You are correct

Technically a sleeper bet is more -ev than a straddle because if you straddle you still have the option to raise after other players call (and protect aa for example)

That's why I think this situation is not that difficult for a good floor to accomodate, again assuming it is announced in a timely manner

The main case for not allowing sleeper bets or straddles is that it is too intimidating/confusing for some (generally low-stakes) players, management should not get in the way if players are ok with it and/or may wish to encourage players not ok with it to move to a different table

Well by your logic management should have no rules and allow players to do whatever they want.

I do not see why you don't acknowledge that oot action benefits the players before the oot actor and that creates a disadvantage to the players after the oot actor.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

All other players at the table get net advantage from a sleeper bet, I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this concept

I understand that you think it's true.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Now explain to me how the bet being made oot benefits everyone (as opposed to a blind bet made in turn)

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

You can't really separate the bet being blind and the bet being OOT. A blind OOT bet does not disadvantage the players to the left of the bettor relative to no bet being made at all.

It's been standard and accepted wherever I've played to give the big donators to the game extra leeway. It's part the floor's job to make sure the game is being run fairly, but another part of his job is customer service. If the table wants this to continue and the integrity of the game is not severely affected (you're arguing it is?) let it continue.

Also, what exactly do you expect to happen if you try to stop this behavior? The best case scenario is that the OOT bettor continues to bet blind, but now does so in turn. The rules nits are happy, the OOT bettor and everybody that wants him to stay at the table are annoyed. Everybody at the table still knows what the blind bettor is going to do with 100% of his range when action is on him, so no effective difference is made and you've annoyed the majority of the table. The OOP players still have their advantage and the IP players are still somehow "disadvantaged."

The worst case scenario is that the donator leaves and anybody at the table that cared about making money is pissed at you. The game may even break if it had formed around this guy.

Ok, playing 5/10, before cards are dealt villain announces he bets $200 dark from the btn, floor says as long as no player raises in front of him the bet is binding, how is everyone else at the table not better off when villain is commited to that action with any 2 cards he is dealt? You can limp-raise and limp-call with big hands for immediate profit.

I don't think you can say definitively whether it net helps the players acting after the blind bet or not. I'm pretty sure it would depend on how big the OOT blind bet is compared with size of the game. The ratio of bet size over blind size would have to be over a certain ratio.

For example, if it's a 1/2 game, and the guy bets OOT all in blind for $1000, I imagine it would be profitable for the people in later position just counting the few times one will pick up Aces. If the blind bet is $4 and the game is deep-stacked, I'm pretty sure it would not be beneficial to the late position players; they effectively now have to act in early position preflop, with just a slight juicing of the pot. There is some point inbetween at which the blind OOT raise would be neutral for those players, but it would be very difficult to figure that point out.

You are not mak8ng the right comparison.

You are setting it up to compare a blind OOT bet against no blind bet at all.

But that is not the comparison to make. the comparison to make is a blind bet OOT vs. a blind bet made in turn.

Why do you insist on treating it as though its impossible for a player to choose to bet blind but just wait until its his turn to do so?

I don't really get the distinction you are trying to make. A blind bet (i prefer the term dark bet as it is more descriptive) in turn is for all practical purposes identical to a blind bet out of turn. But by making action player treat it like a normal action you are making it harder to enforce and reducing his fun when he is gifting free $ to the whole table.

While I am against allowing OOT bets, I do see the point. It's very unlikely you will ever see many blind, in turn bets. If someone announces their intention ahead of time, it is effectively OOT anyway, and if they do not announce, no one really knows if they looked at their hand or not. Also I agree that the kind of player who wants to bet a large amount blind doesn't likely want to wait his turn. The player just wants to gamble it up and really has no respect for keeping the game fair and in proper order.

In turn and OOT turn action is identical? Do you really not see how the players between the blind and the oot bet have an advantage? Do you not see how that is not true if the player acts in turn.

Harder to enforce the bet? The player wants to make the bet ... there is no need to enforce anything.

reducing his fun? tell me how acting out of turn is more fun than acting in turn? I don't get it.

When monikrazy is saying they are near identical, I'm pretty sure he is envisioning something like a player trying to raise blind preflop, being told he is not allowed to do so out of turn, and then saying "I will raise blind when it gets to me". In that case there really isn't any difference, unless he decides to change his mind.

There is a huge difference.

By saying it before the cards are dealt, everyone after him (really everyone) is more liable to get hurt by someone acting before this guy limp/re-raising than they would be if the guy that wants to bet blind just sits and doesn't look at his cards until its his turn to act.

I don't think you're getting my point. I said there is little difference between him saying he will make a blind bet preflop and actually being allowed to make the bet preflop.

There is a big difference between both of those and someone waiting until it is his turn to make a blind bet. But personally I don't ever remember seeing anyone do that, and if he does, no one would even no for sure it was blind, which would probably defeat the purpose in the gambler's mind.

Right

if this is really the case it is better for the table that his action is telegraphed ahead of time for 2 reasons

They will know he did not look
And they will not miss his verbal (and probably non-binding) announcement to expect a big raise

I would say it should definitely be a mandatory bet, but he should also be given the option to raise if someone were to bet in front of him!

If that is what he means he misunderstands. the player making that announcement that he is going to raise when it is his turn is a problem and should be spoken to about it. If he continues to make that announcement he should be removed from the game. But at the very least if you don;t make it enforceable the players who would get the advantage of the statement at least have the advantage mitigated by the possiblity that he does not in fact raise.

Psandman, while I am of your opinion that OOT bets should not be allowed, blind or not, I think you are the one who misunderstands here. You mentioned earlier not getting why being forced to bet in turn would be "reducing his fun".

While I don't truly understand these crazy gambler types, I'm pretty sure that being made to act in turn would be less fun for them. They want players to gamble with them, so they want it to be very clear that they are betting without looking at their hand, and they want to be able to do this despite it not being their turn. They are also usually narcissists, and they enjoy the attention of the entire table being focused on them, whether it is their turn or not. That combination is the point of their betting blind.

They don't care about following the rules of the game, so enforcing rules will definitely make them less likely to make a big bet without looking at their hand, and probably more likely to leave the poker table and go play in the pit.

I don't have a problem with a player pointing out he hasn't looked at his cards.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

But he could be lying. And anyway, it's not going to have the same overall effect as what he wants to accomplish.

Who cares what he wants to accomplish? What about the other players at the game who want to play in a game that has agreed upon rules, like wait your turn.

This action doesn't just impact him, it gives the people in front of him a free limp/raise, which negatively impacts everyone else at the table.

If you read back in the thread, I was arguing these exact points, maybe even the first one to do so.

But I understand the point that if these kinds of plays are not allowed, there is a good chance that the game-maker will leave. Psandman didn't seem to understand any of this, but maybe he was just being difficult.

My own experience with these sorts of things is that the player isnl;t usually going to leave when told to act in turn .... it generally only becomes a problem when other players chime in and demand he be allowed to do what he wants.

I've seen two different players doing that multiple times over the last two weeks at a LV Strip poker room without anyone trying to stop them. They put in various amounts of money, ranging from 5BB to >100BB from random positions preflop. Nobody ever raised their bets so I don't even know what would have happened in that case when the action got to them.