|
|
#1
10-12-2007, 05:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Dealer vs. Floor over a ruling
Live 25/50 limit holdem.
On the turn, where the big bet is $50, it checks around to the player in last position, who bets all in for $30. The next player to act, the guy in the blind who checked the turn, announces a raise and puts in $80. Everyone else in the hand objects and says he can only complete the bet to $50. The dealer tells them since the bet was more than half, he is allowed to raise. They call the floor, and the floor rules that he can only complete. The dealer then shakes her head vehemently and says in broken English that the bet was more than half and he can make it 80. Then some player says that because the raiser checked initially, he can't make it 80 against an all-in player. Much arguing ensues and it stops the game for a few minutes, until the floor raises his voice to everyone and puts his foot down that the bet has to stand at only a completed $50. Once and for all -- the dealer was right here, not the floor. Yes? This isn't a rule that should vary by cardroom, right? 
|
|
#3
10-12-2007, 05:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dealer vs. Floor over a ruling
I'm not surprised that the floorman didn't know the rules.
I am surprised that $25-50 players don't know it.
|
|
#4
10-12-2007, 05:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dealer vs. Floor over a ruling
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not surprised that the floorman didn't know the rules. I am surprised that $25-50 players don't know it. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps I wrong, but I thought that not long ago a some who deals in a Northeralifornia club posted that there rule was that only a full bet reopened the betting even in a limit game. Perhaps that is the rule in this club?
|
|
#6
10-12-2007, 10:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dealer vs. Floor over a ruling
We had this argument constantly at the cardroom I play and we FINALLY got them to put a house rule that all floor have to abide by:
'A player with less than a full bet may call a bet, but he/she may NOT initiate a bet/raise' Don't know if this is a common rule (Robert's Rule) or if they adapted their own rule. But at least is is now consistant.
|
|
#7
10-12-2007, 10:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dealer vs. Floor over a ruling
In AC the dealer's ruling would have been the correct one.
Less then half the bet and the raise completes to a full bet, more than half the bet a raise is the bet + full bet. In 20/40 $15 or less for all in((whites don't play in this game in AC) the raise is to $40 $20 or more and the raise is $40 + all in amount
|
|
#8
10-12-2007, 11:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dealer vs. Floor over a ruling
Here's how it works generally, he should be able to raise since it's more than half the bet. If the bet were less than half of a big bet he would only be able to call because you can't check and then complete.
|
|
#10
10-12-2007, 12:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dealer vs. Floor over a ruling
[ QUOTE ]
In AC the dealer's ruling would have been the correct one. Less then half the bet and the raise completes to a full bet, more than half the bet a raise is the bet + full bet. In 20/40 $15 or less for all in((whites don't play in this game in AC) the raise is to $40 $20 or more and the raise is $40 + all in amount [/ QUOTE ] I haven't been in AC in years but when i did play this was not how it was done.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
