NLH Decision – “more angles than a protractor!”

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]


I think most of your non-quoted questions have now been covered/answered elsewhere.

Anyway, I couldn't understand Player B's tactical logic either for all the reasons you mention.

~ Rick

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Bad example regarding the F-word penalty . Although this old timers gentle ears cringe when I hear this word used as a common adjective, I'm not a fan of the rule in tournaments (Paul Phillips live journal has some excellent thoughts on this).


[/ QUOTE ]

This might be the first time I have ever disagreed with something Rick has said.

In LA I really like this rule, but I left in LA in 2002 so maybe the atmosphere there has changed. By drawing the line at the f-word tournament players never become overly abusinve and threatening. When I first moved to LA in Mar 2001 the touranments over all were pleasant to deal as the palyers played poker and didn't cause too much trouble as there were standards of conduct.

Also in Mar of that year I dealt my first brown chip game in LA. A player threw a card that cut me just below the eye. This was particuarly disturbing (aside from the fact that I dont' like seeing bloo, especially my own) I had called the floor over 3 times during that down because the palyer was becoming increasingly more abusive.

The benefit of having the "f-word rule" is wherever you draw it palyers will sometimes cross it, but if the worse thing that ever happens is we occasionally hear the f-word that isn't so bad. That night in the 40-80 the floor decided the line was cutting the delaer's face so he waiting until the player cut the delaer's face to take action. Maybe the line doens't have to be drawn at the f-word, but I think "no f-word" is a lot closer to where it should be than "no-cutting the dealer."

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
In LA it isn't a dealer's job to "call" string bets, rather if one is called he then describes what actually happens. I'm not sure what's happening elsewhere.


[/ QUOTE ]

In most smaller markets the dealer calls the string bet and tells the player it isn't allowed. I like the LA way of doing it better just because someone will mention it to the player in a friendly manner (well unless it is one of the nits). I haven't been out there there much in the last few years, but what I like most about the dealer not calling them is a lot of thr string bets are allowed and the palyer still learns the right way to do it. I have been working online for over a year now, but I still think in Vegas (and other casinos) you are a lot more likely to have first time players at the table than in LA.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
In most smaller markets the dealer calls the string bet and tells the player it isn't allowed. I like the LA way of doing it better just because someone will mention it to the player in a friendly manner (well unless it is one of the nits). I haven't been out there there much in the last few years, but what I like most about the dealer not calling them is a lot of thr string bets are allowed and the palyer still learns the right way to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is pretty much the way it goes down in LA.

[ QUOTE ]
I have been working online for over a year now, but I still think in Vegas (and other casinos) you are a lot more likely to have first time players at the table than in LA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It also translates to the style of the game. In Las Vegas, you often have seven or eight tight nitty regulars taking turns picking off a "tourist from Iowa who wouldn't have an clue what a dominated hand is if it hit him over the head" to quote RGP poster Speed Racer (or one of his many aliases) very loosely [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

In LA there are many bad players, but they are often tricky bad players.

~ Rick

[IndyGuy]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
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).




I think most of your non-quoted questions have now been covered/answered elsewhere.

Anyway, I couldn't understand Player B's tactical logic either for all the reasons you mention.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, they have. This has been an interesting disucssion.

Anyone else able to understand Player B's logic?

[IndyGuy]

[ QUOTE ]

This is why they should just say how much they are going to bet. None of this TV bs of the dramatization in betting helps quite a bit. Just say it, and the move it would clear up a lot of confusion as to when the player is finished with his betting.



These are some of the reasons why I believe either a CLEAR verbal decleration OR pushing in all chips at once is probably the best way to go.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting that no one has mentioned the verbal version of the string bet: "I call your $X, and raise you $Y."

So even if players are verbally declaring their action, it doesn't completely resolve the problem. At some point, all new players have to learn the nuances of the rules and the policies (seating issues, min buyin, bad beat jackpot rules, etc) of whatever room they're playing in.

When I first started playing, I didn't know what a string bet was or that the "call and raise" was disallowed. Someone at the table told me I couldn't do it. They didn't let me then, and I havne't tried since. It's wrong to say, "okay, just this once; but don't do it again."

Players won't like all new rules the first time they've encountered them, but that doesn't mean they can't play by them or adapt. I had no idea what a kill pot was, until I was playing at a table with one. I didn't want to post a bigger blind, but I wasn't going to sit there and argue. If I were paranoid, I'd have thought the other players were ganging up on me and left, but by being patient you can see that it's entirely fair because the rules were consistent.

Personally, I like the one-motion or verbally declare the bet version. If I'm playing NL and get heads up with someone, I think it's assanine (and will be abused by TV-watching wannabes) to allow me to sit there and stare the player down while I push in one stack at a time, until I've got all 20 stacks all-in. It's faster/easier/more pleasant to just say "all-in" and let the other player act. There's no reason for me to sit there and make a drama out of it.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting that no one has mentioned the verbal version of the string bet: "I call your $X, and raise you $Y."

[/ QUOTE ]

I virtually never see this except in TV drama and movies.


[ QUOTE ]
So even if players are verbally declaring their action, it doesn't completely resolve the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this (along with pushing all chips of a raise or bet at once) solves many problems.


[ QUOTE ]
At some point, all new players have to learn the nuances of the rules and the policies (seating issues, min buyin, bad beat jackpot rules, etc) of whatever room they're playing in.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can players learn these rules when many a significant portion of the rules are poorly written and often contradictory. Note that in all too many clubs the floor and dealer's don't really understand the nuances.


[ QUOTE ]
When I first started playing, I didn't know what a string bet was or that the "call and raise" was disallowed. Someone at the table told me I couldn't do it. They didn't let me then, and I havne't tried since. It's wrong to say, "okay, just this once; but don't do it again."

[/ QUOTE ]

No biggy but who on this forum is saying "okay, just this once; but don't do it again"?


[ QUOTE ]
Players won't like all new rules the first time they've encountered them, but that doesn't mean they can't play by them or adapt. I had no idea what a kill pot was, until I was playing at a table with one. I didn't want to post a bigger blind, but I wasn't going to sit there and argue. If I were paranoid, I'd have thought the other players were ganging up on me and left, but by being patient you can see that it's entirely fair because the rules were consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not understanding the kill pot rule doesn't compare well to rules that effect the size of the bet/raise or who gets the pot. The latter are significant enough so that bad decisions can alienate customers and cost business. Anyone who believes they were cheated because they had to post a kill will soon see many other kills posted in a short period of time and that everything is copacetic.


[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I like the one-motion or verbally declare the bet version. If I'm playing NL and get heads up with someone, I think it's assanine (and will be abused by TV-watching wannabes) to allow me to sit there and stare the player down while I push in one stack at a time, until I've got all 20 stacks all-in. It's faster/easier/more pleasant to just say "all-in" and let the other player act. There's no reason for me to sit there and make a drama out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

~ Rick

[IndyGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting that no one has mentioned the verbal version of the string bet: "I call your $X, and raise you $Y."

[/ QUOTE ]I virtually never see this except in TV drama and movies.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've seen it much more in home games than casinos, but I have seen it there too. I mostly play limit in casinos, so when I've seen this it's usually accompanied by two motions into the pot and disallowed by the dealer with an explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
How can players learn these rules when many a significant portion of the rules are poorly written and often contradictory. Note that in all too many clubs the floor and dealer's don't really understand the nuances.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, most players I know have never read any rules at all. They've picked up the game from learning in small buyin home tourneys and watching TV. So while I agree with your point that rules seem contradictory and ill-written, I don't think this directly affects a significant number of new players.

You hit the nail on the head when you say that the floor/dealers don't understand the nuances. The biggest problem I see is that rules differ from place to place, and are applied inconsistently within any given place. The fact that the rules are very nuanced leads to this situation.

[ QUOTE ]
No biggy but who on this forum is saying "okay, just this once; but don't do it again"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, IceKing said:
[ 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 ]

[ QUOTE ]

Not understanding the kill pot rule doesn't compare well to rules that effect the size of the bet/raise or who gets the pot. The latter are significant enough so that bad decisions can alienate customers and cost business. Anyone who believes they were cheated because they had to post a kill will soon see many other kills posted in a short period of time and that everything is copacetic.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean to compare them directly, just to illustrate that it's common for someone to have to adapt to new rules and procedures wherever they play. It's in the casino's interest to portray all of these rules (whether it's string bets, jackpot rules, swearing, angle-shooting) clearly enough that players are reaching to say, "I didn't know." Whether that entails putting it on a big sign by the signin list, a flyer the player can take to the table, or whatever, the player's first exposure to these rules should not HAVE to be experiencing it in live play. If he disregards the posting/flyer and is told at the table, at least he had the ability to be preinformed.

I'd like a comment on Player A's action and the room rules that allowed him in this way. I thought this whole thread was going to be about his angle shot. He picks up a stack of chips with no verbal declaration and begins putting them in the pot. I would have thought those chips and only those chips were committed. At that point, Player B's call is in turn and binding. To my mind, this situation could have been avoided if the rules would have required Player A to either make a verbal declaration of his intent to raise, or to gather the exact number of chips and place them in the pot in one motion.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Good post. There's one other I'd like to respond to before getting some Z's so I'll just address one of the items you mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean to compare them directly, just to illustrate that it's common for someone to have to adapt to new rules and procedures wherever they play. It's in the casino's interest to portray all of these rules (whether it's string bets, jackpot rules, swearing, angle-shooting) clearly enough that players are reaching to say, "I didn't know." Whether that entails putting it on a big sign by the signin list, a flyer the player can take to the table, or whatever, the player's first exposure to these rules should not HAVE to be experiencing it in live play. If he disregards the posting/flyer and is told at the table, at least he had the ability to be preinformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I worked as a NL host for the Bike I wrote a draft of such a flyer/poster that covered "no limit essentials" such as "wait for your opponent to release their chips into the pot before acting on your hand" and "announce your bet/raise or place it into the pot in one motion" and so on (I used simpler wording but can't find it on my hard drive). Anyway, it was never implemented but I agree this sort of thing would help.

One local club is implementing a rule where if facing a bet and you turn your hand face up (usually done to get a read on your opponents reaction) your hand may (or perhaps will after one warning) be declared dead. I don't have time to debate the merit of this rule now but IMHO it's a big mistake to implement such a non standard rule that can cost a player several hundred dollars without making a reasonable effort to inform your customers.

Regards,

Rick