Rule question concering a stradlle and blind raise

[Dynasty]

Today, I came across a situation at the Monte Carlo that I have never seen before. A player in my game was straddling and raising his own straddle before any action pre-flop.

Let me give an example. In a 10-20 game, he would be posting $20 as a straddle and putting up an additional $10 ($30 total) and announcing that the $10 was a raise of his straddle. If a player wanted to enter the pot pre-flop, they only had to call $20. The raise became "official" when the action got back to the straddler. That's when the $10 raise kicked in and everybody would have to call $10 more.

I asked the dealer if this was allowed. Specifically, I asked if the raise was irrevocable. The dealer said it was okay and that the straddler could not take back the $10 raise.

Who has encountered this before?

And, yes, I was praying to see AA on one of those hands so that I could limp-4bet. Sadly, it never happened.

[Ed Miller]

Someone did this exact thing in my 4-8 game at the Bellagio. When I asked the dealer, though, he told me that the raise action was only binding if the bet was still out when the action got back around to the straddler. Weird...

[Ulysses]

The beauty of playing on weekends. I've encountered this before a few times.

I think the straddle here is irrelevant to the rules question. This is simply a question of what is the cardroom's rule on out-of-turn action. The ruling I see most often, which I believe is correct, is that the chips have to stay in the pot once there is any further action at the table after the out-of-turn action. However, I've seen some dealers let the out-of-turn actor take back his chips, which I think is terrible.

[Howard Burroughs]

I've encountered it many times over the years. I have not seen it in a while though. I've also seen a straddle (seat 1), a raise in the dark (seat 2) and a re-raise in the dark (seat 3) by three players sitting right next to each other (ala seats 1, 2 & 3). I've seen that more then a few times over the years.

I've also seen in 1-5 stud someone putting out $5 and saying (before the hand is dealt), "I bet five in the dark if I'm the bring in, or I'm raisng it to five when it gets to me". Or words to that effect. There's a regular at the Flamingo (L.V.) that likes to do that too much (or not enough depending on how you look at it). I've even seen it where a lot of players all did it in the same hand. Some rooms don't allow it, some do.




On a related note to strange things at the table.............

Some rooms will allow you to go all in, in a limit game if you are heads-up (I'm talking about two players with a lot of chips BTW)
I'm talking about a situation where you and another player are the only two players left in the hand and a raising war breaks out. The both of you have a lot of chips. Sometimes the floor rules you both can go all in, if that's what the players want to do. It saves time when both players have a lot of chips (or even several racks) in front of them. I won one of the biggest pots I've ever won in this fashion. And it was not me who asked for the floor ruling to go all in BTW. But I had the nuts and was not about to say no when asked if I was willing to go all in.


Most rooms don't allow it. It depends a lot on who the floor person is IMHO. I've seen it ruled both ways at Palace Station (rulings were about a year apart). I was allowed to go all in against another player at the Palms just last month (it was on gravyard, a lot of rooms bend the rule a little on graveyard I.M.E.). Again, it was not me who asked for the ruling. I remember when I was an everyday player at the Regent Las Vegas (they no longer have a poker room BTW), they never would allow two players to go all in, in a limit poker game in this fashion.

What do you guys think of the places that have allowed it? Speeds up the game or violates the spirit of limit poker?



Thanks

H.B.

[Bob T.]

I think the ruling in Majorkong's game is terrible, it is like letting the straddler use the force of the live raise, but then deciding if he really wants to put the money in later. I know, that with most straddlers, this is likely result anyway, but once he makes it explicit, it might change the action. I think that once there is action in this case, and that includes either a folder or a caller, then the straddler's raise should be locked into the pot.
Good Luck,
Play Well,

Bob T.

[Bob T.]

If it saves time, it seems like its OK. I once watched nut flush vs straight flush go all in, and it seemed like it took 15 minutes, especially when you add in the extra time it took for acting.

If you have the nut straight, where you might be chopping, I think it might be OK to offer to go all in, but in any other case with the nuts, it might be best to let your opponent make the offer, as you did.

Good Luck,
Play Well,

Bob T.

[Ulysses]

Some rooms will allow you to go all in, in a limit game if you are heads-up

I've seen people ask for this a few times and seen the answer go both ways. I like places that allow the heads-up players to go all-in for two reasons.

1) When both players have the nuts, it saves time.

2) When one player has the nuts and the other doesn't, it prevents others from influencing the outcome. This would have gained me about two racks a couple of months ago.

I had 5 [img]/forums/images/icons/spade.gif[/img] 8 [img]/forums/images/icons/spade.gif[/img]. Flop comes 4 [img]/forums/images/icons/spade.gif[/img] 6 [img]/forums/images/icons/spade.gif[/img] . A little action. Turn is the beautiful 7 [img]/forums/images/icons/spade.gif[/img] . Some action, my opponent flat-calls to finish action. Blank on the river. It gets heads-up, and my opponent and I go back and forth about 8 bets. He says "can I go all in?" with more than two racks in front of him. Dealer says no and we go another 5 bets or so until someone (not a player) says "What the hell is going on? You can't both have straight flushes?" Of course, my opponent stops, looks at the board, curses, and calls my last raise.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

That loudmouth would have to thank his lucky stars I'm not really a Klingon. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[Hotchile]

A) A player should not be allowed to act out of turn, straddle or not. Being allowed to take the chips back is insane and the floorman who ruled that way should be shipped back to blackjack.

B) Players going all-in against each other. Ok, if both players are known to be "very" experienced. Sad situation if one of the players is a relative newbie and doesn't realize that when faced with an all-in bet that they only have to call the limit of the game. Example: the game is 10-20, player A makes an all-in bet at the river of $300, player B only HAS to call $20. If they don't realize this and ends up mucking the best hand, we are likely to lose a new player to roulette.

Larry

[Fitz]

It's always been my understanding that the straddle was "Live". By that meaning, the straddler had the option just like the big blind. You gotta love punishing people who do that... lol

Good luck,