To speak or not to speak, that is the question

[Feroc]

[ QUOTE ]
After the turn card is dealt, Player A bets $15. Player B moves all-in for $25. Player C calls. The dealer turns back to A, who immediately pushes all-in for around $90. As the dealer turns to C for his action, I speak up and point out that A does not have the option to re-raise there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to ask, but why is it no option for A to re-raise? I never played in a casino, as I couldn't afford it. So I only play online. But when I see it right, A bets, B raises AI, C calls the raise... so why can A only call or fold?!

[redfisher]

[ QUOTE ]
As for whether it was in player C's best interests... It really doesn't matter. There's also player B to be concerned with. Letting player A raise when he didn't actually have that option impacts a third player in the hand. Perhaps B has a monster and he WANTS player C to stay in the hand (but he doesn't know the rule about what kinda raise reopens the wagering to player A). Letting A push here is potentially gonna push C out and impact B's ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bav,

You're crossed up here. It's obviously in B's interest for C to fold. B is AI, C called, A tries to reopen betting. C is protected here, not B. B can only triple up. His equity goes up when C is forced out. Regardless, point taken. In a three way situation, all players' interests should be protected.

My problem with not being the table rules nit when not in the hand is as follows: How can I complain about rules violation ABC when it affects me if I have watched it happen to other players 10 times in the last 3 hours? I have implicitly accepted that what is going on is OK. If I would object to a poker situation if it involved me I try to make it clear that the victim may allow the angle, but I will not tolerate it.

[rakewell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After the turn card is dealt, Player A bets $15. Player B moves all-in for $25. Player C calls. The dealer turns back to A, who immediately pushes all-in for around $90. As the dealer turns to C for his action, I speak up and point out that A does not have the option to re-raise there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to ask, but why is it no option for A to re-raise? I never played in a casino, as I couldn't afford it. So I only play online. But when I see it right, A bets, B raises AI, C calls the raise... so why can A only call or fold?!

[/ QUOTE ]

The standard rule in no-limit cash games is that if an all-in bet is not a full raise, then any player who called the previous bet does not re-gain the option to put in another raise. By "full raise" here, I mean a raise that is at least the size of the previous raise (if there was one), or double the current bet (if there was no previous raise). Here, if the all-in player had had $30 left instead of just $25, and C called that, A would have the option to re-raise, because his $15 got a full, legal raise. As it actually happened, the $25 wasn't really a raise (technically it was a "call plus action"). For A to put in a reraise means that he would, in effect, be raising his own previous bet. If B had raised instead of calling the $25, that, too, would re-open things to A for a re-raise, because then he is not raising his own prior bet.

[Feroc]

Thank you for the information. Don't know if I really like it. But if it's the rule in casinos, then it is the rule in casinos. Never saw it online though...

[slik]

I think if you see something wrong you definitely should speak up. Sometimes I get chastised for this, but I really think it is everyone's duty to speak up when they see something wrong. For example, a little while ago 3 people saw the flop at a casino I frequent. It was checked to the preflop raiser who elected to go allin. The next player to act started to chat with the other player that was to act after him, on whether he was going to fold or not in a subtle way. The dealer did nothing. He repeated the question in a less subtle way, and I immediately interjected before the other player could answer, and the hand concluded fairly. Had I kept my mouth shut, there was a very good chance that the allin player would have gotten screwed. Dealers make mistakes, as do floor people. If you see a mistake that can be corrected/prevented, you should do so -- maintaining justice should not be only the casino's responsibility.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
You're crossed up here. It's obviously in B's interest for C to fold. B is AI, C called, A tries to reopen betting. C is protected here, not B. B can only triple up. His equity goes up when C is forced out.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never much liked learning my ABC's, anyway. That "ellemenoopee" thing always threw me--I had some trouble figuring out what that really long word was referring to. But I digress slightly...

You are correct, I screwed up on the details.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
During the play of a hand, I believe it is a player's responsibility to protect his hand. I also believe it is his responsibility to protect his rights. Many may disagree. I would imagine it's a matter of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I see with this is that the player involved in the hand can not always speak up to protect his rights.

ExampleL years ago I was playing in a small tournament. I raise before the flop and get headsup with a player who is behind me. On the flop I miss but I make a continuation bet. She calls me. The yurn comes and I bet out again. She now makes an extrememly blatant string raise. The dealer says nothing and no other player says a word.

What can I do here? well I can ignore the fact that she strung raised and fold my cards. Or I can bring to the dealers attention that she sring raised. But if I do that I am telling her that I don;t think my hand is any good here and that information may hurt me on the river.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem with not being the table rules nit when not in the hand is as follows: How can I complain about rules violation ABC when it affects me if I have watched it happen to other players 10 times in the last 3 hours? I have implicitly accepted that what is going on is OK. If I would object to a poker situation if it involved me I try to make it clear that the victim may allow the angle, but I will not tolerate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Situation #2 is my boggest pet peeve. I see it commonly when I am dealing and when I speak up about it I get a lot of [censored]. I am constantly told that this is allowed in every casino by every other dealer except me (I don't believe it).

People need to speak up on this problem because too many players think this is acceptable conduct.

The one time I ever got written up was out of an incident that grew out of this situation. A player became abusive to me, the floor did nothing so I abused the player back. Now playuers shouldn;t have to be abused over this either, but since so many players think this play is acceptable someone has to speak out or it will only continue.

[TylerD]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for the information. Don't know if I really like it. But if it's the rule in casinos, then it is the rule in casinos. Never saw it online though...

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty sure this rule applies online as well.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem I see with this is that the player involved in the hand can not always speak up to protect his rights. ... I can ignore the fact that she strung raised and fold my cards. Or I can bring to the dealers attention that she sring raised. But if I do that I am telling her that I don;t think my hand is any good here and that information may hurt me on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really good point.

In your spot, was the string raise an angle or do you think she was just careless? If it was not an angle, it seems reasonable to let it stand (she's not gaining an "unfair" advantage in some sense) but say something after the hand like, "Just so you know, you're really not supposed to do that, I know this wasn't your intention but here's why it's illegal..."

As for the OP, in story 1 I speak up for sure; it's a valuable rules clarification for the future as well. In story 2 there's nothing you can do to make them bet, but after the hand I'd explain in a non-aggressive manner that what they did wasn't really okay.