Disgusting Debate Over Supposedly Simple Poker Rule

[GetSprung 0]

I enjoy how most people don't read the responses and just post. It gets pretty annoying considering the correct answer was on page 1, 2, and now 3. Although Sandwedge is clearly a more composed dealer than I was. I would just slap people at the table for questioning things if they were wrong. I have no tolerance for idiots who argue when they have no clue.

[vbnautilus 48]

I find this whole debate to be just disgusting.

[Dratj 0]

That wouldn't work very well. Let's use my example of utg betting $40. If the next player went all-in for $41, then the action would be re-opened. I think we'd all agree that wouldn't be fair.I can understand why you'd propose the limit rule being applied. In fact, I've seen a lot of dealers/floors make the mistake of doing that. Basically, they remember the limit rule, and apply it in a no-limit situation. I saw this once at a table where I was playing. The dealer, another dealer who was playing, AND the floor (after I had called for him) all got it wrong.Quick Edit: The more I work in the poker industry, the more I realize that I'm not perfect. I've made incorrect calls, and probably will again in the future. I guess what I'm saying is that I hope I'm not coming across as an arrogant "know-it-all".

Yes, i agree it wouldn't be fair either but it was just to illustrate why i feel the limit rule should be applied to the no limit rule. it's the same thing if the all in player is in for $79 and it's so close to $80 but action is not reopened to the original bettor. The limit rule applied to nl is the best compromise in an imperfect situation imo.

I enjoy how most people don't read the responses and just post. It gets pretty annoying considering the correct answer was on page 1, 2, and now 3. Although Sandwedge is clearly a more composed dealer than I was. I would just slap people at the table for questioning things if they were wrong. I have no tolerance for idiots who argue when they have no clue.

U seem angry all the time. u used to be more mellow. What's up dude?

[GetSprung 0]

U seem angry all the time. u used to be more mellow. What's up dude?

Stupidity angers me. Not to mention I haven't posted on this forum in months so people wouldn't remember how big of a douchebag I am.

[Mr. Sparco 2]

Yes, i agree it wouldn't be fair either but it was just to illustrate why i feel the limit rule should be applied to the no limit rule. it's the same thing if the all in player is in for $79 and it's so close to $80 but action is not reopened to the original bettor. The limit rule applied to nl is the best compromise in an imperfect situation imo.

I actually think the current rule is the one that mimicks the LHE rule best. What I mean is: in limit, a raise (if the player has enough chips) is always by a fixed amount. When the all in is less than half of this standard raise, it's not treated as a raise; when the all in is half or more, it is treated as a raise.In no limit, even though the minimum raise is equal to the previous raise (or 1BB if nobody raised yet), the average raise people make is more than this. It is of course impossible to precisely estimate how big this average raise would be, but it is probably not a horrible estimate to say that the average raise is close to 2x the last raise (or 2BB if nobody raised yet). So in that respect, the rule is pretty similar: if the all in is less than half of the "expected" raise (and hence less than a minraise), it is not treated as a raise; if it is half or more, it is treated as a raise.

[speedz99 145]

I find this whole debate to be just disgusting.

Heh.

I actually think the current rule is the one that mimicks the LHE rule best. What I mean is: in limit, a raise (if the player has enough chips) is always by a fixed amount. When the all in is less than half of this standard raise, it's not treated as a raise; when the all in is half or more, it is treated as a raise.In no limit, even though the minimum raise is equal to the previous raise (or 1BB if nobody raised yet), the average raise people make is more than this. It is of course impossible to precisely estimate how big this average raise would be, but it is probably not a horrible estimate to say that the average raise is close to 2x the last raise (or 2BB if nobody raised yet). So in that respect, the rule is pretty similar: if the all in is less than half of the "expected" raise (and hence less than a minraise), it is not treated as a raise; if it is half or more, it is treated as a raise.

Well, I think we all know who needs to respond to this.

[mtdesmoines 3]

LOL. I like how you're getting things stirred up.Of course, we all know it's not a "call" since it's more money. But it's not a "raise" either, since it's not a full raise. We need a new term to define it.

caiserall???

I find this whole debate to be just disgusting.

LOL