Protecting your action

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure why people would play in an NL game with a cap.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just silly. If you're in late position, you could go all four betting rounds without an option to raise!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you play in a Limit game that had a cap?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure why people would play in an NL game with a cap.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just silly. If you're in late position, you could go all four betting rounds without an option to raise!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. So what? This is how they're playing it.

Again, not the point of the OPs question.

b

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
"Does she have an obligation to protect her action?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. From the rule book standard in the big clubs in LA (bolding mine):

"Players must act on their hands in turn. Rapping the table in turn constitutes a pass. Acting on a hand out of turn is not binding, but deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated. To eliminate forfeiting the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time.” Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose your right to act. You cannot forfeit your right to act if any player in front of you has not acted, only if you fail to act when it legally becomes your turn. Therefore, if you wait for someone whose turn comes before you, and three or more players act behind you, this still does not hinder your right to act."


[ QUOTE ]
What is the status of her hand after waiting to see the 3 remaining players all act (not too speedily I might add)? There might be a case that she didn't notice.. but does that even matter?

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming she had plenty of time to freeze the action her options will at least be restricted; in this case she couldn't raise but probably would be allowed to call. Had the players behind checked she would not be able to come out betting.

I have seen cases where her hand would be ruled dead (with betting action behind in three spots) but generally the rule isn't interpreted that way (on this point in particular I'd like to see what Randy and others who've worked the floor think).

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure why people would play in an NL game with a cap.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just silly. If you're in late position, you could go all four betting rounds without an option to raise!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you play in a Limit game that had a cap?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not 100% sure where in the above exchange sarcasm took over so I may be looking a bit foolish answering the obvious.

In a limit game a proper cap (i.e., the Ciaffone style rule where you have a cap in limit when there are still three players active when the betting cap is reached) is a good idea because it clearly helps prevent some forms of collusion.

No limit normally doesn't have a cap and it shouldn't under standard raising rules. Players in a multi-way pot can put in a series if min raises freezing the options of someone acting late (who may want to make a huge raise).

But no limit rules could be improved for the modern game. For example, at Hawaiian Gardens the minimum raise is twice the amount you are facing. This means the betting with min raises goes (in units) 1, 2, 4, 8. Under traditional rules a series of min raises would go 1, 2, 3, 4.

Since the raises aren't so "mini" using the HG method perhaps one could make a case for including a cap with this betting structure.

~ Rick

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen cases where her hand would be ruled dead (with betting action behind in three spots)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Wouldn't that open up a nice spot for an angle.

I'd have to think it'd be a pretty extreme case to rule a hand dead. Emphasis on extreme.

b