|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
[ 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. But let me make a different case for the silence of the would be do-gooder. He may not be doing good. In the 1st story, it could be the case (though rare) that player C was super slowplaying a great hand and hoping that further action would come from player A. [/ QUOTE ] Correct, many will disagree. Like me. This hits on a couple of my favorite concepts: help the newbies, and consenting adults... When you're playing NL1/2 with tourists and such who don't know all the specific rules of the cardroom, or of NL, or of poker in general, they cannot protect themselves. I believe the world of poker will be better off if the newbies go away with the impression "those are standup guys who play by the rules" rather than "those dicks cheated me". I'm trying to fleece the sheep repeatedly, some people are trying to skin 'em. 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. Generally the way I phrase it is something like "if any of you guys still in the hand don't like that, you should ask for the floor--I don't think that's allowed in this situation" (or something like that). I am not going to INSIST the floor get called. Long as the involved players understand they have that option, I'm a-ok with consenting adults agreeing to play by adjusted rules. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
[ 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?! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
[ 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
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...
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
[ 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
[ 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
[ 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
[ 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. |
|
|