Correct ruling at Casino Niagara?

[DZgroundhog]

I'm a bit of a stranger to casino no limit games but I wasn't waiting for 25 players to bust out of any of the limit games so I got on a 1-2 NL table last night.

Hand is heads-up at the river between seats 5 and 9. Seat 5 checks, seat 9 bets $30, seat 5 announces "Raise" and puts in $55. For whatever reason, he left three $1 chips behind and said he "needed them." But the dealer told him that he had to put them in because he announced he was raising but couldn't make a full raise which then required him to go all-in for $58. That made sense to me and pretty much everybody else at the table and seat 5 ended up folding.

But then 9's buddy in seat 7 starts going off on the dealer about how he's completely wrong and that seat 9 should've had to pull his $25 raise back because he was required to raise $30 and that his bet should've been reduced to a call. And then seat 5 agrees with him and says that he should've known that was the rule and called the floor, but at that point the cards had already been shuffled so he just dropped it. Eventually the dealer admitted that he might have made a mistake, but nobody bothered to do anything at that point.

The weirdest thing about this whole hand is that seat 7 went after his buddy in seat 9 and sort of tried to make him lose a pot. These two assjacks had been softplaying each other all night and it got to the point where they would just flip their cards over and check it down anytime they got heads-up. Once there were five or six limpers and seat 7 raises to $17 from the SB. BB folds, his buddy in seat 9 calls and everybody else folds. Then one of them says "okay, time to check it down" and they flip their hands up and the dealer just deals out all five community cards and ships the pot over to the winner like that's totally acceptable. I made some comment about blatant collusion to the other half of the table, but nobody else said anything. I would've had the floor over there in a heartbeat, but seat 9 was averaging a $100 buy-in every 20 minutes and was on his fifth one at that point, so I guess I'd rather have him keep most of his chips so he can lose them to me instead of his friend.

DZ

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
But then 9's buddy in seat 7 starts going off on the dealer about how he's completely wrong and that seat 9 should've had to pull his $25 raise back because he was required to raise $30 and that his bet should've been reduced to a call. And then seat 5 agrees with him and says that he should've known that was the rule and called the floor, but at that point the cards had already been shuffled so he just dropped it. Eventually the dealer admitted that he might have made a mistake, but nobody bothered to do anything at that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The dealer is 100% correct here (assuming they don't have some bizzare house rule there). The dealer most likely was conceding a potential error becasue poker players want to have the last word and he wants to get on with the game.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a bit of a stranger to casino no limit games but I wasn't waiting for 25 players to bust out of any of the limit games so I got on a 1-2 NL table last night.

Hand is heads-up at the river between seats 5 and 9. Seat 5 checks, seat 9 bets $30, seat 5 announces "Raise" and puts in $55. For whatever reason, he left three $1 chips behind and said he "needed them." But the dealer told him that he had to put them in because he announced he was raising but couldn't make a full raise which then required him to go all-in for $58. That made sense to me and pretty much everybody else at the table and seat 5 ended up folding.

But then 9's buddy in seat 7 starts going off on the dealer about how he's completely wrong and that seat 9 should've had to pull his $25 raise back because he was required to raise $30 and that his bet should've been reduced to a call. And then seat 5 agrees with him and says that he should've known that was the rule and called the floor, but at that point the cards had already been shuffled so he just dropped it. Eventually the dealer admitted that he might have made a mistake, but nobody bothered to do anything at that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously a player can go all-in anytime. It's not considered a full raise for the purposes of re-opening the betting if the raise is less than the original bet or the previous raise.

If seat 5 was deep in chips and accidentally put in only $55 (or $58) in many places (such as the Bike where I used to host no limit part of the time) the raise would be corrected to $60 because we uses a half bet guideline for correcting bets. But at Hawaiian Gardens any raise that isn't the legal minimum would be a fouled bet and taken back (if the floor was involved). I think most other places in the nation do it more like the Bike but I'm not completely sure.

[ QUOTE ]
The weirdest thing about this whole hand is that seat 7 went after his buddy in seat 9 and sort of tried to make him lose a pot. These two assjacks had been softplaying each other all night and it got to the point where they would just flip their cards over and check it down anytime they got heads-up. Once there were five or six limpers and seat 7 raises to $17 from the SB. BB folds, his buddy in seat 9 calls and everybody else folds. Then one of them says "okay, time to check it down" and they flip their hands up and the dealer just deals out all five community cards and ships the pot over to the winner like that's totally acceptable. I made some comment about blatant collusion to the other half of the table, but nobody else said anything. I would've had the floor over there in a heartbeat, but seat 9 was averaging a $100 buy-in every 20 minutes and was on his fifth one at that point, so I guess I'd rather have him keep most of his chips so he can lose them to me instead of his friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sort of softplay seems to go on in most cardrooms and isn't really collusion, primarily because there isn't any real intent to cheat. It's mostly ignorance, and should be expected in games where players such as this pay off huge bets with third pair.

If I find time I'd like a shot at an essay for the 2+2 magazine. It would cover "reconciling personal ethics with real game realities" but with a better title (maybe "getting rid of my inner nit").

Example subtopic: Years ago it used to bother me when in a three way pot I bluff bet the river into a player whom I'm fairly certain has a very weak hand that can't call because of the player acting behind might overcall or raise. I put the third player on a draw but the middle player looks left and can see the last player folding so he can now make the super marginal call. Ray Zee and a few others woke me up to the fact that you at least break even on this, as sometimes you are the player in the middle (obviously, it's not right to pause unnaturally to get the "reaching tell').

Another example: In most NL games in Los Angeles with the fixed buys (even the $400 and $500) we have constant rabbit hunting (not even an annoyance or problem on a relative scale), softplay (no big problem, usually done by the types you mentioned), pushing chips (no big deal) but the one thing that still bothered me was the constant speculation by players not even involved in the hand while the hand is in play. But even there I made a HUGE mistake trying to control it a few days ago.

Here's what happened. Jolly, rockin, action 5/10 blind NL game and I only sat down a short time before. Five players limp. Small blind folds and I raise in the big blind to about $70. All limpers fold to the button. Button is thinking of calling but SB (now out of the hand) and says "How can you call, he has a big pair". Button thinks about it and folds. After the hand I try to point out that it's wrong for someone not in the hand to speculate about others hands. The small blind took offense, and for a moment he and his friends at my end of the table had some minor words with me. The end result was that the jolly rockin action game got quite a bit tighter as they wanted to teach "the nit" a lesson.

There's more to it of course. Had I been at the table longer and established rapport with the player in the small blind, I'd probably be able to find a spot where I can point out that he shouldn't speculate without disturbing the mood of the table. Search for the old "limon" essays on the NL forum for the importance of keeping a crazy game good (the one that starts "I am more Greek" is a classic).

Then again, maybe we should go even farther. Instead of enforcing normal ettiquete regarding one player to a hand etc., encourage group participation within the rules, just as if you are having a TV poker party at home. For example, you're opponent is facing your big bet or raise, and the whole table is arguing whether he should call, raise or fold while he's thinking. The games probably get even better, but you can't be or think like a nit.

Regards,

Rick (former nit and still working on getting out the last bit of nit)

[47outs]

I am a floor there. So I think I could give you a pretty clear answer. There are just a few portions of your post the don't make sense to me

[ QUOTE ]

Seat 5 checks, seat 9 bets $30, seat 5 announces "Raise" and puts in $55.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great, so the bet to seat 9 is $55... $25 more to call ($58 as it turns out, the dealer is correct, the 3 $1 chips must play here). It is under the min. raise but seat 5 is all-in... the bet stands $58.


[ QUOTE ]

That made sense to me and pretty much everybody else at the table and seat 5 ended up folding.


[/ QUOTE ]

HOw did seat 5 end up folding? He made the allin raise! The only person with an option to fold here is seat 9 who has $28 more to call.

Do you mean seat 5 needed his 3 $1 chips so bad that he forfeited the $25 raise he made and gave the pot to seat 9? Seat 5 couldn't hold on to the $3 even if he wanted to at this point, words are binding... it's a $30 raise or allin up to the min. raise which as it turns out is $28.

So who ended up with the pot?

outs

[mrkilla]

You don't have to reraise the full amount if your all in, if you raise 25, i can raise to 26 "all in"
Theres another rule your missing, is "table stakes" meaning whats on the table plays, I dont care if you need 3 dollars to help your dying mother, if its on the table its in play.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That made sense to me and pretty much everybody else at the table and seat 5 ended up folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

HOw did seat 5 end up folding? He made the allin raise! The only person with an option to fold here is seat 9 who has $28 more to call.

Do you mean seat 5 needed his 3 $1 chips so bad that he forfeited the $25 raise he made and gave the pot to seat 9? Seat 5 couldn't hold on to the $3 even if he wanted to at this point, words are binding... it's a $30 raise or allin up to the min. raise which as it turns out is $28.

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed this last night while ranting [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. My guess is they let him take back the entire $58. Weird thinks happen when the floor isn't looking [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Hope you get an answer here.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Theres another rule your missing, is "table stakes" meaning whats on the table plays, I dont care if you need 3 dollars to help your dying mother, if its on the table its in play.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are exceptions. For example, in a $5-$5 or $5-$10 blind game less than five $1 chips usually won't play in most cardrooms. Even in smaller games it's common to let an opponent keep his last few one dollar chips and generally the dealer won't insist that they go in.

The only player type that it's best to insist the last few chips go in is the type that will continually throw them in when calling with a big hand but tries to hold back when calling with a weak hand. But if it's early in the play of the multi-way hand the information is worth more than the few extra chips.

Of course the type that will hold back a few chips and then try to go all-in with them next hand shouldn't be tolerated.

~ Rick

[DZgroundhog]

Okay, I guess I should have read over my post a little better before I submitted so I'll fix the part where I reversed the seats at the river action...


Hand is heads-up at the river between seats 5 and 9. Seat 9 checks, seat 5 bets $30, seat 9 announces "Raise" and puts in $55. For whatever reason, he left three $1 chips behind and said he "needed them." But the dealer told him that he had to put them in because he announced he was raising but couldn't make a full raise which then required him to go all-in for $58. That made sense to me and pretty much everybody else at the table and seat 5 ended up folding.


That probably makes a lot more sense now. I should've just referred to them as "donkey" and "good young guy" instead.

[AngusThermopyle]

..