7 replies to this topic

[JFarrell20]

This is a hand I saw live at the Aladdin in Vegas a few days ago. I know we've had a thread about this earlier a couple months back but I don't feel like digging it up.Here's how i went. NL Ring game $1/$2 blinds. $100 max buy-in.Guy leads out and raised to $25 (Sorry I don't remember the positioning of everyone). Guy to his left calls. fold, fold, fold, another guy calls. Next guy pushes all-in for $28. Fold, fold, back to original bettor who now unamusedly tosses in an additional $3 as if he's annoyed. Next guy calls the additional $3. Next guy now re-raises, throwing $50 in the pot (raising it by $47). One guy is already all-in. Two others are yet to act. Original bettor folds (HUH!?). Next guy folds (HUH!?) Both these guys had already put in $28. Anyway... so now the pot is basically just isolated to two people. The dude who bumped it up by $50 ends up winning the pot. I know we've had discussion on this, but...I thought someone's all-in had to be at least 50% more than the original bet in order to open back up the betting during that round? His all in was only $3 on top of $25, so I'm surprised the dealer let this other guy push $47 more on top of it...I was about to say something but I didn't until the hand was over. Two people (including the guy who won) assured me that any all-in raise re-opens the betting. I guess it is to the discretion of the casino???

[TylerBeal]

I dont think your correct here.Just because one guy cant afford to stay in the hand doesnt mean the betting should stop.It was a re-raise no matter of the amount. So It does re-open the betting.I think?

[JaysonWeber]

I think Beal is correct on this one... If he doesn't have the money to go all-in he buts his extra 3 in, and that re-opens the betting for everyone else after him.

[JFarrell20]

OK, it seems like before the consensus was that the all in had to be at least 50% on top of the original bet. Or that the ruling was subjective to the casino? Who knows.It doesn't seem fair, because the two guys who'd already called the 25, then called the extra 3 assuming the 4th and final guy in the hand would simply call. However, he bumps it up by $47 (after NOT re-raising to begin with) so they kind of got screwed. Kind of like a call/raise on steroids.In this case I think it should be played like limit.Since that guy re-raised by $3, I think the next raise should only be allowed to raise $3 more. However, I think the pre-flop re-raises should be unlimited in this case, but only increasing $3 at a time (like in limit when it's heads up). That way, it's more fair for all involved. After the flop, normal no-limit betting should ensue. To me, this seems to be most fair for all those in the pot.I think in the case I saw, in a cash game, cheating is a big possibility. Say you have $31 left, and your friend to your right bets $30, you move all in for $31, two people behind call $31, then your buddy to your right fires the rest of his $900 in the pot, and gets the other two people to fold, thus stealing $62 from the other two just through a loophole in the betting. It seems like an unfair way to strongarm the table.

[jogsxyz]

JFarrell20 said:

OK, it seems like before the consensus was that the all in had to be at least 50% on top of the original bet.  Or that the ruling was subjective to the casino?  Who knows.

The ruling is subjective to the casino. Dont trust the dealer. Ask the floor person for a ruling.

[JFarrell20]

Had I been in the hand, I would have. I should have anyway because the guy who won the pot was a real jerk. Actually he looked just like our own Teknowlege. lol. Minus the shades. I asked him if he posted on an internet forum, and he looked at me like I was crazy so I was like "nevermind, you look like someone.."

[JFarrell20]

yousuckedoutonme said:

that best bands thing is a joke right?

yeah. Except for the Celine Dion thing... God I love her! I wanted to see her in Vegas so badly.