Please, Only Give Advice/rulings If You Know

[hank213 1,823]

You created a new thread to brag about being correct in an old thread? ...Knob. (exhibit A)Quit spamming.

I created a new thread to say "Please, Only Give Advice/rulings If You Know, Too many threads here have the WRONG answers..."But you may have missed that, Newbie! (exhibit B )

Yep, I resorted (exhibit C) to name calling. You got me. Case closed.

"re‧sort  /rɪˈzɔrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-zawrt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used without object) 1. to have recourse for use, help, or accomplishing something, often as a final available option or resource: to resort to war. 2. to go, esp. frequently or customarily: a beach to which many people resort. –noun 3. a place to which people frequently or generally go for relaxation or pleasure, esp. one providing rest and recreation facilities for vacationers: a popular winter resort. 4. habitual or general going, as to a place or person. 5. use of or appeal to some person or thing for aid, satisfaction, service, etc.; resource: to have resort to force; a court of last resort. (exhibit D ) 6. a person or thing resorted to for aid, satisfaction, service, etc. My point was simply this: Someone called you a name (exhibit A). You responded in kind (exhibit B ). I did not claim that you initiated said name calling as you in infer in exhibit C. Your motivation was as explained in exhibit D. Now, the whole point of your thread was that you seem to hold yourself and your opinions as utterly superior to the other posters here, and intimated that you deserved a seat of some special authority for those opinions. The point of my post was to say why that was, and still is, a wholly unappealing proposition.In closing, nanny nanny boo boo stick your face in doo doo

[DaBruins 0]

lemme try to figure out what 13cards is saying:When you say that the 32 was not a RAISE, you mean that it's not a RAISE because it didnt match the previous raise.....right?And your other scenario is incorrect, you said:player 1 bets $20.player 2 CALLS the $20player 1 now raises to $80 total?!?!?!?this can be acceptable if player 1 put in a straddle

[LongLiveYorke 38]

To OP:Your answer is right. Your explanation is wrong. This, comically, is exactly what you were advising against. The reason a person can or can't reraise is only the result of an arbitrary rule. It either has to be a full bet, or half of a full bet, or whatever they decide. Generally, it is a full bet. But there is no greater reason other than "that's the rule."

[TheCorporation3 0]

My life/ideas is retarded.

FYP

My join date is screwed up, but what else do I have to do while I'm killing the tables?

That's what I'm saying! I do the same thing man.

[finztotheleft 0]

Agreed, it is very much "buyer beware" here. What I am suggesting is designating one or two Veterean posters/players to research and make "official FCP answer" posts to the many ruling questions, not just incorrectly quote Robert's Rules.

Just to be clear......One or two veteran posters should volunteer their time to do all of this research....why ?Why should they waste their time ?Why can't the person with the question do their own research ?As has been clearly shown, some casinos use the 50% rule for limit and nolimit and some require another full bet. While you are correct regarding the answer at your casino, you INCORRECTLY assume that every casino has the same rule.You have made yourself look pretty silly.

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

MP did not make full raise. Therefore, the bet did not reopen the betting for a raise to the original better:"In no-limit and pot limit, less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who already has acted" is the applicable rule.A lot of people think that they know things. A smaller number of people know things.

As has been clearly shown, some casinos use the 50% rule for limit and nolimit and some require another full bet. While you are correct regarding the answer at your casino, you INCORRECTLY assume that every casino has the same rule.

The 50% rule quoted below applied to when a player places chips in an amount equal to 50% or more of the previous bet at which point, they would be required to make the minimum raise:

"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."

Any dealer or floor person who allows less than a full raise to reopen the betting to a raise to the original bettor is misinterpreting this rule.

[13CARDS 0]

PLEASE BAN ME, MODS!!

[simo_8ball 0]

"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."

Any dealer or floor person who allows less than a full raise to reopen the betting to a raise to the original bettor is misinterpreting this rule.

I think you are looking at the wrong rule. This rule suggests the player has more chips, so does not apply to all-in situations. It merely states that if someone tries to make an illegal raise they will be forces to make up the excess to make the raise legal.

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

I think you are looking at the wrong rule. This rule suggests the player has more chips, so does not apply to all-in situations. It merely states that if someone tries to make an illegal raise they will be forces to make up the excess to make the raise legal.

This is the applicable rule. If the all in bet is not a full raise, even if it is 50% more than the previous bet, the original better does not have the betting reopened to a raise.I played in a cash game about six months ago, in Harrah's, a player went all in for less than a full raise but more than 50% of the previous bet, the floor person incorrectly allowed the original better to raise again. I advised the floorperson of the correct rule interpretation, but his decision was final. I didn't care too much because I wasn't in the hand. The floorperson came back 15 minutes later and apologized to the table for the incorrect ruling and he pulled me aside to confirm that I was correct.Obviously, he should have checked the rules before making the decision to protect the integrity of the game.

[simo_8ball 0]

This is the applicable rule. If the all in bet is not a full raise, even if it is 50% more than the previous bet, the original better does not have the betting reopened to a raise.

It fails to state that explicitly. I don't see that is is possible to deduce the all-in ruling from your definition.I believe that most places do go by the full bet rule for reopening betting, but there (almost certainly) will be places that do not. 13CARDS seems to refute this totally.

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

It fails to state that explicitly. I don't see that is is possible to deduce the all-in ruling from your definition.I believe that most places do go by the full bet rule for reopening betting, but there (almost certainly) will be places that do not. 13CARDS seems to refute this totally.

This is the rule:

In no-limit and pot limit, less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who already has acted.

If an all in play were to change the rule, it would say"

In no-limit and pot limit, less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who already has acted. If a player raises all in for 50 percent or more of the previous bet, this would reopen the betting for a raise to the original bettor.

Assuming that something can be done, because it's not stated that it cannot is an incorrect way of thinking. I know the rules. Many people do not. There's nothing that can be said to convince you otherwise. I'm done.

[simo_8ball 0]

This is the rule:

In no-limit and pot limit, less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who already has acted.

If an all in play were to change the rule, it would say"

In no-limit and pot limit, less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who already has acted. If a player raises all in for 50 percent or more of the previous bet, this would reopen the betting for a raise to the original bettor.

Assuming that something can be done, because it's not stated that it cannot is an incorrect way of thinking. I know the rules. Many people do not. There's nothing that can be said to convince you otherwise. I'm done.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I was only pointing out that from the initial rule you quoted it was not possible to derive the all-in ruling. That is not to say that (regarding all-ins) the half-bet rule is correct, just that you did not prove the full bet rule. I can be awkward like that.

[13CARDS 0]

PLEASE BAN ME, MODS!!

[navybuttons 15]

Still not one actual casino named that allows the misinterpeted 50% rule.

i'll recant and say that you are correct, that according to the rules, the original raiser cannot re-raise.however, i have seen this done at commerce, hawaiian gardens, and harrahs in new orleans. please don't call the floorpeople and tell them the errors of their ways. floorpeople make mistakes and it happens, no big deal.now on to what is wrong with you. relax, you seem to have such an ego and this thread is a monument to it. this is an internet forum and believe it or not, from time to time, people are going to disagree with you. if you don't want people to flame you stop acting like a jackass. also when you say you are "done" with a topic it makes it seem like you no longer care. in fact you are pointing out that you no longer care. but when you keep going back and posting on the same thread it shows that you do, in fact, care what digital people think of you. now we can lock it up.

[Calendyr 0]

I stopped reading at page 2 BUT if you have questions about rules, use Robert's rules to know.Here is the link to it on my own website, hope this will help you guys for future questions.http://www.pokerrosemont.com/rules.html

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I created a new thread to say "Please, Only Give Advice/rulings If You Know, Too many threads here have the WRONG answers..."But you may have missed that, Newbie!

Welcome to a place called the "Internet" - you get opinions and "facts" to use at your own risk.I get a bit of a kick out of one poster with a little over 100 posts calling another poster with a few dozen "newbie"......and then later complaining of elitism based on post counts

[TheCorporation3 0]

Welcome to a place called the "Internet" - you get opinions and "facts" to use at your own risk.I get a bit of a kick out of one poster with a little over 100 posts calling another poster with a few dozen "newbie"......and then later complaining of elitism based on post counts

Yeah I know I saw that too and that it was pretty funny, lol. Oh yeah, hey, welcome to the interweb as well!

[13CARDS 0]

PLEASE BAN ME, MODS!!

[Calendyr 0]

It is FCP's ranking system, not mine.Thank you....I wonder if you could point out what rule on your site applies to this situation presented?

That's the official rulebook, so if the situation is not covered, then it's up to the site rules. But frankly I have not seen any situation not covered yet. Do a search in the document by hitting CTRL+F and you should find what you are looking for.

[Ecclesbury 0]

Great Dane, you seem to be knowledgeable about this, and you are speaking coherently, so perhaps you can answer my question.Where exactly are you getting this rule from? What is considered the bible on dealing rules?I only ask because I have had a quick scan through the professional poker dealers handbook and I can't see anything regarding this rule for no-limit / pot-limit, only structured limit. It may actually be in there, but I couldn't find it, but it would be nice to know where you are getting this information from.

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

Great Dane, you seem to be knowledgeable about this, and you are speaking coherently, so perhaps you can answer my question.Where exactly are you getting this rule from? What is considered the bible on dealing rules?I only ask because I have had a quick scan through the professional poker dealers handbook and I can't see anything regarding this rule for no-limit / pot-limit, only structured limit. It may actually be in there, but I couldn't find it, but it would be nice to know where you are getting this information from.

http://www.pokertda.com/There's an RTF word processing document or a pdf file to be downloaded, but neither of these is complete. Most of my knowledge is from playing WSOP, WSOP circuit, and WPT tournaments for the last 1 1/2 years or so. I have corrected dealers when they have made mistakes and I've had floorpeople thank me for explaining the rules to dealers so that they are easily understood. It bothers me that rules are sometimes applied inconsistently. I spoke with a WPT tournament director a few days ago about an online resource or a book with all of the rules and he said that one does not exist. When I asked him if the WSOP and WPT could put together a universal guide, he shook his head and said that the two do not talk to each other.

[13CARDS 0]

PLEASE BAN ME, MODS!!

[goose 0]

I deal in Ontario and I can assure you that you will get nowhere at all. Every rule in the casino pertaining to the actual play of the game is approved and regulated by the AGCO. Any changes to the rules of play need to go through the AGCO, which is a ridiculously complicated procedure, and none of the poker room pit managers want to deal with it. Niagara's/Fallsview's rules are fine though.Not to mention the pit manager's have zero ability to initiate the process themselves, and the people who could actually get it going they won't let just anyone speak with.

[MaryWithoutSound 0]

Still not one actual casino named that allows the misinterpeted 50% rule.

Prairie Meadows in Des Moines, Iowa. "Oh, but that's Iowa.." Uh huh.And apparently the casino the OP mentioned.

[SpiderGuard 0]

*bump*