Straddling before the cards are dealt

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Example: you post your big blind and next player straddles, I would say it is too late to take the blind down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. If I don't want to lose my BB to a straddle, I should have the right to skip the hand and post my missed blinds later.

To be consistent, if a new player posts his blind in the CO and suddenly UTG announces "Live straddle!", do you feel that the new player has to leave his post in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see these as being different. The player posting in the CO does not impact the UTG player's ability to straddle. This isn't a big deal as I have never seen it come up. In your example at some point the chips have to stay in if a new player sits in the CO and posts, then UTG says "straddle" then the cut off says "ok, I'll wait" and UTG responds by taking back their straddle, which causes the CO to post etc. I have never seen a rule address this.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]


I see these as being different. The player posting in the CO does not impact the UTG player's ability to straddle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sitting three seats to the left of the button does not bestow upon a player the God given right to straddle.
If a player can take back his big blind (with no straddle) before the cards are dealt, a straddle should not change anything.

I know. A player who doesn't like losing his big blind to a straddler is just a nit. If you let him take his blind out, there will be an argument and the game will grind to a halt. Less money for the house and the dealer.

[Spiffysean]

Well, technically you DO have the right to do it... Until the cards are being pitched. For instance, if you want to sit out your BB, and then repost/buy the button, you can do that. It seems quite nit-ish, and silly to do, but technically, you could do it. The Straddler would then become the BB, and life would go on, and there would be no straddle, at least from that guy.

Do you have the right to do it? Sure. I'm sure you won't make friends as a result, but if losing that 2 bucks, or that position to one person means that much to you, do it up.

And no... The new player would not have to play his hand if there is a live straddle announced. He can, but he would be aware that there is a live straddle, and that it would be x to go on top of his post if he chooses to do that.

Seriously, does this happen where people get that worked up? I mean, I've seen old ladies get pissed off because I'd raise blind in a 3/6Limit game because they were weak players, and didn't know how to/want to put more money in with bad hands pre-flop.

I'd hate to put you in that group, especially since you are educated enough to be posting here!

[budblown]

IMO the whole issue shouldn't be on when you can pull back your straddle, the issue should be why can't you straddle in some rooms.

[ptartaglio]

Well most cardrooms have a policy that as soon as the first card is dealt, regardless of where the card is dealt a pot cannot be straddled. I think it depends on a situation. I think a policy of the straddle being binding if the shuffle has already started or if the hot deck has been removed from the shuffle machine would be good.

[bav]

All of these comments about straddles being binding if a re-straddle follows sound remarkably like the short debate we had at the table at the Rio that night. Folks don't like the idea that a straddler can renig just 'cause someone restraddles, but they have a hard time coming up with a rule that really fits well and doesn't look terribly different than how the BB is treated and isn't riddled with exceptions.

If I put out a straddle, and then someone spills 32oz of chocolate shake over the table and cards and into the auto shuffler... no, I do not have to stick around and wait 20 minutes while that is cleaned up, nor do I have to move to a new table if they decide moving will be faster than cleaning. If I post a blind or straddle soon as the previous hand is over, and the phone rings, I should get to yank it back and back away from the table and take the call. Or if a dealer is tapped out and I just don't feel like waiting for the rack count and want to hit the head. Or if a fill comes in and the world's slowest chip-counter and stacker is in the box. Or if the habanero enchiladas suddenly decide to come crashing back out at that instant. I just can't come up with a convincing excuse to try to treat a straddle differently than a blind, and by golly you can't commit me play a BB until the cards start coming out.

As for those folks claiming a straddle is action, well, no, I disagree. You can't have action until you have cards. Few places consider the statement "I'm gonna go all-in next hand" binding when the dealer is still shuffling. If that isn't binding, you can't try to apply that to a straddle.

And if you're gonna make a straddle binding, and someone wants to be absolutely sure they aren't going to be bound to it until the cards are moving, they can wait until the cards are cut and the dealer is pulling the first one off to drop a straddle on the table. And that should also cut off any re-straddle attempt unless UTG+2 is rocket-fast. So lotsa special straddle rules really don't fix anything.

And yes, this was a purely academic debate we had at the table at Rio. I know of no place in Vegas that allows re-straddles (though we've gotten away with it a time or two in various venues when the dealer didn't know the rules and didn't call the floor).

[that_pope]

I think it is similar to someone (read fish) calling one bet, then realizing it was raised, and taking their bet back because there was no action behind them (because I am nice and don't act unless the action before me is correct). But a straddle is slightly different because it has to be blind to get the added 'benefit' of acting last, but before any cards are dealt, I would easily allow it to be brought back, because jokingly straddling is a part of my act...

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I just can't come up with a convincing excuse to try to treat a straddle differently than a blind, and by golly you can't commit me play a BB until the cards start coming out.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Here is one: Assuming both the BB and UTG intend on playing the next hand (barring any unforseen circumstances like a spilled milkshake, earthquake or heart attack before the cards are dealt) then the BB has no choice but to post his BB wheras the straddler has a choice, once someone restraddles this should remove the choice of the initial straddler to remove his straddle. This seems only marginally different to me than checking the flop dark when first to act, where I have played this is binding action. Also how is it different than posting the Kill in a kill pot?

Jimbo

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? Here is one: Assuming both the BB and UTG intend on playing the next hand (barring any unforseen circumstances like a spilled milkshake, earthquake or heart attack before the cards are dealt) then the BB has no choice but to post his BB wheras the straddler has a choice, once someone restraddles this should remove the choice of the initial straddler to remove his straddle. This seems only marginally different to me than checking the flop dark when first to act, where I have played this is binding action. Also how is it different than posting the Kill in a kill pot?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahah! You left me an opening with that last comment. The kill blind is a continuation from the previous hand; they are linked. You don't get to walk away while a hand is in progress and trying to walk out on the kill is treated like that. That's more akin to trying to pull back a wager you've already made after the flop because suddenly you want to leave the hand. A blind and straddle are both new, unbound to any previous action, and they're happening between hands when players are free to come and go.

The arguments remain unconvincing. I still keep hearing "I don't like his excuse for pulling back the straddle." OTHER excuses are ok, but "I don't want to be re-straddled" as an excuse is not. That's a pretty weak thing on which to try to craft a rule.

Obviously it isn't worth a lot of heartache over this topic. But it's an entertaining gedankenexperiment.