A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling - Page 14

Al_Capone_Junior · #**131** 10-25-2007, 04:19 AM

I hate the ruling and the rule, tho I've asked around and just about everyone seems to think this is the way it should be. I had a similar situation a while back. Player bet, opponent said raise, player said call before the amount was stated. I hate it because it gives the bettor/raiser a free chance to shoot an angle. This aint football, and it's not the same as defensive offsides where the offense gets a free play. This is a tricky situation but offering free range betting when a player knows his opponent will be forced to call is a bad solution.

chesspain · #**132** 10-25-2007, 08:30 AM

After reading nearly all of the replies so far, I think that the fairest solution is to allow the interrupted bettor to bet what he wants, and then give the premature caller the option to either:

1) Call the bet.
2) Fold his hand while calling the amount of money already placed forward by the bettor.

This would seem to protect the bettor to some degree (e.g. he gets some money from the caller risk-free), while punishing the bettor if he gets overly greedy (e.g. he gets no more than the minimum he has put out even if the caller might have called a reasonably sized bet rather than be faced with an exorbitant bet).

Woolygimp · #**133** 10-25-2007, 08:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
After reading nearly all of the replies so far, I think that the fairest solution is to allow the interrupted bettor to bet what he wants, and then give the premature caller the option to either:

1) Call the bet.
2) Fold his hand while calling the amount of money already placed forward by the bettor.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are overlooking the most important part. What if I'm bluffing, and the guy prematurely calls. Can I take my entire bet back, even the amount that has been cut down?

According to your reasoning, I should be able to which is wrong.
The guy can can interrupt my betting, and get a cheap showdown because he only has to call what has been cut. Obviously I won't throw more money out there if I'm the only bluffing so it's win/win for the guy calling out of turn.

This has happened to me, both ways. Once when I was bluffing, and once when I wasn't. When I was bluffing, I left the chips I cut out and folded. The SAME person did it to me again a couple weeks later, and I said all in and the floor ruled that he had to call.

THAT is why this rule is in place. IMO, it's fine...dumbasses should learn to play in turn.

chesspain · #**134** 10-25-2007, 08:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After reading nearly all of the replies so far, I think that the fairest solution is to allow the interrupted bettor to bet what he wants, and then give the premature caller the option to either:

1) Call the bet.
2) Fold his hand while calling the amount of money already placed forward by the bettor.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are overlooking the most important part. What if I'm bluffing, and the guy prematurely calls. Can I take my entire bet back, even the amount that has been cut down?

According to your reasoning, I should be able to.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bettor should always be forced to bet the higher of either the minimum amount or the amount that he has already placed ahead with a forward motion.

Woolygimp · #**135** 10-25-2007, 08:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After reading nearly all of the replies so far, I think that the fairest solution is to allow the interrupted bettor to bet what he wants, and then give the premature caller the option to either:

1) Call the bet.
2) Fold his hand while calling the amount of money already placed forward by the bettor.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are overlooking the most important part. What if I'm bluffing, and the guy prematurely calls. Can I take my entire bet back, even the amount that has been cut down?

According to your reasoning, I should be able to.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bettor should always be forced to bet the higher of either the minimum amount or the amount that he has already placed ahead with a forward motion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and that's why your reasoning sucks. He calls out of turn, and whatever I bet stays in the pot. Now he gets the option to fold if I add more? Meaning cheap showdown for him if I'm bluffing.

That's stupid. I edited the post above this one, so please re-read it and give me your opinion.

chesspain · #**136** 10-25-2007, 09:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[
You guys are overlooking the most important part. What if I'm bluffing, and the guy prematurely calls. Can I take my entire bet back, even the amount that has been cut down?

According to your reasoning, I should be able to which is wrong.
The guy can can interrupt my betting, and get a cheap showdown because he only has to call what has been cut. Obviously I won't throw more money out there if I'm the only bluffing so it's win/win for the guy calling out of turn.

This has happened to me, both ways. Once when I was bluffing, and once when I wasn't. When I was bluffing, I left the chips I cut out and folded. The SAME person did it to me again a couple weeks later, and I said all in and the floor ruled that he had to call.

THAT is why this rule is in place. IMO, it's fine...dumbasses should learn to play in turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

If floors would act according to my rules, the bettor could increase his bet to the max, and try to force out someone attempting to angle a thin value call. This would also protect an inadvertant caller from being forced to call an exorbitant bet.

Woolygimp · #**137** 10-25-2007, 09:09 AM

Obviously you don't play NL. Your solution is ineffective, and creates more gaps than it fills.

When someone calls out of turn, it's not as easy as 'just go all-in, and he'll fold'. According to your 'rule', I'd be calling prematurely the <u>majority</u> of rivers that I am bet into. And there's no sarcasm there, there's very little downside to it and this would be one of the best angles ever.

$25 in the pot, out of a $500 bet.

'I call'

Ok sir, you can fold and leave your $25, or you can bet more and the gentlemen that called out of turn gets the option to fold if you add more.

chesspain · #**138** 10-25-2007, 09:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He calls out of turn, and whatever I bet stays in the pot. Now he gets the option to fold if I add more? Meaning cheap showdown for him if I'm bluffing.

That's stupid. I edited the post above this one, so please re-read it and give me your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only a cheap showdown if you don't want to increase the size of your bluff-bet.

Woolygimp · #**139** 10-25-2007, 09:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He calls out of turn, and whatever I bet stays in the pot. Now he gets the option to fold if I add more? Meaning cheap showdown for him if I'm bluffing.

That's stupid. I edited the post above this one, so please re-read it and give me your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only a cheap showdown if you don't want to increase the size of your bluff-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't play no-limit. I know you don't. You can't.

A NL player would recognize the flaws in this statement, and know that there are equity downsides to it. If I'm bluffing, I can't just keep throwing money in the pot because in a LOT of situations it is VERY unprofitable.

For instance, I bluff into a calling station to fold him off of bottom pair/high-card. He calls me prematurely, and I know he could have anything from middle pair to top pair, or even two pair, small flushes, and various other hands. His range is HUGE, and I can't just throw money out there to try and push him off of it because I'm liable to get called (this is NL and in a lot of situations you don't raise the river with what you would in limit). The thing is people catch on and start doing this crap with tons of hands they want to see a showdown with, and it just makes my decision on the river that much more difficult.

In NL people value bet stronger hands generally, and bluff more. I know your intelligent enough to see what I'm getting at here.

chesspain · #**140** 10-25-2007, 09:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously you don't play NL. Your solution is ineffective, and creates more gaps than it fills.

When someone calls out of turn, it's not as easy as 'just go all-in, and he'll fold'. According to your 'rule', I'd be calling prematurely the <u>majority</u> of rivers that I am bet into. And there's no sarcasm there, there's very little downside to it and this would be one of the best angles ever.

$25 in the pot, out of a $500 bet.

'I call'

Ok sir, you can fold and leave your $25, or you can bet more and the gentlemen that called out of turn gets the option to fold if you add more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, if bettors simply placed their chips forward in a continuous motion or even more simply just stated an amount, none of this Hollywood crap would happen.