NL Ruling Please
 

$2-5 NL. Player A raises to $40, I raise to what I assume is his stack, $140. All fold to A who sez 'call' but doesn't move any chips. Turns out his stack is $155 total but the dealer has already brought the turn and river. The board is 5 4 3 5 3 rainbow and I hold KK. I want his last $15 since I'm quite sure he has AQ, as he stated, but not at the risk of any new board cards. I STFU and the dealer pushes me the pot, leaving him with $15.

I've got 20 years of casino poker under my belt and I have not a clue how a floorman might rule here. I'm pretty sure I made the right play, EV wise. Any ideas?

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

The turn and river would have to be returned to the stub and shuffled in. Then you could put him all-in for his last $15 and the turn and river are re-dealt.

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

[ QUOTE ]
$2-5 NL. Player A raises to $40, I raise to what I assume is his stack, $140. All fold to A who sez 'call' but doesn't move any chips. Turns out his stack is $155 total but the dealer has already brought the turn and river. The board is 5 4 3 5 3 rainbow and I hold KK. I want his last $15 since I'm quite sure he has AQ, as he stated, but not at the risk of any new board cards. I STFU and the dealer pushes me the pot, leaving him with $15.

I've got 20 years of casino poker under my belt and I have not a clue how a floorman might rule here. I'm pretty sure I made the right play, EV wise. Any ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

In your 20 years have you not learn to call your self all in or at least say " I put him all in"? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Floor would probably rule to redeal turn/river

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

They'd have to redeal turn and river to get the last $15 in.

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

[ QUOTE ]
The turn and river would have to be returned to the stub and shuffled in. Then you could put him all-in for his last $15 and the turn and river are re-dealt.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. The dealer thought he was all-in, you thought he was all-in. He is all-in. When he stated "call" without moving the chips he probably thought he was all-in.

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

What a wonderful new angle. When someone bets $200 at me thinking that covers me, but I find I actually have $201, I can let the dealer put out a turn and river and if I don't like the result just proclaim "I wasn't all in and I didn't get to bet the turn or river" and demand new cards.

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
$2-5 NL. Player A raises to $40, I raise to what I assume is his stack, $140. All fold to A who sez 'call' but doesn't move any chips. Turns out his stack is $155 total but the dealer has already brought the turn and river. The board is 5 4 3 5 3 rainbow and I hold KK. I want his last $15 since I'm quite sure he has AQ, as he stated, but not at the risk of any new board cards. I STFU and the dealer pushes me the pot, leaving him with $15.

I've got 20 years of casino poker under my belt and I have not a clue how a floorman might rule here. I'm pretty sure I made the right play, EV wise. Any ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

In your 20 years have you not learn to call your self all in or at least say " I put him all in"? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Floor would probably rule to redeal turn/river

[/ QUOTE ]

There were other players between us when I bet his assumed stack. But you're so damn smart I'm sure you've figured that out by now.

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
$2-5 NL. Player A raises to $40, I raise to what I assume is his stack, $140. All fold to A who sez 'call' but doesn't move any chips. Turns out his stack is $155 total but the dealer has already brought the turn and river. The board is 5 4 3 5 3 rainbow and I hold KK. I want his last $15 since I'm quite sure he has AQ, as he stated, but not at the risk of any new board cards. I STFU and the dealer pushes me the pot, leaving him with $15.

I've got 20 years of casino poker under my belt and I have not a clue how a floorman might rule here. I'm pretty sure I made the right play, EV wise. Any ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

In your 20 years have you not learn to call your self all in or at least say " I put him all in"? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Floor would probably rule to redeal turn/river

[/ QUOTE ]

There were other players between us when I bet his assumed stack. But you're so damn smart I'm sure you've figured that out by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he made a valid point that betting what you think he has left is going to put you in this situation often, when saying I put HIM all in will make your bet $155.

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think he made a valid point that betting what you think he has left is going to put you in this situation often, when saying I put HIM all in will make your bet $155.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, but you see, the pedantists(*) insist you cannot put someone else all-in, you can only put yourself all-in. So in this case you have to ask for the stacks to be counted to the dollar so you can wager exactly the correct amount. See recent thread activity here for this debate. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

(*) Yes, it seems I just made up this word. What's the noun form of pedantic? This obviously SHOULD be a word.

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but you see, the pedantists(*) insist you cannot put someone else all-in, you can only put yourself all-in. So in this case you have to ask for the stacks to be counted to the dollar so you can wager exactly the correct amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't have a problem with a player saying "I bet as many chips as Player X has" which would eliminate the need for a count request. But I think its incumbent upon the better to make his intentions as clear as possible.

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but you see, the pedantists(*) insist you cannot put someone else all-in, you can only put yourself all-in. So in this case you have to ask for the stacks to be counted to the dollar so you can wager exactly the correct amount.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't have a problem with a player saying "I bet as many chips as Player X has" which would eliminate the need for a count request. But I think its incumbent upon the better to make his intentions as clear as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is your complaint simply you don't like the phrase "I'll put player X all-in" and you'd be a-ok with exactly the same situation unfolding long as the guy said "I bet as many chips as player X has"?

Or is it that you want the other player to specify exactly which player he has in mind matching stacks with and you object to the use of "him"? In which case, sure, that's important.

Usually when I see someone say "I'll put him all-in" it's heads-up, and yeah, that's a pointless and silly thing to say at that stage. Just say "I'm all-in" and we don't have to fret the phrasing. But let's not pause the game to lecture the player as to how he can't put someone else all-in.

But when it's 3-way or 4-way and someone says "I'll put him all-in" they generally point or in some way make it clear they're referring to the shortstack who just bet $40 of his $85 stack. And when they don't the dealer should pause things and demand clarification; the next player to act doesn't get to unilaterally decide which player the raiser was referring to.

Getting hot and lathered over "you can only put yourself all-in" is like getting upset because W says "nukular". You don't have to use the term yourself, but trying to make the world conform to Webster is a hopeless windmill tilting endeavor.

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

Naw, you didn't yell out 'Time!' when the dealer burned for the turn, so you're stuck with the board. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

To the OP, you don't get the $15 dollars. Yes, the dealer could have pulled it in, but you also could have said "I raise all in on the turn if he has anything left." You also could have stopped the dealer while he was dealing outthe turn/river. And, of course, it works both ways. If the other player had won, he'd have only got the $140 from you.

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

[ QUOTE ]
But when it's 3-way or 4-way and someone says "I'll put him all-in" they generally point or in some way make it clear they're referring to the shortstack who just bet $40 of his $85 stack. And when they don't the dealer should pause things and demand clarification; the next player to act doesn't get to unilaterally decide which player the raiser was referring to.


[/ QUOTE ]

The only isssue I have with this (a very small one) if it is a 3-way unless the person he is "putting all-in" an an obvious amount of chips the bettor is not entitled to a count, only a view. He needs to bet an amount as he cannot bet "whatever he has" if he lacks the ability to figure out how much the other guy has (heads up it makes no difference at all because "putting him all-in" is the same as "all-in").

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

[ QUOTE ]
(*) Yes, it seems I just made up this word. What's the noun form of pedantic? This obviously SHOULD be a word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a pedanticisterist myself, the noun form of pedantic is... wait for it...

pedant.

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

Its both things. One when its not heads up if you are going to bet this way its incumbent on you to be clear whose stack you are referring to. I have no problem with you pointing as long as its obvious (but for some reason many players don't like to act in clear and obvious ways - as evidenced by the number of players who like to check by making the slighest motion possible).

As for the phrase. You are correct its nothing to get hot and lathered over, but it is still wrong. Its not lik pretend that i don't understand when someone says this, but its still a stupid phrase and I think its fine to come on to the internet and say --YOU SHOULD NOT SAY THIS BECAUSE IT IS STUPID. But no, I won't get into an argument with you at the table over this, because there is no value to it.

Re: NL Ruling Please
 

Gotta figure out how to figure out quicker we're in frantic agreement.