NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”

[Rick Nebiolo]

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

[Al_Capone_Junior]

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

[Al_Capone_Junior]

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.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

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

[IndyGuy]

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).

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.

[MisterKing]

[ 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.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

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

[ 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 ]

[Randy_Refeld]

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?