|
|
#21
11-10-2007, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting B+M situation with verbal bets binding situation and K
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be careful with tossing in a single chip without declaring the amount of the bet. In many of the AC casinos, for example, a single chip bet without a declaration is ruled either the minimum bet, or a call, whichever is applicable. I see this happen all the time when someone tosses in a green or black chip meaning to bet that amount or raise to that amount but the house calls it as the minumum amount. [/ QUOTE ] In a no-limit game in AC this is absolutely not true. If a player in front of you bets, tossing in a single chip consitutes a call (assuming the chip is large enough to cover the bet). Tossing in a single chip without saying anything when you are opening the betting means that you are betting that amount. In the situation described here, tossing in a $500 chip on the river without saying anything would consistute a $500 bet. In regards to giving back some of the money: is he really live enough that you think you will be able to win >$200 from him thorughout the night? I don't care how fishy the guy is, I would take the money as ruled, since there is no guarantee he will continue to play. Or maybe he'll stack off that $200 later, but to someone else. I keep the money, per floors' ruling. 
|
|
#22
11-10-2007, 01:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting B+M situation with verbal bets binding situation and K
[ QUOTE ]
This is not correct. The player that puts in the $500 has an obligation to protect his until the bet has been called. Putting in $100 makes it clear that the other player does not understand the amount of the bet. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with you 100% in this situation but your statement might be a little misleading in other big bet situations... Example; HU on the river, player #1 makes a bet, player #2 verbally declares AI and moves a stack of bills, play #1 declares "call" and moves a stack of chips totaling less than the AI bet. This is a fairly common event in bigger NL games. I think the key here is that the dealer is very clear in announcing the action, otherwise you end up with lots of situations like the OP posted about. What are your thoughts on this type of situation Randy?
|
|
#23
11-10-2007, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting B+M situation with verbal bets binding situation and K
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is not correct. The player that puts in the $500 has an obligation to protect his until the bet has been called. Putting in $100 makes it clear that the other player does not understand the amount of the bet. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with you 100% in this situation but your statement might be a little misleading in other big bet situations... Example; HU on the river, player #1 makes a bet, player #2 verbally declares AI and moves a stack of bills, play #1 declares "call" and moves a stack of chips totaling less than the AI bet. This is a fairly common event in bigger NL games. I think the key here is that the dealer is very clear in announcing the action, otherwise you end up with lots of situations like the OP posted about. What are your thoughts on this type of situation Randy? [/ QUOTE ] If it is a clear that the potential caller does not understand the amount of the bet no call can occur. If the amounts are close then yes it is a call, but if I put out $5k in bills and another player says "call" and puts out a stack of green that isn't a call. O posted it above but here is an example from a good set of rules that is almost exactly what happened in the op: [ QUOTE ] Example: On the end, a player puts a $500 chip into the pot and says softly, “Four hundred.” The opponent puts a $100 chip into the pot and says, “Call.” The bettor immediately shows the hand. The dealer says, “He bet four hundred.” The caller says, “Oh, I thought he bet a hundred.” In this case, the recommended ruling normally is that the bettor had an obligation to not show the hand when the amount put into the pot was obviously short, and the “call” can be retracted. Note that the character of each player can be a factor. (Unfortunately, situations can arise at big-bet poker that are not so clear-cut as this.) [/ QUOTE ] Like the example says not all cases can be clear as this one. Generally for the verbal call to not be binding it needs to be clear from his action that he did not understand the amount of the bet. Also as th at rule mentions you can consider a player's reputation and previous actions.
|
|
#24
11-10-2007, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting B+M situation with verbal bets binding situation and KARMA
When a player obviously and grossly misunderstands an amount, I've always seem him able to change his mind as long as there was no action behind him. For example, I've seen a guy throw in the size of the big blind for a "call" when the pot had been raised to his right. At that point, he can pull his big blind back and muck since it was obvious that he didn't see the raise.
I think you should not have turned your hand over until the floor was called. And he should have been able to take back the $100 and decide to call the $500 or fold BEFORE seeing your cards. The fact that he might have shown his aces is irrelevant as long as you haven't shown the straight yet. Assuming the floor made him call the $400 extra, if he was a "live" player and you felt very confident that you would win more than $400 over the rest of the session with him in the game instead of out of it, then I would give $400 back to him as a gesture of good will. But, $400 is a lot. And if he is "live" then his money will frequently go elsewhere besides back to you. So, I'd probably just keep the full amount and let him leave. FWIW, I think you shouldn't have unusual chip sizes in your stack for just this reason. The floor was right to make you color down, but you probably should have done that yourself prior to the hand in question.
|
|
#25
11-10-2007, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting B+M situation with verbal bets binding situation and K
[ QUOTE ]
In a no-limit game in AC this is absolutely not true. [/ QUOTE ] The problem in AC is that there are absolutely no absolutes. I had a dealer insist last night that I could not come over the top of an all in raise because it was less than a full raise even though the action was on me for the first time in the round. I complained and it took hours for them to find the house rules. The free draw the dealer gave the other players cost me the hand and at the end of the day the card room manager just shrugged and said there was nothing they could do about it because the dealers weren't clear on the rules. Overall, there is very little continuity rules in the AC card rooms it's not very easy to get a floor ruling when they can't even find the rule book. Happens too frequently.
|
|
#26
11-10-2007, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting B+M situation with verbal bets binding situation and K
I actually did end up stacking him later when I had two pair against his tptk...
|
|
#27
11-10-2007, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting B+M situation with verbal bets binding situation and K
[ QUOTE ]
The problem in AC is that there are absolutely no absolutes. [/ QUOTE ] I will agree with you here I suppose. Perhaps this is why there is such a short list of where people like to play in AC.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
