle.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are hands that are good enough for $2 but just not good enough for $4 LDO.

-Tom

Re: Another Ruling Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is this something new since NL came into popularity?

To a mostly-limit player, a straddle has a VERY similar effect to raise on one's preflop decision: a big change in the price you pay to see the flop, a moderately small change in the size of the ultimate pot.

If I were in a pedantic mood, I would be inclined to argue that doubling the price of anything is a pretty darn gross change. Yeah, sounds silly in the context of $2 changing to $4. But it's really the relative sizes of the two bets, and their effect on the pot odds, that matters. I wonder if a rule in parallel to the one about whether an all-in raise reopens the action, at more vs less than half the size of the previous raise, might be useful here - a misunderstanding of more than 50% of bet size is gross, of less isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubling the price of something is a large change, but there was no raise to overlook. A straddle is another blind that has been posted. In limit it is treated a little differently than NL, but it still isn't a raise. In limit there isn't' really any provision for a gross misunderstanding of the action other than no noticing a raise. You can never claim you didn't realize they bet so much in limit.