Dealers Are Incompetant ! - Page 5

Rick Nebiolo · #41 03-12-2005, 04:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
$1-2 NL is a different animal. It sticks out like a sore thumb. The house doesn't drop enough to pay the bar tab, let alone the meal comps and room rates.

Somebody posted a few months ago that $1-2 NL is today's version of $1-3 stud. I think that sums it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have made great points throughout this thread.

If you want to get a lot of good games, make the blinds high and restrict the buy-in. That's the way we do it in LA, and we have a disproportionate market share of B&M no limt games (Foxwoods may be an exception).

~ Rick

Randy_Refeld · #42 03-12-2005, 06:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have made great points throughout this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

He always has good points, any poker room in the country would be lucky to have him.

Randy

juanez · #43 03-12-2005, 06:37 AM

I was just a tad disturbed by the "Dealers are Incompetant!" title.

Me too.

Photoc is right - call the floor anytime you have a question, but realize that the floor persons ruling stands no matter what you think is correct.

juanez · #44 03-12-2005, 06:44 AM

Great points Al, and thanks. If folks want 100% error free dealing, they should play online and STFU (well, online is almost 100% error free).

Rick Nebiolo · #45 03-12-2005, 10:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Hawaiian Gardens rule makes the game move better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the game moves significantly better and/or it creates more action then we have a point in its favor.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are not using that rule there is a corollary rule that sometimes gets lost, I will paraphrase here. "There are an unlimited number of raises in no limit; however, after the third raise each additional raise must be at least one half the pot."

[/ QUOTE ]

Rules controlling action need to be simple IMHO. This corollary isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
The first time I was involved in spreading NL we were unsure which rule to use, we ended up using the "raise amount of the last raise" but some experienced players (whose opinion I value) told be that "raise the amount of the bet" was a preferable rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be getting confused over the wording above. The standard rule is you must raise or reraise at least the amount of the last bet or raise. The HG rule is you must raise at least the total amount of bets you are facing. Are you saying the HG rule is preferable according to "some experienced players"?

BTW, I started a thread on this a couple of years ago but only got a few responses (yours probably was one). Maybe a thread deserves a second chance now that more 2+2ers have experience at no limit.

[ QUOTE ]
Also while I am talking about NL limit rules I will add (I think it has been discussed in the past) when a player straddles (in NL) the first raise must at least double the straddle as the straddle is the biggest blind (this would also point toward "raise at least the amount of the total bet."

[/ QUOTE ]

The straddle rule has been discussed and was in question at the Bike. When I did research Warren Karp, who has helped run the WSOP along with Hustler Tournaments (he may have done more) and noted rules expert Bob Ciaffone gave different answers.

In the case where the BB is $5 and the straddle is $10 Warren said the first raise must be to $15. The straddle is treated like a blind raise with the right of last action. Bob said the raise must be to $20 and the minimum flop bet $10, treating the straddle like another blind. We went with Bob's interpretation.

Anyway, you make good points too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

~ Rick

NickS · #46 03-12-2005, 10:50 AM

Lots of new players in card rooms requiring lots of new dealers. They will improve, just like you.

Would you rather play without a dealer?

Voltron87 · #47 03-12-2005, 11:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I hadn't considered that. Yes, 9-handed would make a huge difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really know which post to reply to, but the 1/2 NL game in my cardroom is an amazingly good game.

Phil Van Sexton · #48 03-12-2005, 01:13 PM

I played at Aladdin several times over a long weekend last month. I somehow had no idea that 2+2ers dealt there.

I only intended to play there briefly, then move on to the Bellagio/Mirage, but my friends and I really liked the room so we kept coming back. The dealers and floor were very friendly and seemed to actually be trying to accomodate the players' wishes. I found this quite odd based on my Foxwoods experiences.

I only remember 1 controversy over the house rules. A player questioned the dealer. The dealer was right, and knew it, but just called the floor with little fanfare and the matter was resolved immediately.

It would take a lot for a dealer to annoy me. Dealer errors are part of the game, and even if they do screw up, you can just call the floor. Big deal.

Randy_Refeld · #49 03-12-2005, 02:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I may be getting confused over the wording above. The standard rule is you must raise or reraise at least the amount of the last bet or raise. The HG rule is you must raise at least the total amount of bets you are facing. Are you saying the HG rule is preferable according to "some experienced players"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Rick, I was playing poker when I posted yesterday and was less than clear. I was saying the HG rule is not the standard rule but is preferred by some experienced players I have talked to about it.

If you are using the standard rule I mentioned that each raise after the third raise must be at least half the pot. This rule is confusing, fortunately it doesn't come up. The rule exists for the player's protection. Say A and C are colluding and they have B in the middle. A and C could make minumum raises in turn so the most B would ever face was a 2 BB bet (which is very hard to fold to if there is already a large pot in the center) and get a large portion if not all of B's money into the center. If you want to make nicer player's give A and C the nut straight on the turn against a set (so nobody is colluding in this case). In poker at some point you are entitled to call a bet to get to the next card. There is no reason to have a limit on raises in NL, but it is not in the best interest of the game to allow a series of small raises rather than substantial raises.

Randy

Rick Nebiolo · #50 03-12-2005, 03:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason to have a limit on raises in NL, but it is not in the best interest of the game to allow a series of small raises rather than substantial raises. - Randy

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another point in favor of the HG rule - the bets each player must face after a raise must grow exponentially where under the standard rule it is possible for the bets to grow in small increments (and does happen often enough in loose wacky games).

~ Rick