Jump to content


Hometown Rule?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 murmar

murmar

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 286 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:40 AM

Three way action in no-limit hold em, on the flop first to act checks, second bets 20, third goes all in for 25, first is not allowed to raise. Is this a rule everywhere, and why is it a rule? Is it the same if the third raises a full bet?

#2 supertouch

supertouch

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 534 posts
  • Location:oceanside, ny
  • Interests:poker, music, comics, movies

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:45 AM

first guy can't re-raise because third's all in was not a raise because it was only 5 more. for first to be able to re-raise the third's all in must be at least 40 in that particular situation.standard rule of poker.ignore my answer, i read it wrong
stars- rightbrigade
ftp- new direction
bodog- supertouch

#3 murmar

murmar

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 286 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:48 AM

View Postsupertouch, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 11:45 AM, said:

first guy can't re-raise because third's all in was not a raise because it was only 5 more. for first to be able to re-raise the third's all in must be at least 40 in that particular situation.standard rule of poker.
Just to be sure you understand, it's three way action and the first guy hasn't acted on the initial bet of 20.

#4 ShakeZuma

ShakeZuma

    A hot and bothered astronaut

  • Members
  • 14,660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:crashing while I'm jacking off
  • Interests:Basket weaving, gardening, BDSM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:49 AM

View Postmurmar, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:48 PM, said:

Just to be sure you understand, it's three way action and the first guy hasn't acted on the initial bet of 20.
he checked. that was his action. all he can do is call.edit: and what in God's name is in your avatar?

View PostAmScray, on 30 August 2010 - 12:41 PM, said:

one cannot possibly ascribe themselves to the larger (D) philosophy without first being a poon

#5 LincolnK

LincolnK

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 338 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:stud

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:49 AM

the rule was applied wrong.the first guy has the option to re-raise the 2nd player's bet because player 1 initially checked and then there was action after him. if player one just calls, player 2 can't reraise. the all in bet has to be a raise of at least half the initial bet for it to affect betting options.

#6 turd ferguson

turd ferguson

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 9,322 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:52 AM

View PostShakeZuma, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 10:49 AM, said:

edit: and what in God's name is in your avatar?
I've wondered this for quite some time as well? Maybe it's a bean plant?

#7 chappy3

chappy3

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:53 AM

View Postmurmar, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 8:40 PM, said:

Three way action in no-limit hold em, on the flop first to act checks, second bets 20, third goes all in for 25, first is not allowed to raise. Is this a rule everywhere, and why is it a rule? Is it the same if the third raises a full bet?
1st should be able to do anything he wants, call/raise/fold. This is because he has not acted yet. 2nd should not be able to raise, because he made the bet and did not get a "full raise"(over half the amount)I believe this is the way it should be, house probably got this rule mixed up a bit. Someone correct me if i'm wrong?

#8 murmar

murmar

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 286 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:53 AM

View PostLincolnK, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 11:49 AM, said:

the rule was applied wrong.the first guy has the option to re-raise the 2nd player's bet because player 1 initially checked and then there was action after him. if player one just calls, player 2 can't reraise. the all in bet has to be a raise of at least half the initial bet for it to affect betting options.
That's what I thought, the second guy can't raise if the first guy just calls, but they ruled that the first guy couldn't raise. Nobody here has said why. My signature is your clue to my picture.

#9 ajs510

ajs510

    Resident Evil

  • Members
  • 24,906 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:54 AM

View Postturd ferguson, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:52 PM, said:

I've wondered this for quite some time as well? Maybe it's a bean plant?
Shit on a Stick, it's a Vancouver delicacy. You'll be hearing all about it during the 2010 Olympics.

#10 ShakeZuma

ShakeZuma

    A hot and bothered astronaut

  • Members
  • 14,660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:crashing while I'm jacking off
  • Interests:Basket weaving, gardening, BDSM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:55 AM

View Postajs510, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:54 PM, said:

Shit on a Stick, it's a Vancouver delicacy. You'll be hearing all about it during the 2010 Olympics.
those damn canadians... BUY A HAMBURGER PEOPLE!

View PostAmScray, on 30 August 2010 - 12:41 PM, said:

one cannot possibly ascribe themselves to the larger (D) philosophy without first being a poon

#11 turd ferguson

turd ferguson

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 9,322 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:56 AM

View Postmurmar, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 10:53 AM, said:

That's what I thought, the second guy can't raise if the first guy just calls, but they ruled that the first guy couldn't raise. Nobody here has said why. My signature is your clue to my picture.
It's the egg of a head louse? Gross!

#12 sloshr

sloshr

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 754 posts
  • Location:Covina, CA
  • Favorite Poker Game:mixed, esp with badugi

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:56 AM

wrong ruling. player 3's all-in is considered a call, since it is not a full raise, player 1 should be able to act accordingly. He checked, player 2, who is not all-in bet, of course he can raise. House rules can be anything you want, but this is simply a mistake by a floorman who doesn't understand what is going on.Had player 2 checked and player 3 bet all-in for less than the minimum bet, then player 1 could not raise, as nobobdy made an actual bet.Your ruling says that player 3 is protecting player 2 by being all-in. He cannot do that. Player 2 bet, so he is subject to being raised. If player 3 called or folded, clearly player 1 could raise. He still can.

#13 ajs510

ajs510

    Resident Evil

  • Members
  • 24,906 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 07 March 2006 - 10:59 AM

View PostShakeZuma, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:55 PM, said:

those damn canadians... BUY A HAMBURGER PEOPLE!
I'm told it's quite tasty, you coat the outside in caramel, and the little peanuts on the ins....oh never mind.

View Postturd ferguson, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:56 PM, said:

It's the egg of a head louse? Gross!
That's officially the strangest avatar on FCP. I found the original picture, and that's exactly what it is...Posted ImageI'm sure there's a story, I'm just not sure I want to hear it.

#14 murmar

murmar

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 286 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 07 March 2006 - 11:00 AM

View Postsloshr, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 11:56 AM, said:

wrong ruling. player 3's all-in is considered a call, since it is not a full raise, player 1 should be able to act accordingly. He checked, player 2, who is not all-in bet, of course he can raise. House rules can be anything you want, but this is simply a mistake by a floorman who doesn't understand what is going on.Had player 2 checked and player 3 bet all-in for less than the minimum bet, then player 1 could not raise, as nobobdy made an actual bet.Your ruling says that player 3 is protecting player 2 by being all-in. He cannot do that. Player 2 bet, so he is subject to being raised. If player 3 called or folded, clearly player 1 could raise. He still can.
So you think the casino pit guy just made a mistake. I was so sure I was right (that player 1 can raise) but the dealer, pit, and one of the regulars (not in the hand) agreed that he can just call, so i let it go.

#15 ShakeZuma

ShakeZuma

    A hot and bothered astronaut

  • Members
  • 14,660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:crashing while I'm jacking off
  • Interests:Basket weaving, gardening, BDSM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 11:01 AM

well that is deeeeeeesgusting

View PostAmScray, on 30 August 2010 - 12:41 PM, said:

one cannot possibly ascribe themselves to the larger (D) philosophy without first being a poon

#16 murmar

murmar

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 286 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 07 March 2006 - 11:03 AM

View Postajs510, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 11:59 AM, said:

I'm told it's quite tasty, you coat the outside in caramel, and the little peanuts on the ins....oh never mind.That's officially the strangest avatar on FCP. I found the original picture, and that's exactly what it is...Posted ImageI'm sure there's a story, I'm just not sure I want to hear it.
Daniel wrote an article called "Don't be such a nit" and I suck up to him by discouraging nitiness.

#17 turd ferguson

turd ferguson

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 9,322 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 11:08 AM

View Postmurmar, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 11:03 AM, said:

Daniel wrote an article called "Don't be such a nit" and I suck up to him by discouraging nitiness.
Yeah, but now I'm curious about what a nit has to do with being a stingy poker player.

#18 _Great_Dane_

_Great_Dane_

    Bye!

  • Members
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 12:17 PM

View Postmurmar, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:40 PM, said:

Three way action in no-limit hold em, on the flop first to act checks, second bets 20, third goes all in for 25, first is not allowed to raise. Is this a rule everywhere, and why is it a rule? Is it the same if the third raises a full bet?
The rule is "In no-limit, less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who already has acted." In this case, the second player made the first bet of $20. The third player went all in for $25, which is not a full raise. But the first to act may raise the second player's $20 bet to $40 or more because he has not acted on this player's bet yet..This is the correct ruling.For a list of the Tournament Directors' Association Rules, go to http://www.harrahs.com/wsop/rules.html This rule is at the very bottom. It's important that everyone interprets the rules correctly, though.

#19 _Great_Dane_

_Great_Dane_

    Bye!

  • Members
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 07 March 2006 - 12:33 PM

View PostLincolnK, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:49 PM, said:

the rule was applied wrong.the first guy has the option to re-raise the 2nd player's bet because player 1 initially checked and then there was action after him. if player one just calls, player 2 can't reraise. the all in bet has to be a raise of at least half the initial bet for it to affect betting options.
Actually, "less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who already has acted." You seemed to be confused with regard to the following rule: "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." In this case, the player went all in without making a full raise.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users