Hosting $1/$2 Game - Need Some Tips (1 Viewer)

[Mental Nomad]

I think that's what BG and RROP is saying. Any change in action negates the OOT action, allowing them to fold, change bet, etc.

I've also seen it played that the initially called amount stands... A rule that I, frankly, like. Gives consequence to the OOT call, and makes paying attention next time much more likely.

 

[Chicken Rob]

I think your straddle seems weird to me. 1/2 games typically have a fixed $4 or $5 straddle in my experience. $7 seems a little big.

 

[BGinGA]

I've also seen it played that the initially called amount stands...

Perhaps, but I've not been able to find it in any written rule set. Got a source?

 

[justsomedude]

I think your straddle seems weird to me. 1/2 games typically have a fixed $4 or $5 straddle in my experience. $7 seems a little big.

I'm just going off my experience at Blackhawk here in CO, where you can straddle up to the $100 bet limit. I want to avoid that. And with $5 being my most common chip in play, $5 and $7 will be the common straddle bets. A $4 straddle limit will be odd for this crew. A $5 chip straddle, or $5 on top of the $2 BB is pretty standard. Maybe it's a regional thing.

 

[Trihonda]

Ya, never heard of an UTG straddle being much more than a min raise of the BB...

 

[Chicken Rob]

I'm just going off my experience at Blackhawk here in CO, where you can straddle up to the $100 bet limit. I want to avoid that. And with $5 being my most common chip in play, $5 and $7 will be the common straddle bets. A $4 straddle limit will be odd for this crew. A $5 chip straddle, or $5 on top of the $2 BB is pretty standard. Maybe it's a regional thing.

The important thing is that your group is happy. Sounds like sticking with the regional common practice will probably work out just fine.

I also hate the $4 straddle in 1/2. I much prefer the $5 straddle since $5 chips are the workhorses in the game.

 

[justsomedude]

I also hate the $4 straddle in 1/2. I much prefer the $5 straddle since $5 chips are the workhorses in the game.

"Live five!"

 

[Mental Nomad]

Perhaps, but I've not been able to find it in any written rule set. Got a source?

It was considered a valid interpretation of the rules in play in Atlantic City when I was a dealer (subject to the ruling of the poker shift supervisor).

It was a combination of the "verbal statements are binding" rule with the rule that says that if a player is obligated to place a wager by a verbal statement, throwing away their cards does no relieve the player of that obligation.

So if you call the first bet out of turn, the bet is valid... and if someone else raises, you can throw away your cards to avoid calling the raise, but you've already called the first bet.

If it was a one-off, we let them take the bet back with a warning... but some people would do it habitually of even intentionally. If they kept repeating it, we'd start making the call stand and not let them take it back - which they sometimes thought wouldn't matter until they saw someone raise and realized the impact. That's consistent with what I was taught in dealer school, too.

 

[justsomedude]

So if you call the first bet out of turn, the bet is valid... and if someone else raises, you can throw away your cards to avoid calling the raise, but you've already called the first bet.

I don't see how that works in the real world.

In a $1/$2 game, say UTG raises to $25, some guy in hijack says "call" OOT, but the bet is raised to $150 by the time it gets to hijack. Hell, say it's raised to $400. The dealer will make the hijack put in $25 behind a $400 raise? Something about that just doesn't seem right.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I don't see how that works in the real world.

In a $1/$2 game, say UTG raises to $25, some guy in hijack says "call" OOT, but the bet is raised to $150 by the time it gets to hijack. Hell, say it's raised to $400. The dealer will make the hijack put in $25 behind a $400 raise? Something about that just doesn't seem right.

Well, to be fair, I was actually dealing limit 7-stud at the time... but here's how it would actually play out in your scenario:

$1/$2 game, UTG raises to $25. Guy in hijack says "call" OOT, and puts up $25. Then the other players would act, including raising to $150. Dealer doesn't have to ask for $25, because it was already put up. Hijack can then choose to fold, or call the $125, but pulling back the $25 is not an option.

Conversely, if hijack chose to call OOT and nobody raises... the hijack cannot then raise. They've already declared that they call.

In real life, though, I don't recall it happening on a raise. It was almost universally people calling to limp in out of turn.

 

[justsomedude]

...but pulling back the $25 is not an option.

This is the part I don't understand. I have to admit I've never seen this occur - not being allowed to pull it back in the situation you described. But maybe Blackhawk isn't a prime example of poker-by-the-rules.

I guess this is one of those "depends where you play" type of deals? Not that I see it being an issue in my game, but I wish there was more certainty on the rules for this scenario.

 

[BGinGA]

Well, to be fair, I was actually dealing limit 7-stud at the time... but here's how it would actually play out in your scenario:

$1/$2 game, UTG raises to $25. Guy in hijack says "call" OOT, and puts up $25. Then the other players would act, including raising to $150. Dealer doesn't have to ask for $25, because it was already put up. Hijack can then choose to fold, or call the $125, but pulling back the $25 is not an option.

Conversely, if hijack chose to call OOT and nobody raises... the hijack cannot then raise. They've already declared that they call.

Everywhere I've played, the dealer would announce "not your action, sir" after Hijack's premature call, and once action is changed by a subsequent in-turn raise, new action is eventually on Hijack - who can either call the new wager amount or fold (but cannot raise). His initial out-of-turn call is not a valid action at this point, and therefore is not binding - so no money goes into the pot if he folds.

Which is exactly how it is addressed by RROP.

 

[12thMan]

The straddle thing may very well be another West Coast/Tribal vs. the East Coast on how it's done. Everywhere I've played in WA, CA, or AZ a straddle is anywhere up to the max bet. One dealer in particular at the Tulalip up here always answers the "How much can I straddle for?" question with the answer "$6-$500" on the 1/3 table. (double the big blind all the way up to Washington's $500 maximum per bet rule)

 

[courage]

I don't think it's necessarily a regional thing. My local casino is uncapped Mississippi straddle, so stick your whole stack in if you want. Most I've seen personally at 1/2 was $340 (and a blind call), most I reliably know of is $1k. That doesn't count the time I bet $1050 into a reg's $10 straddle knowing he'd probably call, which he did. I guess he had pot odds.

 

[brains613]

. That doesn't count the time I bet $1050 into a reg's $10 straddle knowing he'd probably call, which he did. I guess he had pot odds.

I just spit coffee onto my desk laughing... Dammit, man... Now I gotta clean this up. It's too early...

Did you win the hand?

 

[courage]

I just spit coffee onto my desk laughing... Dammit, man... Now I gotta clean this up. It's too early...

Did you win the hand?

Why yes, yes I did. KK > ??.

Effective stacks only $350 or so. Apologies for the hyperbole lol.

 

[Chicken Rob]

I've seen no limit Mississippi straddles, but I've never seen anything but fixed under the gun straddles.

I played in a 5/5 game with a $25 rock that was awesome. The fish really overvalued the rock. I wish that game ran still. The played a mix of NLHE and PLO.

 

[Mental Nomad]

That doesn't count the time I bet $1050 into a reg's $10 straddle knowing he'd probably call, which he did. I guess he had pot odds.

Did you win the hand?

Why yes, yes I did. KK > ??.

Illustrating exactly why the blind straddle is disadvantageous to the straddler. A straddler sometimes annoys the people just after them, who don't "get to play" for the stakes they wanted... especially since they often want to limp in on longshot cards and see a family pot to pay them off... but the smart money realizes that anyone putting more money down when they're out of position and can't even see their cards is necessarily getting the worst of it, and will allow them to gamble off as much as they want.

 

[bigfruits]

agree with the above. i'll play against all-in straddles all day.