declaring all-in in a limit game - Page 2

steamboatin · #11 10-22-2005, 01:49 PM

I am beginning to detect a pattern in your replys. Are you hinting that the OP is a fetus or are you a fetus that is looking for a place that is easy to sneak in to?

BigBaitsim (milo) · #12 10-22-2005, 04:41 PM

Requiring going through the raising and re-raising is pretty standard.

In MN this is an absolute MUST, as there is a $60 cap on all bets.

Randy_Refeld · #13 10-22-2005, 06:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In MN this is an absolute MUST, as there is a $60 cap on all bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an issue a lot of places. There are a lot of floormen that work in places where irregular bets would be allowed ehads up, but they aren't familiar enough with certain aspects of the rules to realize it.

Other than going all-in in limit there are other irregular bets that would be allwoed heads up. In a NL games normally a raise must be at least the size of the previous bet; however heads up a smaller raise should be allowed (many rule books say "a raise must be at least the size of the previous bet unless heads up"). This NL rule is pretty clear, but I would wager that if we polled floormen working today less than 25% would allow the small raise.

Heads up in limit if action is offered and accpeted that action should be binding, but you run a risk of the floor being unfamiliar with the reasoning behind different rules.

#14 10-22-2005, 06:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
wow. this is a pretty bad play.

did you just think he had a T?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question wasnt regarding the play people, it was regarding the situation, I just won 1400 on a bad beat I didnt really care at this point GET OVER IT!!!

Matt Williams · #15 10-22-2005, 07:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow. this is a pretty bad play.

did you just think he had a T?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question wasnt regarding the play people, it was regarding the situation, I just won 1400 on a bad beat I didnt really care at this point GET OVER IT!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how you feel the need to mention you won 1400 as if that excuses you from your poor play. BTW, how did you win 1400 when you said you were sitting at a 3/6 table w/ 120 in front of you?

Geoff48 · #16 10-22-2005, 07:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I like how you feel the need to mention you won 1400 as if that excuses you from your poor play. BTW, how did you win 1400 when you said you were sitting at a 3/6 table w/ 120 in front of you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad beat jackpot probably.

TakeMeToTheRiver · #17 10-22-2005, 08:25 PM

I guess you don't want to hear that your play sucks... but it does. Why you would ever "go all in" for many bets without the nuts is mind boggling.

But I don't think your all in was binding.

Lottery Larry · #18 10-22-2005, 08:49 PM

Can't you come to an agreement about "going overs" when it's heads up?

Or is that a room-by-room rule?

#19 10-22-2005, 09:02 PM

Ok I admit freely that the play was bad, and I wasnt saying that winning the bad beat was an excuse for that bad play. My point was that i wasnt asking if I played bad, I realized after the hand that I had, I was asking if my all in and his call should have been binding.

SA125 · #20 10-22-2005, 09:54 PM

mikel. made a post in Mid-High LHE a while ago about asking a guy if he just wanted to go all-in when they were h/u.

I then asked a few floormen in the Taj about this scenario. You and another player started the betting h/u and go about 5 bets. One player asks the other if he wants to just go all-in to save the time of constantly re-raising. The players agree and ask the dealer if it's ok. If the dealer called the floor, what would they say?

I spoke to a few floor people but I made sure to ask Ken, who's a smart, stand up guy. He said what they all did. That scenario would be ok to go all-in in a limit game.