Recent Home Game Arguement

[Colquhoun]

This is funny. According to his rules, if you can't pay the blind and have a few players still in, you can sit back and see hand after hand after hand for free...just wait till you pick up a nice pair and go all-in. Quite silly.

[ChrisAJ]

You're all-in for the blind. You can play.

[JonPKibble]

Keep a printed copy of Robert's Rules of Poker near your table at all times ... I do, and every now and then it's quite useful.

[4_2_it]

Glad you beat that angleshooter. He probably also thinks that if he goes all in after a flop and an opponent does not have enough chips to call his bet then he immediately takes down the pot. I love it when these guys show up a game!

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
He just has to post whatever you have left for that hand (i.e. not the full $4)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite right, but I know what you mean. For clarity's sake:

Blinds $2/$4. BB has $3 left. He posts all his chips as the BB. SB still posts $2. SB can then fold or call the additional $1. The SB doesn't have to "post whatever" the BB has left, but that is how much he'd half to call if he is going to play his hand, and of course should do so with any two cards.

[Richard Tanner]

Not nearly as much as I enjoy pissing on them.

Cody

You are correct.

However those blinds are absolutely huge compared to the stacks. I play the same buyin and the highest the blinds have ever got for a $25pot are .25/.50.

$25 in play with 2/4 blinds, yikes!

On the WPT last weekend they had the episode from the Borgato. It came down to Daniel Negraneau and David Williams. Williams had just lost a big pot and didn't have enough chips to post the blind for the next hand, so the match was declared over. So the guy has a point, I think it would be an acceptable rule variant to do it this way, as long as it's announced beforehand.

[Richard Tanner]

I shudder to think that this may be a serious post.

Cody