[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? Here is one: Assuming both the BB and UTG intend on playing the next hand (barring any unforseen circumstances like a spilled milkshake, earthquake or heart attack before the cards are dealt) then the BB has no choice but to post his BB wheras the straddler has a choice, once someone restraddles this should remove the choice of the initial straddler to remove his straddle. This seems only marginally different to me than checking the flop dark when first to act, where I have played this is binding action. Also how is it different than posting the Kill in a kill pot?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahah! You left me an opening with that last comment. The kill blind is a continuation from the previous hand; they are linked. You don't get to walk away while a hand is in progress and trying to walk out on the kill is treated like that. That's more akin to trying to pull back a wager you've already made after the flop because suddenly you want to leave the hand. A blind and straddle are both new, unbound to any previous action, and they're happening between hands when players are free to come and go.

The arguments remain unconvincing. I still keep hearing "I don't like his excuse for pulling back the straddle." OTHER excuses are ok, but "I don't want to be re-straddled" as an excuse is not. That's a pretty weak thing on which to try to craft a rule.

Obviously it isn't worth a lot of heartache over this topic. But it's an entertaining gedankenexperiment.