May 19, 2008 by monodono.

Recently I had a debate with another dealer, about verbal declarations & we got to “I bet the pot”, my friend said in tournament play you’re not allowed to declare “I bet the pot” because the dealer should never count the pot. I said the only exception is when a player verbally declares “I bet the pot” in which the dealer should count the pot and any bets that have been previously wagered to determine the size of the bet. (we play with bet line rules) What are the proper guide lines on this in the TDA ?

Posted in Gross Misunderstandings, Underbets, etc, Limit, No-Limit, Pot Limit, Bets, Min Raise, StringBet, Fwd Motion, Act Out-Of-Turn | Print | 9 Comments »

May 4, 2008 by Rising300.

Ok, so I hear a few Las Vegas rooms adopting a new practice on how to handle 4 card flops, and I kinda like it. We may do it here too in our big strip room.

If a dealer flops out 4 cards, instead of shuffling everything back in and many times getting the nowhere near the same flop, let’s take those 4 cards, give them a good scramble, take the top three, and plop them down as a flop. Then, that last card the dealer has will simply be an exposed burn card. This way there is a good chance that at least 2 of the 3 cards that would have originally come out do come back, and maybe even that would be the original flop.

It makes sense, let’s say a guy has AK, another pair of 9s, flop is all rags, but 4 cards, and then everything is shuffled back in, and AK all the sudden pairs on the “new” flop. I just think this method is more fair.

Opinions?

Posted in Fouled Hands, Gross Misunderstandings, Underbets, etc, Limit, No-Limit, Pot Limit, Dealer Errors, Bad Flops, Etc., Misdeals, Texas Holdem | Print | 4 Comments »

February 7, 2008 by Spessartine.

A few quick questions for those of you who probably know better than I, and hopefully you can help me out.

1. Up until the WSOP rules were brought to our attention last year, my bar league always played that No-Limit meant there was no maximum on bets/raises, and no limit to the number of raises allowed. The WSOP 2007 rule set we have has a rule (that the head honchos brought in after a lot of player griping), where a player who has already acted cannot reraise an all-in that doesn’t make a minimum raise. I’ve been fighting this tooth and nail ever since, so I’m a little biased, but I am curious too. Does anyone know where this rule comes from? It sounds suspiciously like a Limit rule to me, that people are accidentally applying to NL play. Is this rule enforced in NL games at the WSOP? What’s the basis for it?

2. I recently had to toss a player from a tournament who got rowdy (while drunk) when he realized that we shorten the blinds at our final table (30 minute blinds until the final table, and then 15 minute blinds). This rule predates me, and has a very necessary basis in finishing the tournament before the bar has to lock the doors for the night. The player claimed that this is absolutely unheard of and a gross misconduct on our part. Any thoughts? ** I realize that we could probably accomplish the same thing with constant 20 minute blinds, but this is one of the few things that I don’t get to decide. Also, it should be noted that the blind schedule and timing is posted with our rules for all to see, and I always mention it if some one asks about the blind schedule.**

Posted in All-In Bets; Re-Opening Betting, Side-Pots, Split Pots, Start Chips, Blind Raising Structure, Tourney Timing, Limit, No-Limit, Pot Limit | Print | 5 Comments »

December 19, 2007 by wiredaces14.

I ran into an interesting situation at a table of a Pot-Limit Omaha game that I was looking for clarification on.  In a Pot Limit game, as a dealer I know to calculate any “pot” verbal as a pot size raise.  NOW, I had a player state “I bet the pot”, meaning that he did not intend to raise the pot size, but rather bet the size of the current pot.

 Scenario:  $1-$2 Pot Limit.  $24 in pot Pre-Flop.  After the flop, Player A Bets $16 and Player B states “I bet the pot”, but when I announced his raise as a total of $72 ($24+16bet+16call= raise of 56).  In this case the player’s intention was to bet the current amount of the pot (which would be $40).

Is this a legal bet??  As a dealer this creates some grey area to the pot size bet, and I have never run into this issue before, and didn’t think this was even a legal bet.  IMO if a player intends to raise any amount other than a full pot size raise, it is their responsibility to calculate their intended raise and give a numerical value.  What is next? I bet 3/4 of the pot plus 2? 

As a dealer I know verbals to be binding.  If a player states fold, they surrender their hand, If they state call they must meet the current bet, and if a player states the word “pot” they must make a full pot-size raise.

 Responses Appreciated.

Posted in Limit, No-Limit, Pot Limit, Bets, Min Raise, StringBet, Fwd Motion, Act Out-Of-Turn, Texas Holdem | Print | 2 Comments »

December 18, 2007 by Sonny.

I am hoping to get some clarification of a rule. I run an amateur poker league, and I get players of all different skill levels who play with us. One of the things I try to do, is not only give rules, but give the “why” of the rule.  Another problem that I try to overcome, is the abundance of “house rules” , and misunderstood rules that people “think” they understand.

Lately the “disclosing contents of a live hand” rule is coming into question. I have players who think they have the right to tell people what they have in their hand, as long as they are lying. So we have a player who likes to tell opponents what his hand. His opponents think this is not allowed and call for me. The language of rule is about “disclosing or exposing” The argument is, if he is lying, then he did not disclose anything, therefore he is within the rules. And the problem is, now other players are following suit, thinking they have found another angle. I was considering using the disruptive behaviour rule. The problem is, everytime he announces his cards, someone wants me to check them. And I don’t think that is part of my job to be at the whim of someone who wants to angle. Where did this thing about disclosing contents, as long as you are lying come from? And is there anything in TDA, or Robert’s rules, that is more clear? I can see how the language can cause challenges. Thanks for your input.

Sonny

Posted in Official Rules & Guidelines, General, Etiquette, Behavior, Play Procedures & Penalties, Limit, No-Limit, Pot Limit, TDA & this forum: Questions, Comments, Suggestions, Texas Holdem | Print | 3 Comments »

December 3, 2007 by Legato.

The following happened at my table during a recent TDA sanctioned tournament:

Blinds 300/600. First player in tosses in 2*500 chips without announcing anything. It’s considered a call. I am not in the pot and I don’t get involved in the discussion until after the hand where I state that I thought it was a raise in a situation like that, because:

* The raise is more than 50% of the minimum raise (1000>900).
* The one chip rule does not apply since 2 chips were used.

The other players at the table say I’m wrong and it’s a call, they fail to motivate why though. One of them really wants to know and calls floor over. Floor says it’s a call in the described situation. The next day I talk to my neighbour at the table (a pokerstars pro) about the ruling, asking him of his opinion. He says he’s sure that it’s a raise and calls the head floor over. He says it’s a call, and when we ask if throwing in 3*500 on 400/800 also would be a call he says that would be a raise. He does not tell us why he thinks we are wrong when we say “there is no 2 chip rule, right”?

My conclusion is that he felt that the intention of the 2*500 is clearly a call, while the intention of the 3*500 is clearly a raise. But is it really the right decision to abide by intention when “the book” clearly states it’s a raise? IMO it’s much easier if rules are enforced strictly according to book, since players will then learn to announce “call” or “raise” if the intention isn’t 100% clear. To me it seems like tricky follow up situations can occur otherwise. Let’s say someone calls his bet putting in 600, and the player now says “ohh, I meant to raise, it’s got to be 1200 right?”, what do you do know?

Posted in Official Rules & Guidelines, General, Etiquette, Behavior, Play Procedures & Penalties, Limit, No-Limit, Pot Limit, Money & Chips, Bets, Min Raise, StringBet, Fwd Motion, Act Out-Of-Turn | Print | 6 Comments »

November 5, 2007 by okraD.

in 2$-5$ nl buy -in is 200$ minimum and 500$ maximum. Player buy for 300$ and lost. He rebuy for 300$ more and loose.

NOW he have only 100$, and he want:s to play. What is the answer? Should he be alowed to rebuy for 100$ even if minimum 200$, or he should be moved to smaller table? What if we allow him to rebuy for 100$ and he loose, and then he somehow “find”500 $ in his pocket and now rebuys for 500$ ? is any rule?

Posted in Etiquette, Behavior, Play Procedures & Penalties, Limit, No-Limit, Pot Limit, Texas Holdem, Uncategorized | Print | 2 Comments »

September 18, 2007 by Steve_Piper.

I host a $100 buy-in 40-person NL holdem tournament at my home twice per year.  I’ve got enough space for five 8-person tables, equating to 40 players.  Players start out with $3,000 in chips, with blinds starting at $25/$50 going up every 20 minutes.

Last time, I had 43 people wanting to play.  I decided to allow the additional 3 people to register as “Alternates”, allowing them to enter the tournament during the first hour only (first 3 levels) in the event players get knocked out during that first hour.  It turned out that exactly 3 people got knocked out during the first hour, enabling all 3 Alternates to play.

When the Alternates joined the tournament, they each started with $3,000 in chips.  One player felt that I should have somehow reduced their starting chips before entering the tournament to be fair to the original starting players remaining.  But I argue that these three Alternates are already being (slightly) penalized because they’re entering the tournament with $3,000 in chips when the average chip stack is $3,077 after the 1st person got knocked out, $3,154 after the 2nd person got knocked out, and $3,231 after the 3rd person got knocked out. 

Should I have somehow reduced the starting chip stacks for these three Alternate players joining the tournament during the first hour?  I can certainly understand blinding them off if they were “late” players with chips waiting for them at the table.  But that’s not the situation I’m talking about here.

If you do feel these Alternate players should have started with less than the $3,000 starting chip stack, then please recommend how you would have determined how much to remove from their starting chip stacks.  Thanks, in advance, to all those who reply. 

Posted in Start Chips, Blind Raising Structure, Tourney Timing, Chaos: Sloppy Mgmt of Tables & Tournament, Official Rules & Guidelines, General, Registration, Buy-Ins, & Awards, Limit, No-Limit, Pot Limit, Seating & Moving Players, Money & Chips, Texas Holdem | Print | 9 Comments »

January 10, 2007 by frenchflush.

We still have problems in our tournaments with this horrible 50% raise rule!

Here it is (from TDA): If a player puts in a raise of 50 percent or more of the previous bet, he will be required to make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed.

This is clear BUT …

What about under 50%? choice? call?

Did the player is suppose to have say something? (because a lots of new intimidated players says nothing while throwing chips in front of them!)

Like: no limit 3-6 blinds & after the flop:

A bets 6

B throws a chip of 10 saying nothing: WE RULE CALL (big chip no change rule)

B throws 2 chips of 5 saying nothing: WE RULE CALL (big chips no change rule)

B throws 3 chips of 5 saying nothing: WE RULE A RAISE (obvious raise)

B throws 1 chips of 5 + 4 chips of 1 saying nothing: WE RULE RAISE (obvious raise of 50% or more so he have to complete with 3)

B throws 1 chip of 5 + 3 chips of 1 saying nothing: IS IT RULED A CALL?

BECAUSE WE REFUSE TO “ASK THE PLAYER IS INTENTIONS” : it could give him an advantage! 

If I were the boss of the TDA:

ANY RAISE NOT ANNOUNCED OR WITHOUT ANNOUNCING ANY AMOUNT IS RULED A CALL

ANY WRONG RAISE ANNOUNCED IS RULED A FORCED MINIMUM RAISE

Come on : just do it !

Posted in Official Rules & Guidelines, General, Limit, No-Limit, Pot Limit, Money & Chips, Bets, Min Raise, StringBet, Fwd Motion, Act Out-Of-Turn | Print | 3 Comments »

November 18, 2006 by frenchflush.

Hello,

What about a player making a wrong raise but under 50% of the normal one (150 raised to 200 for exemple)? It seems that the “new” Robert’s rules of poker (if used in your house) oblige any wrong raise to complete for a normal one (here to 300)! No more forced call ?

(it’s very surprising here in the Europe of long time “5 cards draw” because we feel that the real punishment is to be obliged to call … not to be obliged to raise!!!)

TY

GG 

Posted in Limit, No-Limit, Pot Limit, Bets, Min Raise, StringBet, Fwd Motion, Act Out-Of-Turn | Print | 4 Comments »