more TGC problems

[Punker]

facing an all in bet of 0.30 at .5-1 on the river I call and am raised to $2. Where in the world is this allowed?

[Adde]

Where in the world is this allowed?

At TGC!

[Gaming Club]

How big an issue is this? It's known and obviously it will get fixed, but where should it sit on the priority list?

[Cyndie]

This is open speculation...just an intro, not final figures, but:

If someone goes all in at a table even every fifty hands, and this happens every other time...one in a hundred hands for something this major. It impacts the whole rest of the hand because of an unfair preflop bet. That seems pretty important...even though the actual dollar amount at the time might seem quite small.


Eg. if you have to muck a good hand cause you can't justify a call that isn't good odds (even allowing for the fact that the all in bettor cannot bet any more), and you find out you mucked the winner of a twenty dollar pot...when you had a clear call without the raise!

I would be pretty hot, especially if it were twenty at a low limit table!

However, if you were to publish the strange rule, and people knew it in advance, at least until the "feature" could be changed, perhaps that would be acceptable.

In other words, have a prominent location where future fixes were displayed.

[Punker]

When it happened to me it was a big priority /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Its not a big deal if I know about it in advance since I can tailor my decisions accordingly.

[Mike Haven]

i don't think i fully understand the question either, cyndie, but i think i did at least catch that he is talking about a river bet, not pre-flop

isn't there something about if an all-in bet is over 50% of what it is supposed to be at the relevant limit then it can be raised? if it's below 50% the first caller can only make it up to the right amount, then it can be raised by the next player?

[Cyndie]

I wasn't sure, but I will try to reread it...I know the rules for half a bet allowing a raise by a non checked hand...at least I think I know them...but I read it as a situation where, since the bet was so small, that it was an early bet. Let me peruse...but these types of rulings are quite commonly mis interpreted when sites are not carefully scrutinized by qualified floor people.

I fully admit that I am more aware of where some of the vagaries and fine points show up, than exactly what the rulings are...in other words...when something questionable comes up, I don't try to make the ruling, I call for a floor person.

Yup, you are right...it was on the river...does that mean that it couldn't have happened (with the right bet amounts) if the person went all in preflop?

[Mike Haven]

... but if it's pre-flop you can be raised behind you at any moment because of the BB, can't you? So it's a little irrelevant, isn't it?

[Cyndie]

did you notice any of the other points in the post Mike?

It was basically an idea I proposed for how to answer the question that the gaming club asked about how important this was.

Is the frequency of occurrence, and possible total dollar value of *any* situation not a good place to start looking for the urgency of a bug fix?

Would you try to stay on topic /images/graemlins/wink.gif I know finding a slight error I might make is the high point of your day, but I think the discussion has merit.

[Mike Haven]

did you notice any of the other points in the post?

... in fact, I had difficulty in following your original post. To help me out, you need to write longer posts. Those, I don't try to understand.

It was basically an idea I proposed for how to answer the question that the gaming club asked about how important this was.

Aaaaahh.

I know finding a slight error I might make is the high point of your day

Qui? Moi?

Oh ...

/images/graemlins/wink.gif