Has anyone encountered this strange rule anywhere?

[KiwiMark]

Playing NL Hold'Em live tournament at a pub, freeroll with bar tabs to win for 1st and 2nd. Self deal, pretty amateur, but is an organised national league (New Zealand).

The situation:
SB 500
BB 1000
UTG Calls 1000
Next player all-in for 1100
Next player after that told that he has to put in 2000 to play as the all-in has raised and it needs to be considered equivalent to a valid raise.

I would have expected to be able to fold, call the 1100 or raise to 2100 (or more). But to be told that I must Call 2000 or raise to 3000 or more, WTF?

Now this league claims to base its rules on Robert's Rules, though they have a list of rules on their site, with a few different rules to suit the amateur nature of the players, but they list no rules covering this situation.

I sent an E-Mail asking about the rules in that situation, thinking that the host at that venue was in error, but the national organiser says "no, that is the rule".

I sent an E-Mail to Robert (Bob) Ciaffone (author of Robert's Rules) and described the situation, he said that you are always allowed to just call the all-in and suggested that "someone is nuts".

I sent another E-Mail to the national organiser who claimed to not care what me or my mate Bob said, the rule would not be changed, nothing was wrong with the rule, the rule is commonly used online and at casinos, the organiser has worked in Vegas and seen the rule there, ...

I am thinking: WTF! This is a crazy rule, opposite to what I have read in any version of Robert's Rules, I have never seen this rule on any online poker site, the rule is not even written in this league's own website. I am strongly suspecting that the organiser has actually seen this rule in Limit Hold'em (where over half a bet all-in must be met with a full bet) and that it is not used in NL Hold'em anywhere.

But of course I have not been over to Las Vegas and don't have the experience to back me up, so maybe some of the forum members can shed some light on this, has anyone come across this ruling anywhere? If so then where was it and do they have the rule written down somewhere?

[DesertCat]

Nuts. You can call the 1100 or raise to 2000 minimum, or any higher amount. Or you can fold.

The fact that this rule isn't written down anywhere is your first clue that the organiser is crazy. Is there any other place you can play?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

First off, this guy is nuts and this is the most retarded thing I've heard in a long time.

[ QUOTE ]
I am strongly suspecting that the organiser has actually seen this rule in Limit Hold'em (where over half a bet all-in must be met with a full bet) and that it is not used in NL Hold'em anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Second, this is not how it works in limit hold'em, either. You could either call the actual amount of the bet, or depending on the room, complete the bet or raise (or fold, of course).

[llleisure]

It sounds like maybe they're really badly interpreting the rule about partial raises when someone has acted. Example if I'm UTG+2 and have called then UTG+3 goes allin for less than a full raise and it gets back around to me at that amount, all I can do is call or fold, I cannot raise. Thats the opposite of what they're saying and the situation is different.

When the action hasn't yet reached someone, they will always have the option of call or raise. Thats pretty basic and I've never seen it any other way.

[MrFizzbin]

[ QUOTE ]


I sent another E-Mail to the national organiser who claimed to not care what me or my mate Bob said, the rule would not be changed, nothing was wrong with the rule, the rule is commonly used online and at casinos, the organiser has worked in Vegas and seen the rule there, ...


[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to wave the BS flag. Which online rooms use this rule, Not PokerStars Not Full Tilt, Not Absolute, Not Party Poker (when we in the states were welcome...)

Which Casino in Vegas ? Granted Harrahs has made some strange rulings but event THEY wouldn't frack this one up.

Let me give you a list of casino's in the US casino's where I have played tournaments: Bellagio, Ceasers, Mirage, Harrahs, Orleans, Sahara, Grand in Tunica, Gold Strike, Horseshoe, Binions, Plaza (before their poker room modified their schedule), Gold Nugget, Sams Town. Your national organizer is mistaken with regard to No Limit betting rules.

The only thing I can think of is he's confusing Limit rules with No Limit. In a Limit game if a player cannot make the minimum bet he can go all in for what he has example 10/20 limit holdem, a player on 4th street only has 15.00 in his stack he can go in for 15 but I beleive (and limit junkies correct me if I'm wrong) players after him have to come in for the minimum bet or can raise to 35 ? is that right ?

[KiwiMark]

[ QUOTE ]
Nuts. You can call the 1100 or raise to 2000 minimum, or any higher amount. Or you can fold.

The fact that this rule isn't written down anywhere is your first clue that the organiser is crazy. Is there any other place you can play?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Robert's Rules you could call the 1100 or raise the minimum amount (which would be 1000 when the BB is 1000) so the amount of 2000 that they state is the minimum is an amount that Robert Ciaffone says is too little, my understanding of Robert's Rules is that you could call the 1100 or make a valid raise to 2100 (or more).

After hearing the crazy rule I have put some effort into researching the standard rules and have downloaded the latest version (10) of Robert's Rules off his website (http://www.pokercoach.us/). Not that it makes me an expert or anything. I really don't see the arguements that this organiser has given me as having any credibility unless anyone else can confirm they have seen this particular dopey rule somewhere out there.

[Quadstriker]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing NL Hold'Em live tournament at a pub

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh.

No offense to OP, but man, whenever I hear a story that starts with "So I was playing in this bar tournament..." I know I'm in for 5 minutes of pain.

Sounds like you had your five minutes.

[KiwiMark]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing NL Hold'Em live tournament at a pub

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh.

No offense to OP, but man, whenever I hear a story that starts with "So I was playing in this bar tournament..." I know I'm in for 5 minutes of pain.

Sounds like you had your five minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if you find the idea so repulsive. But unfortunately there are limited options in this country for Poker playing and the pub poker is a cheap one where you get to go out and meet people in a friendly social setting.

I have been enjoying playing at the pubs and even though I only win a $50 for first place it is still fun and a valuable learning experience. I am only an amateur and don't want to risk too much money playing online until I have more experience and a better chance of breaking even or even finishing ahead.

I only started playing at the start of the year, I have read many books (Sklansky, Harrington, Cloutier, Greenstein, Brunson) but need to play a bit to try putting the theory into practise.

I have also found the online freeroll tournaments much worse than the pub tournaments as far as crazy play goes. Most of the pub players at least try to play well.

There is only one casino in this city and their rake is a little hefty for my liking.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if you find the idea so repulsive. But unfortunately there are limited options in this country for Poker playing and the pub poker is a cheap one where you get to go out and meet people in a friendly social setting.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not that it's "repulsive", exactly, but it's just always going to be VERY VERY amateurish. Particularly in a place that has so few real poker options--the natives just don't really know how it's supposed to be done.

I played a couple dozen bar poker events over the eons and you really just have to understand you're getting what you pay for. It's free and it's supposed to be fun, so you just put up with whatever.

One favorite: New player comes in and it's declared "big blind moves to the big stack". uhhhh...what??? "That's the fair way to do it...anytime a new player comes to the table the button moves so the big stack at the table is the big blind."

I almost got punched out by the "tourney director" at one of these once. This tourney has like 5 tables going and the TD is running back and forth like a headless chicken trying to micromanage everything. We end up with a 4-way all-in at our table, I've explained how side pots work and set things up and we start to finish the deal and the TD charges up and says "STOP! STOP RIGHT NOW! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" It's explained and he Just Doesn't Get It. I tell him "don't worry about it, we all understand" and he yells at me "NOBODY is doing ANYTHING until I understand what's going on, UNDERSTAND?" Yumpin' yeeminy. I let out a long, loud sigh, and oh dear, that seriously offended him and he starts in on me about my attitude problem. So the TD basically destroys the side pots, pushes all the chips back to the original players, and demands we replay all of the action for him. He then starts to set up the side pots and he's VERY VERY bad at it (he can't do math...he has to do it mechanically so he has to take exactly 225 from each stack to make one pot, another 175 to make another, so he's making change over and over and over). I let out an "oh gawd" and that's when I thought I was gonna get laid out. He gets right in my face with a "WHAT DID YOU SAY TO ME?! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY TO ME?"

That was enough. It wasn't worth the price I paid to put up with that crap. And I informed the bar owner on the way out that he REALLY needed to find someone else to run his poker games.

I ain't done much bar poker since.

[ellenwheels]

Ok, as far as I can tell the only situation even remotely similiar to this is in limit poker. If the Big Blind has less than the full Big Blind amount, he is all in. The rest of the players, if they want to call, must still call the full blind amount, not the amount the Big Blind has put in.