NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”

[ QUOTE ]
There is still no reason to force an action on a player when the action they wanted to make is clear to all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But the problem is that it is not always clear to all. I have seen players in a 4-8 game carefully count out two stacks of four chips (representing a raise. Put them in two stacks of four push out one stack then reach back to get the second stack. I have often felt bad about telling the player that he can't raise because it is a string raise. But then I've seen some players do the same act of counting out eight chips push out a single stack of chips and then they don't go for the second stack (the whole thing was drama to get "get a tell"). So at what point is a players intent clear to all. If counting out the amount to raise and lining them up makes it obvious that the player wanted to raise, then shouldn't the player in the second case be required to raise?

Its not always clear what a players intent is.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is still no reason to force an action on a player when the action they wanted to make is clear to all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But the problem is that it is not always clear to all. I have seen players in a 4-8 game carefully count out two stacks of four chips (representing a raise. Put them in two stacks of four push out one stack then reach back to get the second stack. I have often felt bad about telling the player that he can't raise because it is a string raise. But then I've seen some players do the same act of counting out eight chips push out a single stack of chips and then they don't go for the second stack (the whole thing was drama to get "get a tell"). So at what point is a players intent clear to all. If counting out the amount to raise and lining them up makes it obvious that the player wanted to raise, then shouldn't the player in the second case be required to raise?

Its not always clear what a players intent is.

[/ QUOTE ]

8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

Edit to add: When you see an inexperienced player cutting out chips like this tell them to stop and tell you what they want to do.

[IceKing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is still no reason to force an action on a player when the action they wanted to make is clear to all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But the problem is that it is not always clear to all. I have seen players in a 4-8 game carefully count out two stacks of four chips (representing a raise. Put them in two stacks of four push out one stack then reach back to get the second stack. I have often felt bad about telling the player that he can't raise because it is a string raise. But then I've seen some players do the same act of counting out eight chips push out a single stack of chips and then they don't go for the second stack (the whole thing was drama to get "get a tell"). So at what point is a players intent clear to all. If counting out the amount to raise and lining them up makes it obvious that the player wanted to raise, then shouldn't the player in the second case be required to raise?

Its not always clear what a players intent is.

[/ QUOTE ]

8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

Edit to add: When you see an inexperienced player cutting out chips like this tell them to stop and tell you what they want to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good thing to do with inexperienced players is to accept their first string-raise, tell them how to do it correctly and after that no more mercy. I know that some nits may whine about this, but usually everyone at the table will accept it. Actually I cant remember if I have seen anyone complaining about it ever.

[Rick Nebiolo]

I just got home after a long but good day taking care of personal stuff and playing some 3/5 and 5/10 fixed buy no limit where I'm at best a C+ to B- player. Fortunately I'm able to find games with D- to B players so I do OK. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, the responses and dialog in this thread are terrific. There is no question that this group of posters along with many others on 2+2 could write a draft of a great set of rules or policies that would be a vast improvement over what most cardrooms have now and appropriate for the new breed of no limit players. I hate to commit on this because my time is so taken/stressed but maybe it's something we should think about doing.

Anyway, I'll try to respond here where appropriate. Please forgive me if I cover something that someone else has already answered but the thread had grown into a monster and I'm fighting a bit of fatigue.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is still no reason to force an action on a player when the action they wanted to make is clear to all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But the problem is that it is not always clear to all. I have seen players in a 4-8 game carefully count out two stacks of four chips (representing a raise. Put them in two stacks of four push out one stack then reach back to get the second stack. I have often felt bad about telling the player that he can't raise because it is a string raise. But then I've seen some players do the same act of counting out eight chips push out a single stack of chips and then they don't go for the second stack (the whole thing was drama to get "get a tell"). So at what point is a players intent clear to all. If counting out the amount to raise and lining them up makes it obvious that the player wanted to raise, then shouldn't the player in the second case be required to raise?

Its not always clear what a players intent is.

[/ QUOTE ]

8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

Edit to add: When you see an inexperienced player cutting out chips like this tell them to stop and tell you what they want to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy,

Before I start you know we agree on a lot. Also note that I've just skimmed today's posts so I could have misunderstood some of your points

One problem I have with some of your input here is to make this work it involves understanding intent of individual moves and the past history of your player base (e.g. are they angle shooters). This takes a floor staff with a lot of savvy, judgment and experience and a somewhat regular base of customers. I'm not sure this is realistic in today's expanding market.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
A good thing to do with inexperienced players is to accept their first string-raise, tell them how to do it correctly and after that no more mercy. I know that some nits may whine about this, but usually everyone at the table will accept it. Actually I cant remember if I have seen anyone complaining about it ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general card club management has to take with a grain of salt the complaints and whines of the nitty customers. The nits rarely know what is good for them or the game and their suggestions for what should be done is rarely in the cardrooms (or most thinking or recreational players) best interest.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not always clear what a players intent is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Also note that when big money is involved the pressure on the floor staff can be enormous.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a game played by people. When a player's intent is clear that should be their action. If it is clear to everyone at the table that someone wants to raise not allowing them to raise is just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes sense. That said, shouldn't the rules be as simple and clear as possible, especially for the new customers.

IOW, really good rules would clearly cover the vast majority of situations and keep the game fun and action filled. Part of this is avoiding putting the floor staff in a position where they have to discern intent.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
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 etiquette, 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally agree. A few quibbles: A player who has many stacks to move still should have the option to CLEARLY announce the size of his bet/raise and then push the stacks in several motions (or at least one stack for the camera when going all-in). In the case of a CLEARLY announced raise or bet when heads up if it is confirmed by the dealer then the stacks don't have to be pushed in.


[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hand wave is driving me crazy as I've seen the same thing, sometimes meaning two different actions by the same player within a few minutes. Meanwhile I often have to call "time" to protect my action, when I never use the hand wave and alway make my ckecks (rapping the table) clear and emphatic.


[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

One problem is that many card rooms have the ergonomic line, and many players believe it means something regarding betting. At the same time, some rooms do use this as a betting line. I'm starting to believe it's a mistake to have the line as an ergonomic tool without it meaning anyting regarding the betting (despite my deep sympathy for dealer's backs).

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

He's definitely in a charismatic class of his own. I'm responding to this thread while listening to Tommy's album (including "Slowroll", which gave me the line "more angles than a protractor"), all while playing a mid limit Omaha/8 game on my other screen. I love serious multi-tasking, which I'm fairly sure is the last refuge of the semi-insane. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

~ Rick