Do any casinos use "open stakes?" (as opposed to table stakes) - Poker Card Room

Two Plus Two Forums Live Poker Casino & Cardroom Poker

Do any casinos use "open stakes?" (as opposed to table stakes)

Post Reply Subscribe

...

05-09-2013 , 10:14 AM

synth_floyd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 7,074

I was just watching the Cincinatti Kid and they were using the "open stakes" style of betting where you're allowed to bet money that's not on the table and even borrow in the middle of a hand. Then I looked up the concept of open stakes on Wikipedia and they said:

Quote:

In casinos, players are sometimes allowed to buy chips at the table during a hand, but are never allowed to borrow money or use IOUs. Other casinos, depending on protocol for buying chips, prohibit it as it slows gameplay considerably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betting...er#Open_stakes

Has anyone ever been to or seen a situation in a casino in which open stakes were allowed?

Quote

05-09-2013 , 11:00 AM

TheJacob

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,862

So everyone but fish buy in for the minimum and then add on when they have big hands?

Quote

05-09-2013 , 12:07 PM

psandman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 15,829

I played in underground LIMIT games where players did not play table stakes ..... but this was not an opton one had in the middle of a hand. If you weren't playing table stakes .... there was no such thing as going all in. If you were ran out of chips you played light and either paid out of pocket after the hand or borrowed the money from the guy running the game.

This obviously doesn't work for a No Limit game.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 12:35 PM

ChicagoTroy

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,646

I play in an open stakes spread limit home game. I have heard of underground games that allow this in NL/PL games in Dublin, but it's all super-shady due to the need for a "collections department."

Legit casinos would never permit this in a poker game, since there's no verification process between players. They might allow "insta-markers" in table games where the player was known to the casino. Charles Barkley got into trouble years ago for something similar with Wynn.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 02:08 PM

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Wouldn't Bill Gates (or whoever) just be able to over bet every hand, and no one would be able to call because they can't match the bet? I guess if nothing else it would be an interesting exercise of the Kelly criterion.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 02:11 PM

AngusThermopyle

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 14,929

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

Wouldn't Bill Gates (or whoever) just be able to over bet every hand, and no one would be able to call because they can't match the bet?

Not what the question was about. You still cannot be "bet out of a hand", just that you can call all in preflop with $50 vs a $1000 stack and then pull out $950 if you hit your set.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 02:17 PM

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngusThermopyle

Not what the question was about. You still cannot be "bet out of a hand", just that you can call all in preflop with $50 vs a $1000 stack and then pull out $950 if you hit your set.

I don't think that's correct. From his link:

Quote:

...a large bankroll meant an unfair advantage; raising the bet beyond what a player could cover in cash gave the player only two options; buy a larger stake (borrowing if necessary) or fold.

Additionally, I've never seen the action you're referring to in Cincinatti Kid, or any other old poker movie.

EDIT: It seems with the "modern open stakes" you can go "all in" instead of adding money to call a bet, so the 'Bill Gates objection' wouldn't apply. However, you cannot, from what I can tell, add additionally money after doing so, i.e. you cannot go "all in" for $50 preflop, and then add on $5000 after hitting top set.

Last edited by asdfasdf32; 05-09-2013 at 02:39 PM.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 02:31 PM

Zak3nnay0

old hand

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

Additionally, I've never seen the action you're referring to in Cincinatti Kid, or any other old poker movie.

You're kidding right? It's in the last poker scene.

http://youtu.be/ZnMir5eQsWA

2:45 the kid goes all in

3:25 the man raises $5000

4:15 they discuss markers

Last edited by Zak3nnay0; 05-09-2013 at 02:37 PM.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 02:41 PM

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zak3nnay0

You're kidding right? It's in the last poker scene.

Errr, he never went "all in" to call one street and then on the next street added money.

Quote:

http://youtu.be/ZnMir5eQsWA

2:45 the kid goes all in

3:25 the man raises $5000

4:15 they discuss markers

To your edit:

Yes, he bet what he had in from of him, but he didn't "go all in". As in, he wasn't refusing to call a larger bet and deciding to play table stakes only.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 03:08 PM

#10

Playbig2000

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 11,313

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

um no... they wouldn't need to "match the bet". They would be all-in-for-less for whatever their net worth is.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 03:31 PM

#11

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Playbig2000

um no... they wouldn't need to "match the bet". They would be all-in-for-less for whatever their net worth is.

No. Read the wiki.

Quote:

...a large bankroll meant an unfair advantage; raising the bet beyond what a player could cover in cash gave the player only two options; buy a larger stake (borrowing if necessary) or fold.

Quote:

In modern open-stakes rules, a player may go all in as in table stakes if he so chooses...

It's either "match the bet or fold" [older open stakes], or you have the option to "match the bet, go 'all-in' (playing table stakes), or fold" [modern open stakes].

Quote

05-09-2013 , 03:51 PM

#12

AngusThermopyle

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 14,929

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

No. Read the wiki.

The Wiki is based on movies and novels, not facts.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 03:53 PM

#13

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngusThermopyle

The Wiki is based on movies and novels, not facts.

Okay. Can you provide a cite for your particular interpretation of open stakes?

Quote

05-09-2013 , 04:25 PM

#14

simonphoenix

centurion

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 168

In the highest stakes games, sometimes a player will be playing "open", which is he has no money on him, no chips, but everyone knows he is good for it. The players themselves will keep track of what is owed. This is mostly for limit games, although I'm sure I've seen it a few times in NL, but very rarely.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 04:57 PM

#15

AngusThermopyle

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 14,929

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonphoenix

In the highest stakes games,

Not in a legit casino.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 06:50 PM

#16

Bene Gesserit

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 6,365

There is a reason open stakes is a rare to extinct animal these days. It proved to be insane to play that way!

Quote

05-09-2013 , 07:01 PM

#17

NickMPK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 11,567

This is basically the plot of "A Big Hand for the Little Lady", which involves the characters wandering around the town trying to convince someone to loan them money to cover a bet in the middle of a poker hand.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 09:05 PM

#18

KL03

old hand

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,407

The idea of someone being forced to call the entire amount of a bet that exceeds their stack is ridiculous and I doubt any casino follows that rule.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 09:42 PM

#19

Rapini

ragging

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 13,096

Quote:

Originally Posted by psandman

This is also the only time I've ever seen it. Basically the people who were playing with the option of never being all in had a chip in front of them that said "BEHIND" on it, which meant they always had money behind.

Quote

05-09-2013 , 11:49 PM

#20

As2s3s4s5s

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,212

Quote:

Originally Posted by psandman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapini

Ditto. I have played in mid limit mixed games where all players were required to cover all bets at all times and were responsible for making up the light amount after the hand. I honestly liked it because there were no short stacks and the action tended to be very heavy.

Quote

Post Reply Subscribe

...