NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

This situation comes from a 5/10 blind fixed buy-in no limit.

Action up to the river was unimportant.

On the river Player A takes a stack of twenty or so $5 chips held inside the palm of his hand and reaches well forward of his cards to place a bet. He clearly is in the process of cutting off several stacks of five chips. Just as he finishes cutting off the second stack of five, Player B says “call”. Note in these smaller fixed-buy games it’s common for players to place small bets (any that can be held in ones hand) in this fashion. The more proper manner of cutting off stacks behind ones cards and then pushing forward or placing them into the pot in one motion is considered “too nitty” by most of the player base [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Just as Player B says “call”, Player A stops cutting off his bet leaving two stacks of five chips ($50 total). It was apparent Player A was betting a weak hand of some sort and didn’t want to commit the amount he planned (probably the $100 or so held in his hand) when he was “sure” to be called.

At this point there is a brief dispute regarding how many chips were cut off but it is quickly settled at ten chips ($50). Action is now on Player B. Instead of calling, he now pushes all-in (about $300 more). It turns out he had a strong hand but not the immortal nuts.

Initially Player A, the dealer and most of the table say “you can’t do that – you already called” or something similar. Player B immediately indicates that his verbal action was “out of turn and not binding” and his all-in raise should stand.

Naturally the floor was called to the table. What’s the proper decision?

~ Rick

PS Player B was "very curious" regarding the proper ruling so I will email him a link to this thread. I'll be back with comments, results and a brief discussion of a similar hand from a WPT final table (the Shoten-Francisco hand) very late tonight.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

Action out of turn MAY be binding.

One of tow things is true, player B was shooting and angle or he thought player A was done betting and he was in turn.

If he thought player A was in turn the actions stands as a call. This most likely isn't the case, so we should look at what to do with an angle shooter.

When someone intentionally cats out of turn (shoots an angle) we should interpret the rules in the way that is least favorable to him. In this case since he stated "call" and action out of turn MAY be binding the floor should rule that the call stands. Note: this principle only applies if there was no intervening aggressive action.

As far as how plyaer A was betting. In NL there is an understanding that a player might have to return to his stack for more chips. THe general rule is his bet must be made in a continuous motion as opposed ot the limit rule that his bet must be made in a single motion, so plalyers at NL have an obligation to wait until the player in front of them is done betting.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
Action out of turn MAY be binding.

One of tow things is true, player B was shooting and angle or he thought player A was done betting and he was in turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify things, it was very clear to all that Player B knew that Player A had not yet completed his bet. He stated as much when the floor came to the table.

~ Rick

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Action out of turn MAY be binding.

One of tow things is true, player B was shooting and angle or he thought player A was done betting and he was in turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify things, it was very clear to all that Player B knew that Player A had not yet completed his bet. He stated as much when the floor came to the table.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a firm believer that angle shooting has no place in poker so he definitely should not be allowed to raise.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

When people start shooting angles, I think the best thing to do is to instantly get right to the letter of the rules and begin enforcing it. Also, I am assuming this is a heads-up affair.

If the house rule is that chips that cross one's cards have been wagered (e.g. if I bring 10 chips in front of my cards in my hand, I must bet all 10), then Player A's bet is however many chips he has in his hand. Player B announced call when this bet was made (doesn't matter that the chips hadn't been cut... they'd crossed "the line"), so Player B must call and cannot raise.

If the House rule is that a bet is made when chips hit the felt in front of one's cards, then the bet is $50 plus however much Player A wants to wager from the remaining chips in his hand. If Player A started with 20 $5 chips in his hand, he can bet up to $100 in all... it is his action and he doesn't have to stop making his bet/putting chips on the felt just because Player B said something. So however much Player A bets, Player B must call. Player B may not raise and he may not fold. To hold Player B to any other standard would not only encourage but reward players acting out of turn. In big bet poker, acting out of turn can have a massive impact on how betting unfolds, as we see in your example. In a limit game, among casual players, Player B might be able to raise since the increment is only 1BB and it is possible the out of turn declaration was an honest mistake. Nonetheless, this is big bet poker, and Player A's action must be protected.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

Ok so im kinda confused on the whole in one motion thing. I know that in limit, you must make one forward motion with all the chips to raise someone, or verbally declare a raise.

Now in no limit there is some dispute over this correct? I can see if someone says raise, and then goes back and forth to the stack to get the right amount, but if someone doesnt say anything and puts X amount of chips out, they would only be able to raise or bet whatever was in their hand or can they come back for more at this point.... mind you with no verbal decleration.

On a second note: in Lauhglin a few weeks ago, playing at the River Palms. They had a "house" rule there, that said whatever was in your hand when you crossed the line (their tables had a yellow betting line) was the amount you bet, so if in this case, the guy had $150 or more in his hand, and moved accross the line, then he would have to bet that much, didnt matter what he stacked out or what not.

Might be an angle shot, could be he got excited with the strength of his hand.....either way the guy was in the process of indicating a bet, guy said call. If he was next to act then that call should be binding regardless if the guy bet 50 or 500.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the house rule is that chips that cross one's cards have been wagered (e.g. if I bring 10 chips in front of my cards in my hand, I must bet all 10), then Player A's bet is however many chips he has in his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having this rule in a NL game is a very poor game structure. IN a case like this the player puts soime chips out and returns the rest to his stack. How would you suggest we determine how many were in his hand?

Normally in NL you can return for your stack for more chips; however, with the rapid growth of NL poker there are a lot of people both playing and working in poker rooms that are unfamiliar NL rules and procedures.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Action out of turn MAY be binding.

One of tow things is true, player B was shooting and angle or he thought player A was done betting and he was in turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify things, it was very clear to all that Player B knew that Player A had not yet completed his bet. He stated as much when the floor came to the table.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in that case I agree that Player B deserves the least favorable interpretation of the rule. Again, I don't know what the house rule is on what constitutes a legal bet and what constitutes a string bet, but the fact that Player B knew A wasn't done betting may mean the floor allows A to bet as much as he wants (as much as all in and as little as the $50 already on the felt) and make B call that amount.

In any event, there is no way Player A gets out of having bet the $50. He tabled it before anything out of the ordinary happened. Since Player B has (as far as we know in this thread) not shot this particular angle before, we cannot kill his hand solely on the basis of an angle shot. Player B does get a warning that next time his hand is dead and his stack may be forefeited at the Floor's discretion.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

As an aside I'm still trying to send a link to this thread to Player B so he can make corrections in the facts or state his case since the decision was widely discussed later by the players and several of the casino staff. So far I can't read the the last letter of the address he gave me so it's already bounced twice. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the house rule is that chips that cross one's cards have been wagered (e.g. if I bring 10 chips in front of my cards in my hand, I must bet all 10), then Player A's bet is however many chips he has in his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having this rule in a NL game is a very poor game structure. IN a case like this the player puts soime chips out and returns the rest to his stack. How would you suggest we determine how many were in his hand?

Normally in NL you can return for your stack for more chips; however, with the rapid growth of NL poker there are a lot of people both playing and working in poker rooms that are unfamiliar NL rules and procedures.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not advocating for the rule you quoted, and I agree it is problematic for deeper stacked NL games. I simply stated that IF it is the rule in effect (and I have often seen that exact rule enforced), then that is the way the ruling should go. Point being is that even if the rules suck, they must be enforced.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the house rule is that chips that cross one's cards have been wagered (e.g. if I bring 10 chips in front of my cards in my hand, I must bet all 10), then Player A's bet is however many chips he has in his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having this rule in a NL game is a very poor game structure. IN a case like this the player puts soime chips out and returns the rest to his stack. How would you suggest we determine how many were in his hand?

Normally in NL you can return for your stack for more chips; however, with the rapid growth of NL poker there are a lot of people both playing and working in poker rooms that are unfamiliar NL rules and procedures.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not advocating for the rule you quoted, and I agree it is problematic for deeper stacked NL games. I simply stated that IF it is the rule in effect (and I have often seen that exact rule enforced), then that is the way the ruling should go. Point being is that even if the rules suck, they must be enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know as of spring 2002 the NL rules in most (or all) of LA county were the standard return to your stack as many times as you like in NL (I knew this and won a bet with an inexperienced floorman at the club I worked in). The problem even places that have the traditional NL rules might not know what the rules are because until jsut a coupel years ago NL was very rare and the staff becasme familiar with limit rules.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
When people start shooting angles, I think the best thing to do is to instantly get right to the letter of the rules and begin enforcing it. Also, I am assuming this is a heads-up affair.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was head up.


[ QUOTE ]
If the house rule is that chips that cross one's cards have been wagered (e.g. if I bring 10 chips in front of my cards in my hand, I must bet all 10), then Player A's bet is however many chips he has in his hand. Player B announced call when this bet was made (doesn't matter that the chips hadn't been cut... they'd crossed "the line"), so Player B must call and cannot raise.

If the House rule is that a bet is made when chips hit the felt in front of one's cards, then the bet is $50 plus however much Player A wants to wager from the remaining chips in his hand. If Player A started with 20 $5 chips in his hand, he can bet up to $100 in all... it is his action and he doesn't have to stop making his bet/putting chips on the felt just because Player B said something. So however much Player A bets, Player B must call. Player B may not raise and he may not fold. To hold Player B to any other standard would not only encourage but reward players acting out of turn. In big bet poker, acting out of turn can have a massive impact on how betting unfolds, as we see in your example. In a limit game, among casual players, Player B might be able to raise since the increment is only 1BB and it is possible the out of turn declaration was an honest mistake. Nonetheless, this is big bet poker, and Player A's action must be protected.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "house rule" (more or less) for NL is a bet or raise isn't a bet/raise until it's released into the pot or in the case of several stacks the player's hands come to rest after pushing them in in rhythm. Of course with inexperienced players (i.e., most of the player base these days) we see the type of betting described in my lead post and many players calling or raising before players release. It does cause problems (which I hope to address later - I'm on the way out).

~ Rick

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok so im kinda confused on the whole in one motion thing. I know that in limit, you must make one forward motion with all the chips to raise someone, or verbally declare a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

My observation is that much of the player base is confused. In the past NL used to be played by experienced players. That isn't true today and IMHO the rules need a bit of a tuneup. I'll try to get back on this later.

~ Rick

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

If you allow his "call" to be ignored and let him raise, you would have to let another player say "call" in a similar situation and then muck without calling (say if the bettor continued and put a huge bet in).
If the second situation is not tolerable, then you cannot allow him to rescind his "call" and raise instead.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

Player B acted out of turn and that affected on player A. Player B shouldnt be rewarded for this(maybe punished by Al[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]). Call stands. End of action. Showdown.

In big bet poker it is very important to make sure what kind of bet/raise your opponent is making before acting. Trying to act too quickly will bring you nothing but trouble.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

The ruling should be a call and it's not even close Rick.

Lawrence

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

As usual, I agree w/ Randy's ruling and reasoning here.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

I think that player B's stating "Call" was not out of turn, being that "there [was] a brief dispute regarding how many chips were cut off." I'm assuming the dispute was over how many chips Player A had released when player B stated "call." Therefore, Player A's action ended when Player B said call, thus I would rule that the call stands. Action ended when player A stopped cutting chips, which is also when Player B said call.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that player B's stating "Call" was not out of turn, being that "there [was] a brief dispute regarding how many chips were cut off." I'm assuming the dispute was over how many chips Player A had released when player B stated "call." Therefore, Player A's action ended when Player B said call, thus I would rule that the call stands. Action ended when player A stopped cutting chips, which is also when Player B said call.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can not end somebody elses action by stating call. There for your reasoning is a bit strange. You came up with the right ruling thou.

The floor\'s decision.....
 

.....nailed it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The Floorman first listened to the dealer then Player B who made it very clear that he knew he acted out of turn when he said "call". Player B then indicated that since his action was out of turn he could raise all-in since "verbal action out of turn is not binding".

At this point there was a little confusion as to how much had to be left in the pot by Player A. Player A wanted to retrieve all but the $10 minimum bet. After conferring with other players the Floorman ruled that $50 hat been placed in the pot at the time Player A stopped cutting chips. So he ruled that Player A's bet of $50 stood.

The Floor then ruled that deliberately acting out of turn was not proper and that Player B could only call, this being in the best interest of the game. Player B had an under-full and won the pot. Most of us thought this was a good decision.

As the game resumed Player B took an "out" button and went to the Lead Floor, the Shift Manager, the Poker Manager, and at least one well-known top section player to plead his case. When he finally returned to the table and continued to debate it, I told him I'd write up the incident and post it on the Internet for expert analysis. He gave me his email so I could send him a link but unfortunately I can't decode the last two characters in the main body of the address (three emails bounced so far [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] ) so we won't get his input.

The actual rulebook isn't quite as clear on this as I thought (I have an electronic copy on my hard drive). I couldn't find a passage that says "verbal action out of turn MAY be binding" as Randy noted but there is a section that states the following:

"13. A verbal statement denotes your action and is binding. If, when it is your turn, you verbally declare a fold, check, bet, call, or raise, you are forced to take that action.

14. Players must act on their hands in turn. Rapping the table in turn constitutes a pass. Acting on a hand out of turn is not binding, but deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated."

I think this is sufficient to make the proper ruling.

~ Rick


PS Note that this situation is somewhat similar to a heads up hand between Charlie (Charles?) Shoten and Noli Francisco at a WPT final table a few years back and discussed in detail somewhere in the nearly impossible to search archives of this forum.

Here's a quick recap from my failing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] memory: Shoten bet, Noli said “raise” and was stacking off behind his cards using the normal procedure. Shoten said “call” before Noli’s raise was pushed forward. Since Noli was bluff raising, he asked if he could raise the minimum (this was allowed). Shoten’s call stood and Shoten won the pot.

Some people wondered had Noli pushed his entire stack (had he had a big hand) would Shoten’s verbal out of turn call have to stand (I would think not). Others wondered if Shoten could reraise or fold had Noli pushed in the planned raise (I would think so, but it bothers me a little when used against inexperienced players).

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
The ruling should be a call and it's not even close Rick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you think I'd disagree? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

Randy, I believe the ruling was correct as well. I'm glad the angle shooter got what he deserved. Although he could have used a nice swift kick in the nuts by Capone. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

This is where I find Cali vs Vegas much different...

[ QUOTE ]
Normally in NL you can return for your stack for more chips;

[/ QUOTE ]

In Vegas rooms, I'm not aware of one that will allow this. You either have to state the amount or more all the chips out in on shot. No returning to the stack as that was causing angle shots between bettor and possible callers. I dont need to go into that much, I'm sure most of you can figure that part out.

On a side note, I had something similar happen to me at MGM.
Story: 1/2 NL with a betting line. Rule had just been changed to whatever you cut out is a bet, not whatever is in your hand is a bet, over the line. Well, I had top 2 pair and was about to bet 50, so being the dealer I am, I took a stack out, started to cut and had dropped 25 (5 chips) and the other guy shouts CALL!! So i take my hand out and he tries to tell the dealer that now everything in my hand was a bet. The dealer stated the rule and it was an obvious angle shot as he just hit trips and was a giant tell that he coulnd't wait for me to get that entire hundred over the line. I almost called Al to come kick him in the nuts for trying to shoot an angle. I just told him to learn to the rules and go in turn before he screws himself out of more $ again.

Re: The floor\'s decision.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Acting on a hand out of turn is not binding, but deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated."

[/ QUOTE ]

I would rewrite this to read "Action out of turn may be binding."

I am not big on rulebooks and this is why. If this guy gets this rule book he is going to point at that and say "see, it says right there action out of turn is not binding" while ignore the part about it not being tolerated adn the part where the floorman will rule in the interest of fairness etc.

Re: The floor\'s decision.....
 

One thing that these players seem to forget also..."Managers decision is FINAL". Go bitch to whomever you want and try to get it changed, floorperson ruled, it's over. Hopefully they make the correct decision.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
In Vegas rooms, I'm not aware of one that will allow this. You either have to state the amount or more all the chips out in on shot. No returning to the stack as that was causing angle shots between bettor and possible callers. I dont need to go into that much, I'm sure most of you can figure that part out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a new devolopment in Vegas. From 1999-2001 I was involved in spreading the only small stakes NL game in town. Some other places tried to spread the game, but one of the things the regular palyers didn't like about other palces is they just didn't know the rules (continuous action and what reopens betting they jsut couldnt' get right other places).

I haven't been there in ages, but I would be very suprised if the big games they sometimes spread at Bellagio don't have a continuous motion rule.

I know a lot of poeple like RObert's Rules of Poker so here is what he says about it
[ QUOTE ]
6. At non-tournament play, a player who says "raise" is allowed to continue putting chips into the pot with more than one move; the wager is assumed complete when the player's hands come to rest outside the pot area. (This rule is used because no-limit play may require a large number of chips be put into the pot.) In tournament play, the TDA rules require that the player either use a verbal statement giving the amount of the raise or put the chips into the pot in a single motion, to avoid making a string-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thikn a lot of the confusion comes from teh TDA mandating a limit rule for NL tournaments. At the time I was in favor of that TDA rule becasue most people playing touranments had never seen a live NL game. With NL becoming popular as a cash game I see no reason to play NL tournaments by limit rules.

edit to add: I know the above applies to raising, I see no reason that the same should not be true betting. Put your bet in in a continuous motion.

Re: The floor\'s decision.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
One thing that these players seem to forget also..."Managers decision is FINAL". Go bitch to whomever you want and try to get it changed, floorperson ruled, it's over. Hopefully they make the correct decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I was the only one who burns midnight oil.

As far as I could tell Player B wasn't asking that the decision be changed; rather, he wanted to be proved right.

~ Rick

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

I, for one, am a proponent of the single motion rule. So many players are new to NL nowadays, that it decreses confusion amoung the other players that have probably only played limit before. For those that do play often, this seems to be the same rule that they are all used to because they're all quick to chime in when someone goes back for more after saying raise, lol. Even if they aren't in the hand. I always get a good laugh out of this.

Re: The floor\'s decision.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I could tell Player B wasn't asking that the decision be changed; rather, he wanted to be proved right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe today he will play and someone's out of turn action will be ruled non-binding to his detriment.

Re: The floor\'s decision.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Acting on a hand out of turn is not binding, but deliberately acting out of turn will not be tolerated."

[/ QUOTE ]

I would rewrite this to read "Action out of turn may be binding."

I am not big on rulebooks and this is why. If this guy gets this rule book he is going to point at that and say "see, it says right there action out of turn is not binding" while ignore the part about it not being tolerated adn the part where the floorman will rule in the interest of fairness etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem with your revised wording.

Player B actually wasn't going around waving a rulebook. He was mostly reciting his understanding of the rules from memory.

In LA, the only club that seems to have rulebooks readily available is Commerce but they are sort of hidden behind hotel information at the concierge's desk [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
Randy, I believe the ruling was correct as well. I'm glad the angle shooter got what he deserved. Although he could have used a nice swift kick in the nuts by Capone. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

This is where I find Cali vs Vegas much different...

[ QUOTE ]
Normally in NL you can return for your stack for more chips;

[/ QUOTE ]

In Vegas rooms, I'm not aware of one that will allow this. You either have to state the amount or more all the chips out in on shot. No returning to the stack as that was causing angle shots between bettor and possible callers. I dont need to go into that much, I'm sure most of you can figure that part out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is the better way. Either put it out all at once or clearly state your bet. That said, with a hundred different languages spoken in a noisy casino nothing is "clearly stated".

~ Rick

The line \"more angles than a protractor\".....
 

....comes from the song “Slowroll” written and performed by Tommy Angelo

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

Note I have not read any responses yet.

The proper decision is that the bet is $50, and player B must call $50.

Player B acted out of turn, yes, but his out of turn action seems to have influenced the size of player A's bet. Too bad, that's why you wait your proper turn. The general principle is that action out of turn MAY be binding. It's always binding when it significantly affects action before it. Player B should not be able to benefit from his own error / angle shot.

al

betting lines and procedures, rules
 

Despite what the rules may be for old-timers, or what rules may be believed to be true by the inexperienced newbies in this field, I believe that the BEST POLICY in today's atmosphere, of many new players, and many new dealers/floorpersons, is that the entirety of a bet must be cut out "behind the line." To clarify...

In tables with a betting line* they should cut out their entire bet, in as many motions as they wish, BEHIND the line, then push it all out at once when they are finished. In tables without the line, they should use the edge of their protected cards closest to the pot as the "betting line" and follow the same procedure.

Now I realize may old-timers may not be happy with this proposed change in general ettiquette, but given the large number of inexperienced players, dealers, and floors in today's poker world, this is probably the best policy to unify and standardize the rules of no limit betting. I'm stating this as opinion and would love to hear intelligent arguements as to why I might be wrong here, or why I'm right (if I am). Discuss.

I also state this noting the "hand wave" as an example as to why we need to standardize things. The hand wave may mean all-in with some crowds, but others may interpret this gesture as a check. Standardization would be nice here, but I'm sticking to the betting line procedures as my main arguement in this post.

al

*I realize it was originally developed as an "ergonomic line," so let's not get into that debate. The meaning has changed, even if by accident.

Re: The line \"more angles than a protractor\".....
 

I think Tommy's a SUPER-GENIUS. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

al

p.s. I've watched tommy play 20-40 at the mirage tho and he's a super-magoo. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

al

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

I agree with your logic here, which you've presented quite well. I'd certainly agree with the ruling you suggest, but something in the way you've presented it differently from others above brings me to a few questions:

What are A's options at the point where B says "call?"

I assume that the chips already cut into the pot ($50) are already committed. But A can also continue putting chips into the pot until his hand is empty or he is all-in, depending on house rules on string-bets? And B is required to call whatever amount A has bet when he is finished?

Also, at this point, is A out of line to ask the dealer/floor what his options are? Or is that a nit move? Obviously, if he's on a steal, he chops his bet as low as possible and folds to a raise. But say he has the nuts and was trying to bet something that would be called; is he out of line to push here if B is committed to call whatever amount he bets?

I understand that this is an angle shot, but I'm still struggling to see the what B was trying to accomplish. Could someone explain what he's trying? The OP said, "It turns out he had a strong hand but not the immortal nuts." Is he just trying to see if A has the nuts? If his hand is that strong, doesn't he want A to bet as much as he's willing to? The premature call just stopped A from putting in more chips. If A continues putting in chips, I assume B would try to fold, saying his action was out of turn? So either way, B says "call" and really intends to either fold or raise? Obviously, if A stops putting chips in the pot when B says "call," he wouldn't call a raise if B was allowed to make it. So I don't see how this move can be +EV for B, other than not calling the bet if A continues making it (and the dealer allows him to fold rather than call).

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

Just to complicate matters . . . In my room a player is not committed until he brings back his hand --- so player A could have picked up all his chips and checked --- Though the floor has in some cases ruled that a bet was made even though the player had not removed their hand.

No I don't like this rule, but I don't make the rules.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
Note I have not read any responses yet.

The proper decision is that the bet is $50, and player B must call $50.

Player B acted out of turn, yes, but his out of turn action seems to have influenced the size of player A's bet. Too bad, that's why you wait your proper turn. The general principle is that action out of turn MAY be binding. It's always binding when it significantly affects action before it. Player B should not be able to benefit from his own error / angle shot.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you clarify why Player A's bet is $50?

He was in the middle of cutting chips when Player B said call. If Player A had intended to bet more than $50 from the chips in his hand, then he should have that right. The MINIMUM bet from Player A is $50, but I maintain that if he wants to bet more than $50, from the chips in his hand, he can do so.

Player B should not have the ability to stop Player A's action by making an out-of-turn statement.

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

Only from the description of what happened do I ascertain that the bet is $50 with a call. Given player B's actions, player A could have easily bet all that was in his hand with full impunity, constituting a fully legal bet, and player B would have been obligated to call all of it. Only in the obvious situation of a string raise by A would things once again get cloudy.

al

Re: NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”
 

[ QUOTE ]
He was in the middle of cutting chips when Player B said call. If Player A had intended to bet more than $50 from the chips in his hand, then he should have that right. The MINIMUM bet from Player A is $50, but I maintain that if he wants to bet more than $50, from the chips in his hand, he can do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears from the original description, that as soon as B said call A decided to only bet $50 and stopped himself leaving only $50 I intrepret this to mean that Player A has stopped betting and any attempt now to increase the bet would be a string bet, but this is because I read this to say that Player A dropped $50 and then brought the rest of the chips back .

[ QUOTE ]
Just as Player B says “call”, Player A stops cutting off his bet leaving two stacks of five chips ($50 total).

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: betting lines and procedures, rules
 

I am opposed to standardized rules. A rule that makes perfect sence in LA can be horrible in Tunica. An example of the sor tof rule is the "f-word penalty" in touranments. In LA this rule is necessary. In tunica, where they do not have widespread problems of abuse, it makes sence rather than having a rule that the penalty is automatic it makes sence to allow the touranment staff to make a decision on whether or not to issue the penalty.

As far as what should or shouldn't be a string bet in NL, I am not a fan of string bet rules. I have never seen a string bet called in any game to prevent angle shooting (I know if they were allowed the angle shooters would start making them). Normally when a string bet is called it serves to keep exactly the sort of player you want in your room playing to become upset becasue they wanted to raise and now they are telling him he can't.

I payed my way through college playing poker. I remember a story one of the local players told, at the time I had no idea what happened, but I now have a perfect understanding of what happened. He had jsut gotten back from a trip to Vegas. People asked him how it was if he played poker etc. He said he played poker for a little bit, but that he quit because they cheated him. He said he was playing and had been losing. He said when he finally had the best hand the dealer wouldn't let him raise becasue he was in a pot with a local. It is pretty clear now that what happened is he attempted a string raise and was not allowed. But this is a player that not only quit the game, he came back to Ohio and talked about how they cheat in Vegas. With the TV exposure it is easier than ever to seat palyers in games, but I am guessing there is still a fear of being cheated. I left Vegas in 2001, but I can remember many players coming to the rail watching for a long time, but figuring those 7 guys at the 1-5 stud table were probably all pro waiting to play someoen taht would sit in the 8th chair, so any rule that leaves a new player feeling cheated is a bad rule.

If a change were to be made in the rules (I am opposed to a change at this time) I woudl like to see the limit raising rules look more like the NL raising rules. Is it too much to ask that players just wait until the player in front of them has finished betting?

As far as angle shooters thriving with NL bets being made in a continuous motion instead of a single motion, this is a management decision. Angle shooters can only thrive if you allow them to play. If the floor staff is being called to the table because of one player's bad behaivor is it better to change the rules and make the game less enjoyable for all or to tell the angle shooter he needs to go cash out?