The dealer said I couldn't do it

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

Because of the state mandated bet limit.
The maximum you can bet or raise at any given time is $150 maximum. You can go all in(heads-up), but in $150 increments, you cant just push if the players agree. That is just the rule in Arizona.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play at the largest poker room in Arizona. I've been told several times by dealers and the floor that at any time two headsup players can agree to go all-in, to save the time of raising/reraising/ad infinitum.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]


Next, we have the "I'm a high-roller high limit poker player, therefore I can do anything I want whenever the hell I want" attitude. Don't forget to be extra rude to even the friendliest, most competent dealers, that way they'll be sure to tell the rio to screw off next year, leaving you with newbie schmucks who learned all they'll ever know from the wpt and espn, just like the two of you did.
...


But until then, I remain ever vigilant, ready to kick 'em all in the nuts first, and sort 'em out later.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I am never rude to dealers, and I don't believe I was in this hand. I may have been rude to the rest of the table, but this was the rare instance where it was warranted. And I'm not delaying the game for a $140 pot, I merely asked a question and if he had not responded affirmatively I would have mucked to keep the game moving.

And several floor people (including RR) have indicated that when you are headsup, limits can be waved with both players consent. I may deserve a kick in the nuts, but then also do the people who told me this.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This time, I decide to try the other strategy. I remove my chip from my cards and make a show of being about to fold, and tell Senor Gold the most I can call is $10. He immediately pulls back $15 of his bet, and I call.

The table erupts. "Can he do that?" "He can't do that!". They all look to the dealer, who says, "I don't think you can do that". I tell the dealer confidently "We are headsup, we can do what we want, and (waving at the table) it's none of their business". Jesus Gold tells the dealer just to finish dealing the hand, the dealer shrugs and produces a non king completing a flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

If i was dealing, the bets stays.
If the floor was called it stays.
It is irrelevant that you are heads up, the rules don't change based on the number of players. A bet is a bet, its not a start to a negotiation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume from your reply that you are a dealer. I won't ask where you deal because it is bad manners to out a dealer in this forum but I would like to know what market you are in.

It sounds like a relatively new market or somewhere that has restrictive laws because places that are serious about poker, usually let heads up players do whatever they want. This refers to higher limit games and usually doesn't apply to $2-4 or 3-6 limit holdem games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arizona.
That fact that i deal is not a secret.
You are correct in that there are restrictions on what can and cant be done in this market. Those restrictions are (for the most part) generally applied to ALL games, and are not limit specific. To this i would suggest that knowing the rules within your "market"( as a player) is paramount , not what happens elsewhere. Just because it is different does not make it incorrect.

You state that places that are "serious about poker" allow "high limit" to "do whatever they want" when heads up.
Define high limit as something other that "$2-4 or 3-6"
What about a fixed limit game say at 75/150...would you allow a river bet in that game to be reduced if the players saw fit?

Would you consider a 5-150 game a "high limit" game (that was the limit of the game in the OP) Remember, this is not a NL game it is in fact a "structured"( $150 cap bet with 3 raises), limit game. Does that change anything?

What is the cutoff limit to allow that players to change the betting?



High Limit is meant to be read as High for the market under discussion. The actual limit isn't important, what is important is how the limit relates to your market and the player's level of experience.



Why draw the line at high limit? why not let the "low" limit players pull back partial bets? Are they not "serious" enough players?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that lower limit players are less experienced and may need the protection that strict adhereance to the rules provide. i am pretty much old school on this one and wouldn't have any problem with players at any limit raising the stakes or waving the table stakes rle when headsup but I understand why the floor might not want to let low limit players open up a can of worms because the floor will have to sort out the mess.

Higher limit players should be more experienced and better able to judge the risk.

[EWillers]

I'm really amazed at some of the opinions on this issue.

It seems that many who know quite a bit take that attitude that if 1) it doesn't prejudice other players (i.e. it was head-up at the start of the betting round) and 2) it doesn't slow down the game too much; then players can do what they want.

I must ask though, is there a limit (beyond the above mentioned) to what these two players can do? Could they agree to only have 4 board cards? Could they play the rest of the hand as a modified stud hand? Could they make it hi-lo? Is there any limit as long as they don't slow the game down?

I'm of the opinion that the rules pretty much exist and once people are head-up, they don't magically go away. Perhaps I'm a nit on this though.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I must ask though, is there a limit (beyond the above mentioned) to what these two players can do? Could they agree to only have 4 board cards? Could they play the rest of the hand as a modified stud hand? Could they make it hi-lo?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why not.

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I must ask though, is there a limit (beyond the above mentioned) to what these two players can do? Could they agree to only have 4 board cards? Could they play the rest of the hand as a modified stud hand? Could they make it hi-lo?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if they bet big to get everyone else out, then agree to take bets back and check it down? Wouldn't be a great collusion strategy, but I feel that it's still collusion (the typical between friends kind).

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to assume you agree to a "regulation" exception. Like in Vegas, I hear the gaming commission is pretty strict on placards and the like.

But putting that aside, what about enforcement? Should the dealer (or the floor) be required to be an enforcing party in this uncharted territory?

Player A and B agree to some wild ass modification in the middle of a hand. As the dealer is doing what he thinks he is supposed to, Player A and B realise they were agreeing to do different things (there was no meeting of the minds). The floor is called. At this point should the floor revert back to the rules of the game? Should he try to discern just what the heck the players were trying to agree to?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I must ask though, is there a limit (beyond the above mentioned) to what these two players can do? Could they agree to only have 4 board cards? Could they play the rest of the hand as a modified stud hand? Could they make it hi-lo?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if they bet big to get everyone else out, then agree to take bets back and check it down? Wouldn't be a great collusion strategy, but I feel that's still collusion (the typical between friends kind).

[/ QUOTE ]

In a case like this I would allow the other players at the table to object on the basis that it is collusive. I think you missed the part (it may not have been stated clearly) that the other players can't be harmed. If this were a game with a max buy-in I would not allow a player to pull money out of his pocket to win money another player has on the table heads up.

[soulvamp]

Can someone please show me where it is written that the rules go out the window when a hand is heads-up? I have never heard of that, have never read it anywhere, and the guy can't pull back part of his bet.

[psandman]

Interestingly enough the people who don't think the players should be allowed to do this only have one reason thats is because its the rule.

The point is it makes no difference to anyone if they agree to do this so other than a nit screaming but its the rule who would be objecting?