Another Ruling Question

[Siegmund]

Is this something new since NL came into popularity?

To a mostly-limit player, a straddle has a VERY similar effect to raise on one's preflop decision: a big change in the price you pay to see the flop, a moderately small change in the size of the ultimate pot.

If I were in a pedantic mood, I would be inclined to argue that doubling the price of anything is a pretty darn gross change. Yeah, sounds silly in the context of $2 changing to $4. But it's really the relative sizes of the two bets, and their effect on the pot odds, that matters. I wonder if a rule in parallel to the one about whether an all-in raise reopens the action, at more vs less than half the size of the previous raise, might be useful here - a misunderstanding of more than 50% of bet size is gross, of less isn't?

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my cardroom is much more laid back than most. We do allow a player that "didnt notice it was a straddle" to pull back his undercall and muck his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough i can't think of any reason a player would want to limp only if there was no straddle, but fold if there was a straddle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pots with straddles tend to get raised preflop on average twice as often and end up with fewer players seeing the flop. This makes limping in with small pairs and suited connectors much less profitable.

Jimbo

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my cardroom is much more laid back than most. We do allow a player that "didnt notice it was a straddle" to pull back his undercall and muck his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough i can't think of any reason a player would want to limp only if there was no straddle, but fold if there was a straddle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pots with straddles tend to get raised preflop on average twice as often and end up with fewer players seeing the flop. This makes limping in with small pairs and suited connectors much less profitable.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree that should happen, but the weak games I see everyone limps and then the straddle checks most of the time.

[abuljooj]

player cannot raise his original undercall, he can however pull back his $2 and muck his cards.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Pots with straddles tend to get raised preflop on average twice as often and end up with fewer players seeing the flop. This makes limping in with small pairs and suited connectors much less profitable.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree that should happen, but the weak games I see everyone limps and then the straddle checks most of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to move in and follow you to games...

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Pots with straddles tend to get raised preflop on average twice as often and end up with fewer players seeing the flop. This makes limping in with small pairs and suited connectors much less profitable.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree that should happen, but the weak games I see everyone limps and then the straddle checks most of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to move in and follow you to games...

[/ QUOTE ]

Come to vegas, because thats the way $1-$2 NL plays here,

[jively]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my cardroom is much more laid back than most. We do allow a player that "didnt notice it was a straddle" to pull back his undercall and muck his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oddly enough i can't think of any reason a player would want to limp only if there was no straddle, but fold if there was a straddle.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are hands that are good enough for $2 but just not good enough for $4 LDO.

-Tom

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this something new since NL came into popularity?

To a mostly-limit player, a straddle has a VERY similar effect to raise on one's preflop decision: a big change in the price you pay to see the flop, a moderately small change in the size of the ultimate pot.

If I were in a pedantic mood, I would be inclined to argue that doubling the price of anything is a pretty darn gross change. Yeah, sounds silly in the context of $2 changing to $4. But it's really the relative sizes of the two bets, and their effect on the pot odds, that matters. I wonder if a rule in parallel to the one about whether an all-in raise reopens the action, at more vs less than half the size of the previous raise, might be useful here - a misunderstanding of more than 50% of bet size is gross, of less isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubling the price of something is a large change, but there was no raise to overlook. A straddle is another blind that has been posted. In limit it is treated a little differently than NL, but it still isn't a raise. In limit there isn't' really any provision for a gross misunderstanding of the action other than no noticing a raise. You can never claim you didn't realize they bet so much in limit.