So I'm exiting the tournament area at my local casino when I overhear a bustout conversation between a couple acquaintances. Friend A had re-raised all in with KQ over someone's standard late position open. He called it "re-shoving." Friend B said that it wasn't a re-shove. An argument ensued. So I butted in and told friend A that friend B is correct.

I believe the term "re-shove" can only be used when you move all in after someone else has already gone all in (usually for less). But Friend A asserts that the term can also be used when you are the first one all in, simply shoving in response to a standard open. He was so sure about this that he proposed a bet. Friend B advised him against this. But he was adamant. In fact, he offered me 2.5:1 odds. His $100 to my $40. His overconfidence caused some second guessing, but I took those odds.

Now he's on a crusade to find the truth from other respected players. He claims that about half his friends say he's right while the other half say I'm right. And one mutually respected (highly accomplished) friend said that "re-shove" can only be used as an adjective (such as, "I had a good re-shoving stack"). So I figured, let 2+2 settle this.

Note: "Re-jam" can be used synonymously, as used to help my friend's case in this webcast of last year's one drop final. I still say it's wrong.

I'm as pedantic as you are, so I hate the misuse of the term. When the first player is not all in, I call the 3-bet jam a "resteal", but many people say "reshove" even when the first player didn't shove.

Lol.

Sorry, just lol.

I voted though, so there.

Shove, to me, implies all in..., so re-shove doesn't make sense since you wouldn't say re-all in...


"I had a good re-shoving stack"
I can't find any time that the use of "re-shoving" can simply be used as "shoving".
That to me still sounds fine and means the same thing as, "I had a good shoving stack"

I voted no, wow the picks are heavily weighted

[x] bastard

Warning: pedantic answer below.

The prefix "re" only has one meaning that would apply to poker. That is, "again." So when you substitute "again," it becomes "again shove." It is implied that there was already a shove, since you were doing it again. Therefore, Friend B is correct in the most common usage of the world.

English, unlike French in France, does not have a final authority that defines the right way to say things. Much like poker. And like poker, Friend A may be free-rolling you with an angle shot. He could argue since there is no authority to rule that you can't use the term "re-shove" to describe what happened, he wins because all he bet was that he could use the term the way he did. Not that most people do use it that way.

You'll get to see how good a friend he is, so it is probably worthwhile if nothing else to learn whether you ever want to do business with him.

He owes you $100.

Easiest $100 ever.

Funny you explain it like that, since I mentioned this very point right around the time you posted it. English is not his first language. He's from Israel, but his English is something like 90%. Due to that alone I wouldn't have suggested an actual bet unsolicited, but he was pretty adamant so I agreed.

Now I refer this poll to him (currently 18-0), but he's still clinging to Brian Rast's (incorrect) usage of "re-jam", so it appears that he is refusing to accept that he lost.

Excellent point. I don't know the guy very well, and would hate for things to get awkward fast between us, since we do run into each other quite frequently in our local tournament scene. But not only did he accept the wager, he's the one who proposed it in the first place. If he's seriously reneging on what is a clear loss, I hope that $100 saved will be worth all those awkward glances he's about to get!

And hey, "Brian Rast > 2+2."

Re-shoving has the prefix "re" - that means you're doing something AGAIN, which means, it has to have already happened for you to be doing it AGAIN: RE-shoving. So, if there is no shove before you, and you're the first one going all-in, you're the first one shoving. If someone then comes over the top in response to your shove, and he shoves as well, that is a re-shove. If a third player comes along, then he re-re-shoves I suppose, although I'm not too sure that re-re-shoving is something coloquially used, it doesn't sound too wrong anyhow

Ask him if you can reraise a check or a bet. The obvious answer is that you can only reraise when there has been a raise so the only way you can reshove is if there has been a shove.

I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed. He'd probably call a bet a raise.

And then he'd pull out the book that says exactly that - a bet is a raise on top of a $0 bet