Two Canterbury Rulings

[Kevin J]

Thanks Rick -

Clearly I'm in the minority. I also didn't realize at first that Randy, et al., were also experienced floor people.

I suppose I should be impressed that Canterbury (and other rooms), have actually thought about this situation and have a rule for it on the books to ensure consistency. Many rooms I play wouldn't know what to do and would rule differently each time.

I also realize that blinds are for ALL hands and that's why as a player (I've never dealt or worked floor), I've always been a big advocate that players should ALWAYS be dealt ALL their hands (like in a tournament). I like the way the Commerce does it.. They deal a player in even if he's not in his seat! If he's not back by the time the action gets to him, his cards are mucked.

But I'm sure I'm not gonna change the world just because of how I look at things. I really don't see the big deal just dealing a guy another card. I understand wanting to prevent cheating, but this would be a very easy call to use judgement on. Letter of the law Vs. Spirit of the law, I guess is what I'm saying.

Anyway, thanks for commenting Rick.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it gives too much power to the straddler and the straddle is pretty much mandatory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that an UTG straddle should be "pretty much mandatory" since it promotes action and is a cheap way for astute players playing deep stack to manipulate the pot. But any straddle outside UTG seems to add to confusion and gives an increasing amount of power to the late straddler, something that IMO throws the game off-balance (but I'm curious regarding counter-arguments).

It's sad that many clubs in LA don't allow conventional straddles in their smaller NL games. When I was at the Bike I was able to help get conventional straddling in. At the same time I was never was aware of the fact that it really shouldn't be used when the game is three or four handed (I learned that on this board, or in a tactical thread). Of course in LA, with some clubs taking both jackpot drop and modified drop on no action hands, full drop taken on any hand with a flop, and an insufficient reduction to drop on short games *, you just don't see short-handed smaller NL games in LA last for more than about two minutes before they either fill up or break.

~ Rick

* When I worked there, The Bike did reduce the drop more than any club short (Hawaiian Gardens was very close) and took less on no flop ("only" 50 cents - I would have wanted zero). Sadly that has changed since I left.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I also realize that blinds are for ALL hands and that's why as a player (I've never dealt or worked floor), I've always been a big advocate that players should ALWAYS be dealt ALL their hands (like in a tournament). I like the way the Commerce does it.. They deal a player in even if he's not in his seat! If he's not back by the time the action gets to him, his cards are mucked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many clubs in LA have done this, but it always is in time charge games (I think 60/120 and above at Commerce). Since the per hand drop on smaller games is reduced short-handed (although usually not enough), the clubs are correct to only provide the usual single courtesy hand (and only when the player leaving the table asks to be dealt in). Otherwise you could be dealing to several "out" buttons and collecting full drop, something only the drop oblivious wouldn't notice.



[ QUOTE ]
But I'm sure I'm not gonna change the world just because of how I look at things. I really don't see the big deal just dealing a guy another card. I understand wanting to prevent cheating, but this would be a very easy call to use judgement on. Letter of the law Vs. Spirit of the law, I guess is what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see more problems with this now that I've gotten some sleep. First, you would put the player in a situation where he can wait for action before bringing attention to the problem if he has part of a good hand and do the opposite if he has a low card (or cards in stud). As mentioned before, it would also take a lot of time to ascertain player error versus dealer error, and much of this time would be spent in arguments concerning favoritism. This would slow the game down on something that unfortunately comes up quite often.

Regarding "changing the world" (or the small part of the world cardroom rules/procedures inhabit), focus energies on the big problems. IMO right now in LA the big one in NL is a near complete disregard for "one player to a hand". This one can be controlled with greater effort by cardroom staff and will help keep the games better and fair.

Right now I have to assume group participation on many decisions faced by my lone opponent, so I adjust accordingly. But over time more and more players are getting pissed off over this and playing less, and usually these are the moderately live players who potentially could play for years.


~ Rick

[NLSoldier]

Regarding ruling one: I think ive seen this happen at CB and the player who won the pot just gave the BB his money in spite of the ruling.

REgarding ruling two: it used to not be this way, it was pretty recently changed. I love it.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> It is a player's responsability to protect his hand, </font>

He was never dealt a hand to protect... Do you mean to say, it's a player's responsibility to make sure the dealer deals out all the cards to everyone in the proper order?

He obviously protected the one card he was dealt, didn't he?

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ruling is correct. I doubt that any room is going to undo that much action because you didn't get a second card. It is incumbent upon you to speak up. It sucks, but I can't think of a better way to handle it. Can you?

The rule allowing a straddle on the button is new, I think less than a year old. I haven't played three-handed since it went into effect, but I like it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think this gives way too much power to the straddler? I saw this in the small ($5 big blind) NL games at the RIO during the WSOP (it may have been a temporary situation, rules/policies seemed to change from day to day) so I straddled the button every time. I suppose I should love it since I was the only one doing it at my table that day (as an aside I didn't know about it the first couple times I played), but my guess is over time people will figure out that it is almost mandatory.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it gives too much power to the straddler and the straddle is pretty much mandatory. I will take this time to explain MS straddle for those that aren't aware of it. With an MS straddle in pot limit (and now NL games) the player on the button (even at a full table) may straddle forcing the small blind to act first preflop (the action start to the left of the straddle. The actual rule is that anyone at the table may straddle, but the order of preference for straddling is UTG, then counter-clockwise starting with the button (that may have changed, but at least at one point in time UTG had the right to it before the button).

[/ QUOTE ]

While I had heard of the MS Straddle before, the first time I saw it was this year while dealing at the WSOP. The rule they used was the button got first preference. Stranglely several times I had disputes at the table because someone other than the button wanted to straddle and didn't understand why they both couldn't straddle (I have no idea how the action was supposed to go if the UTG and button both straddled)). From my limited experience with this I think its not good for NL games, but it seemed to work out well in PL Omaha games.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> It is a player's responsability to protect his hand, </font>

He was never dealt a hand to protect... Do you mean to say, it's a player's responsibility to make sure the dealer deals out all the cards to everyone in the proper order?

He obviously protected the one card he was dealt, didn't he?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's more to protecting a hand than simply making sure it doesn't get mucked/fouled.

Saying he protected his one card is like saying the night watchman protected the chair he was sleeping in, while the rest of the warehouse was emptied by thieves.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The actual rule is that anyone at the table may straddle, but the order of preference for straddling is UTG, then counter-clockwise starting with the button (that may have changed, but at least at one point in time UTG had the right to it before the button).

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently, the button gets first dibs on it, then it goes counter-clockwise.

An exception is made if a player who missed the blinds wants to post and re-enter the game. He may straddle in lieu of posting SB+BB, and he gets first dibs on the straddle.

[Kevin J]

[ QUOTE ]
There's more to protecting a hand than simply making sure it doesn't get mucked/fouled.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know that... NOW!!! -lol

[ QUOTE ]
Saying he protected his one card is like saying the night watchman protected the chair he was sleeping in, while the rest of the warehouse was emptied by thieves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, I realize this sounds REAL nitty to you, but a hand in hold'em consists of TWO cards. Not ONE. What you should be saying is, "It's a player's responsibility to protect any CARDS he's been dealt". There is a difference. Once a hand has been dealt, I always knew it is a player's responsibility to protect it. I honestly didn't realize (I never thought about it), that it was my responsibility to protect my hand before it's even dealt to me.

But I know it now and I'll stop nitpicking about it.

[SynSid]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, I realize this sounds REAL nitty to you, but a hand in hold'em consists of TWO cards. Not ONE. What you should be saying is, "It's a player's responsibility to protect any CARDS he's been dealt". There is a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of "Protecting your hand" is ensuring that you get dealt it in the first place.