Where are you getting this from?
From this thread. Specifically: (bold is my own)
The ruling has been made that both bets stand. Action is now on the next player.
If everyone folds back to the original raiser they then can make a deal of some sort.
Each take some money back or run it 4 times etc. but until it is heads up they need to keep their mouths shut and let the rest of the table play their hands.
At this point, I would say the action stays as is until the remainder of the table has acted. If the remaining players all fold, and it is heads up, they can negotiate. If another player calls after the reraise, I would say everything is now binding.
Mark
Like everyone else said, "b". If everyone else folds then they can deal, but reraisers yammering is also influencing action (as is raisers offer to negotiate) and I'd caution them both to stop talking until the other players have all made their decisions.
These two really are quite a pair, aren't they?
Like everybody else said, let the table have it's turn and if there's another caller, there are no negotiations.
If everybody folds, tell these two that they're a pair of pantywaists, and if they each want to pull an agreed-upon amount out of the pot before the flop, they can. Because this is a friendly home game.
My thoughts on this particular course of action is that if the deal that is reached between the two (original raiser and out of turn reraiser) involves seeing the flop (and therefore the rest of the hand, however far that goes) for less money than the full amount the other two players were faced with calling that would be unfair to the players that have already folded. If they both fold and then the deal is made that the two originals are going to pull back $400 does that mean either of the two players who have already folded can then decide to call $200 and retrieve their cards from the muck? That doesn't seem very likely, so to me that makes them face a decision for $600 that in the end was only $200.
Yes, I understand running it multiple times, what it means, and why it would be done or not done, but that is not relative to the above situation. If they run it twice it reduces variance for the two in the pot, but there is still $1200 of their money in there.
Which is why I think your line of thinking might be a little off when you say:
In my mind, any amount of players still in a hand can negotiate whatever deal they want. If someone behind re-raiser would have called, they could have been included in the discussion for pulling back money or chopping according to agreed percentages (or running it more than once).
to me that's the crux. Their decision was for $600, not $200 (or whatever would be agreed upon to see the flop) after the deal is made.
By the way, I don't think you're being a wise ass at
all, we are just having a discussion. It's a good reason not to post like trolls and start insulting people you have never met on the internet, it allows people to have a fun argument while passing time talking about something we all love which is the reason we are all here in the first place. That's the real definition of community to me, I have no idea what a few other people prattle on about when they reference "community" while being a troll.
Edit: I am assuming that what those posts, and a few others I might have missed, are referencing in regards to the "deal negotiated" to be inclusive of something like pulling out money out of the pot (in effect reducing the size of the original raise/reraise/call fiasco). If however what those posters meant is in regards to negotiating how many times to run it I mistook the meaning and would obviously not disagree with that line of thinking,
muttering how much he wanted to take a flop, but obviously not that much. Soon enough everyone folds leaving the two principals.
. The re-raiser wants to see a flop then decide, but the raiser doesn't budge. Play for stacks or give me $200. In the end the re-raiser paid the $200.
