|
|
|
|
#1
11-27-2007, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
[ QUOTE ]
3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue. [/ QUOTE ] I don't like this idea at all. I think that it would just lead to situations like the one described earlier where revealing whether you are okay with the string raise gives away info. Unless you call out angleshooters a game theoretically optimal percentage of the time. 
|
|
#2
11-27-2007, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue. [/ QUOTE ] I don't like this idea at all. I think that it would just lead to situations like the one described earlier where revealing whether you are okay with the string raise gives away info. Unless you call out angleshooters a game theoretically optimal percentage of the time. [/ QUOTE ] This is the most commonly used rule in higher limits (and all of California form what I have observed). It is a tradeoff, you can accept the action or you can reveal the weakness of your hand but save the bet.
|
|
#3
11-29-2007, 11:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue. [/ QUOTE ] I don't like this idea at all. I think that it would just lead to situations like the one described earlier where revealing whether you are okay with the string raise gives away info. Unless you call out angleshooters a game theoretically optimal percentage of the time. [/ QUOTE ] This is the most commonly used rule in higher limits (and all of California form what I have observed). It is a tradeoff, you can accept the action or you can reveal the weakness of your hand but save the bet. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm, okay. I guess it's fair in the sense of everyone is held to the same standard. I still don't like it, but I am a low-stakes player in addition to being kind of a rules nit. Are there ever issues with players abusing the rule somehow?
|
|
#4
11-29-2007, 11:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue. [/ QUOTE ] I don't like this idea at all. I think that it would just lead to situations like the one described earlier where revealing whether you are okay with the string raise gives away info. Unless you call out angleshooters a game theoretically optimal percentage of the time. [/ QUOTE ] This is the most commonly used rule in higher limits (and all of California form what I have observed). It is a tradeoff, you can accept the action or you can reveal the weakness of your hand but save the bet. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm, okay. I guess it's fair in the sense of everyone is held to the same standard. I still don't like it, but I am a low-stakes player in addition to being kind of a rules nit. Are there ever issues with players abusing the rule somehow? [/ QUOTE ] Not that I have seen. There is the potential for someone to string bet to see if their opponent wants to call a string bet, but it comes at the cost of having to pay the extra bet (or even face a reraise) if the player wants to accept the action. What happens in practice if a newbie makes a string bet is everyone lets it in and then someone explains to them after the hand how to bet properly.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
