I'll share one DC story. First time I visited talking stick and played with him, he let me pick all the games I wanted, then offered to play me heads up, then let me borrow his Porsche (this was the first time we met).

Whether or not you agree with all of his suggestions/opinions he's the most fair/least inclined to angle player I've ever met in my life. Whatever suggestions he makes, he's not trying to further his personal agenda or help his own cause, he suggesting what he thinks is the most fair policy for the recreational players. Whether or not he is always right may be debateable, but whether or not he's trying to help his own cause/angle shoot is not debateable.

I agree with you that he's a nit, that's all

Can't agree more about him being a nit. The second time I railed DC, he 4-bet 43s from the sb in the 40 game.

Desert Cat from dealer a perspective: is reasonable, rational and respectful to everyone, including the dealers.
Its as simple as that.

you cannot use your debit/credit card to buy in for tourneys. But if you insist on building your credit, the money vacuum machines will gladly do a cash advance with your cards.

Blatantly showing off for the rail. Please do not clear the rail!

If you define a nit as someone who understands their expected equity for a particular hand in a certain situation too well ...yes, you are kind of nitty.

I stopped often enough at Arena over the last couple of years to have a good layout of the regular landscape. On the married couple in question, I had some concerns as well but after some observation, I didn't see any irregularities in play. However, playing at the same table, it's not a good policy for them or the game. In reality, as a married couple, they are playing out of the same bankroll, they share an informational advantage as it is expected that they have had deep discussions about their poker situations off the table and are aware of each other's ranges consciously or sub-consciously, and it's generally going to be viewed as kind of "sketchy" when any new players sits at the table during tourist season and becomes aware thru table talk that they are a couple.

Hence, with so many profitable choices at AZ in the games they play, there is really no strong reason IMO for them not to be aware of the image issues and assume a default mode of evading each other in the games rather than the opposite for the overall image of the game.

I no longer drink at the table.

This is a reasonable post.

HU for infrequent players and visitors: Be sure to check the new rules regarding verbal declarations which are being shown on one of the notification boards: From what I can tell all verbal declarations are now binding. Examples: If you say 'If you check I'm going all in' you will have to go AI if the other person checks. Similarly 'I'm going to check-raise' you will have to do it. Then there's a note about players being considered chronic acting out of turners or however they put it which I suppose will lead to some sort of punishment.

What if someone just says "check-raise" when acting first on a street? People do that to be funny pretty often and I have never heard of a place holding them to it.

I'm certain that there will be a fair amount of argument until the players understand. And, of course, different floors, different decisions much of the time. However, it would be wise not to say anything that might trigger an unhappy consequence.

hmmm, if only there was a way to exploit the situation.

On one of the first nights the new rules were in effect this came up in the 40 mix game. I was leading action w a very strong 3 card in badugi. My opponent drew 2 cards on 2nd draw and I drew one- he checked dark saying " you got ahead but when I check raise you- you are in trouble." I bet dark not even thinking about the new rule. The dealer and floor required him to raise. We agreed for the winner to give the extra bet back to the loser. He said it as a joke, as I had heard him do many times before, but was required to raise. I didn't call it on him but the dealer was required to enforce it.

I understand that this rule was put in place to limit angling. But in this situation imagine if I wanted to angle him back. Because he first looked at his hand and wanted to call but not raise I knew he had improved but would still be drawing a card. If I raised his forced reraise I'd definitely be angling back but would be entirely within the new rules. I can only imagine how bad the angling could get in a spread game because of bigger raises.

Moral of story watch what you say. Even innocent jokes could become very costly.

It's cool that you guys agreed to give the money back and all but usually it's not so friendly. In general, I don't think your reraise would be an angle. You do have extra info but what if you made a great badugi would you reraise? It's kinda like in no limit if you see someone throw the wrong denom chips in. I don't think it's an angle to attack light even if you weren't planning on it beforehand.

If we want to take it to the next level, if he knows you won't reraise then he can "accidently" craise knowing you'll never 3bet.

thats why only verbal made in turn should be enforced and all talk out of turn is just table talk. every time you make a new rule to stop angling you create a whole new set of problems worse than what you tried to correct.

if they want to enforce bets made into the pot out of turn that is different.

Played a little 2-3-300 last week during my first visit to this casino. It looks like they have a pretty decent 8-16 Limit game as well. How's the game/action? What would a standard buy-in be? Do they play with a kill? overs? If so, is it pretty much the whole table or just a couple players. I'm comfortable at 8-16 but not really wanting to play any higher.

8-16 is a good game. Standard buyin of 2 racks would be $400. Yes kill, no overs.

It's worth noting that it's a full kill in all limit drop games.

I really worry this rule is going to virtually destroy the room. There is a ton of verbal gamesmanship in the games that is almost entirely harmless. In fact it can give you good reads when your opponent talks about what they will do.

But now you can angle players out of bets based on table talk, which I could easily use to increase my win rate if a) I ever stoop to doing it, and b) if my ganes don't get far worse when angled players quit coming back in.

Player with aces think he's beat and is first act on the river and says "Check, you win", player with a pair of sevens checks back and hands are tabled, floor actually ruled pair of sevens wins because of what the player with aces had said.

That is outright theft of hundreds of dollars from a player and the room doesn't need too many more rulings like that to start killing games.

I haven't been in for a few months, wow it sounds horrible.

Some players and I were discussing today just how ridiculous you can get with these types of out of turn statements. Which of the following is binding? Which is not? Which is trolling?

"If one of those two players bets, I'm going to raise, but not if that guy bets."

"If the action gets to me before that clock hits 4:47pm, I'm going to bet."

"If the waitress delivers my drink on my left side, I'm raising."

"If Miami challenges the spot on this play but the initial call is upheld and it's 4th down, I'm going to raise when it gets to me as long as two other people have entered the pot and Miami decides not to go for it."

for clarification I have just been told that aces got his money refunded and the house has said that's not the intent of the rule which is a good outcome on both.

my problem is what is the rule and how is it enforced? if I bet the river with King hi, get called and as I say out loud "I can't win" without thinking just before I table my hand can my opponent call the floor to angle me out of the pot with Queen hi?

i'm not super motivated to go in and play there right now anyways but I'm going to be done with the place if I go in and get angled out of pots like that.

The "you win" comments costing someone a pot is a lot different than the conditionals being held binding as reported earlier. Don't even know how this would be inferred from the earlier rule, seems it would have to be a totally separate rule which I find unlikely to exist.

I believe raked Omaha games are only half kill, except the 6-12oe which is full

If the new rule is that verbal is always binding, that's all a floor needs to make a ruling like that. The new manager has been good at revoking/modifying rule changes if they prove to be problematic so I expect the same here, but until then I want to protect myself.

I don't know why the rule was changed. I can't remember even a single complaint in the limit games over trying to make out of turn table talk binding, so my guess is they have some issues in the spread limit games that led to this.