Re: Thanks for the answers
 

Wasn't trying to start that discussion. I understand the reason for the rule--collusion. But that it opens a gateway. I was just upset that he couldn't explain. Say "you have a lot of chips, I want to learn to play like you" or "I think you are cheating" or "that was an interesting line, what did you have?". lol. I really didn't understand why he wanted it, but I didn't care about the right, just the reason.

Re: Rules and clarifications in AC
 

limit 2-4, side pots, all-ins, nits bitching about pot placement, sounds like a good game. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Rules and clarifications in AC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why any player would care or want to get a rulign on pot placement, but this is a horrible procedure. The main pot shoudl already be in roughly the center fo teh table (the flop in the center to it needs to be somepalce else). TO know move it to some other location on the table would not be a good procedure. Also the burn cards are protected by the main pot so to move this pot is risking exposing the burns. If a dealer has trouble keepign track of side pots he should be removed from the gaming floor and receive additional training until he is able to keep track of side pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything Randy said -- but I was just going to post that my understanding is that as Randy implied the presence of the burn cards identifies the main pot, for whatever reason. Tradition?

[/ QUOTE ]

The burn cards go under the pot because they need to be "protected" that is it needs to be clear that cards were in fact burned. The reason they identify the main pot is they were already under it when it was just "the pot" (before any side pots were created).

Re: Thanks for the answers
 

I wasn't accusing you, KK.... just being a curmudgeon and griping about the way the same topics come up again and again. Sometimes this site feels like Groundhog Day. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Someone who didn't see the prior discussion might find those threads interesting, though. At least I was hoping to forestall someone else from leading conversation in that direction, when I think most of the points to be made already have been.

Re: Thanks for the answers
 

[ QUOTE ]
I had never noticed that I could only complete if the bet was over half.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is because if the bet is at or over half, then it is considered a 'full' bet - and you can raise. (so if the betting round is 8 and someone bets, and is raised all in to 13, the next person makes it 21 instead of 16 or 24.)