I love limit holdem, but 15/30+ is out of my price range. I'm playing 2/2 PLO because it's a 500 buy-in game. This (in my experience) is equivalent to a 10/20 fixed-limit game. Getting up into the 15/30 range and it's hard to attract the 1/2 and 2/2 crowd.

I'm no expert, but I think it's always the size of the last RAISE, not the last bet. (Those terms seem to be confusing... the bet includes a call+raise) So in your scenario it's still only 10:
Bet #1: 10
Bet #2: 20 (call 10 + 10 raise)

so, you can have:
Bet #3: 30 (call 20 + 10 min raise from bet #2)
Bet #4: 50 (call 30 + 20 raise, more than raise on bet #3)

Now, bet 5 needs to be a minimum of.... (drum roll)... 70! (the last raise sets the minimum.) Experts can you confirm?

E

Could you explain how being on multiple lists (which is allowed) is 'abusing' the system? Its not like people go out of their way just to have their name on lists for games that they have no intention on playing


Why would blocking sites like propokertools be necessary? There is already a 'no device while in a hand' rule. Who cares if people look up odds after a hand?

Yes. The min raise for bet 4 is to 40 total. If he instead makes it 50 total, as you outline, then you are correct, the min raise for bet #5 is to 70, since he must raise at least 20, the size of the last raise.

I pm'd you
People are constantly using their devices during hands, most of them are just watching tv or listening to music but from across the table you have no idea what they are doing. I absolutely care about people looking up odds and strategy while at the table because I don't want the bad players to see that and learn a new way of getting better. The sites should be banned because having people using sites like that at a table may make a fish feel like he is being taken advantage of.

Thank you, that did it for me.

And this solidified it because I was first thinking why would bet 4 have to be 50, but thats just because he chose to make it 20 more, which was at least 10 more...

Thanks!!!

Disrespecting players by calling them fish is exactly taking advantage of them. You should also ban any strategy talk while at the table, at least according to your arguement... god forbid a player decides to seek advice from a better player... gotta ban that poop!

Haven't read this thread in while, but had my 1st inevitable experience with $2 versus $25 chips

I'm playing 1-2 and bet $9 on flop with big draw...dude pops it to $45....I decide (probably stupidly) to call. I am not sure if I said "call" or not so can't confirm it, but I start to gather $36 to make the call....I put in $37 (or so I thought) and grab a $1 chip out of my original bet to make the call..dealer points out that I put in a green instead of a blue, so instead of $45, there is $68 out there. I say I meant to call. Dealer asks other dude if it is ok to make just a call. He says no. I call supervisor. Supervisor defers to other dude on whether it is ok if I just call. Dude says no. So I have to complete the raise to $81. Which I unhappily do. And other dude shoves all-in for an additional $45. I'm not going to fold at that point so I call. I miss my draw and am out $81 over what I should have been (assuming I would have folded on the turn which I would have).

1) I was much angrier at the other dude in the hand than at the ruling. Total BS for him to not let me call when it was obvious that was my intention and then to come over the top...even worse...We had words, and I was kind of steaming over his behavior

2) I was still upset with the ruling, though I know I am ultimately responsible for my chips. I would have much rather the floor make a ruling that I must complete the raise, rather than deferring to the other guy. What kind of ruling is that? to leave it in his hands..I went up to the same supervisor after the hand, and told him it was a bad ruling...He wasn't terribly interested in my opinion, and told me (probably correctly) that he shouldn't have even deferred to the other guy. Just made me raise.

I am sure I am beating a dead horse, but needed to tell my sob story..lol...the blue chips are awful and terribly thought out..but I know I just need to be super careful in the future...

I'm done arguing about it, my list of suggestions is exactly that, suggestions. If you guys don't think there is anything wrong with having three regs at a PLO table doing equity calculations and discussing them in between hands than so be it. And yes, I would also suggest that you don't talk about strategy at a table, but what do I know?

I agree with this...the supervisor shouldn't defer to a player to make a ruling they should listen to each side and then the supervisor should make the ruling. That removes the players from an emotional battle about, at least, that part of the issue.

I am with socialrunner on this as well. I have already mentioned that the "using devices while in a hand" rule has become lax and not enforced.

nah - the best and most efficient system is the registration desk using Bravo's technology to send the name of the next player up, to the Bravo display at each table

dealer can see the name of the expected player, and confirm the player's identity upon their arrival - no need to involve the floor/supervisor

why this is NOT being used is beyond me

i just pointing out it was an excellent system. i didnt realize the bravo was capable of putting names directly to the table,that is certainly the most efficient system.
to be devils advocate the only problem would be players perception of being "forced" to have a players card? ive seen players who refused to go get one even when there is a $ promotion where they needed to be swiped in to participate. or can they manually type it in w/o card?

yeah...the entire table felt bad for me...I honestly think the proper ruling would have been to say it was a call since it was obvious to the entire table and the dealer that is what I meant to do...and then just a verbal warning to me that they know about the chips issue and they will cut me a break since it is early on, but in the future to make sure I am extra careful and to verbalize my call to make sure....That is a no brainer ruling...asking a dude who clearly had a monster hand to make the decision was poor judgment. The fact that he shoved over the top validated that. I would even have been willing to surrender the $45 and move on..essentially forcing me to put in $125 out of position when it became obvious I was way behind is bad supervision.

I believe your story and that sucks that you ended up losing extra money.

But put yourself in the shoes of the supervisor. You did not verbalize your action and you put out enough chips to force you by rule to raise. Surely you can imagine a situation where an unscrupulous player could use this move as an angleshot to gain information knowing that he can get out of raising if he wants to do so.

If the supervisor simply enforces the rules as written, that takes away the angleshot possibility.

In the future, verbalize your action and you'll be fine.

The right thing for the other player to do would be to allow you to only call, as long as he believed that was your intention, without getting the supervisor involved. Once the supervisor gets there though, the right ruling would be that you raised. The supervisor cannot judge what you intended to do, only what you did. Take some consolation in the fact that the other guy must really need the money if he is willing to try to capitalize on every little mistake.

I agree with Rapini, it should have been declared at least a min raise. That would have been the fair and sticking to the rules ruling. my issue is that the supervisor DIDN'T do that. they deferred to the decision of the other player. That puts everyone in a bad spot.

agreed, but it was obvious to everyone I wasn't angling. Even to the other guy in the hand. This is a case where I think a supervisor should exercise judgment based on the situation. I know I am biased since I was the person ruled against, but I think allowing me to call there is a better, more fair ruling. To the extent the supervisor has discretion, and I believe he did in that case, he made a bad ruling. The entire table agreed.

Are people actually using the confusing color of the chips to angleshoot at 1-2, or even at all? I am not saying the supervisor's ruling was indefensible. He just made a mistake and made a poor ruling. I make mistakes all the time. In the end, it isn't a big deal. It just steamed me at the time and a bit after that the supervisor punted the decision to a guy that had already committed 40% of his stack to the hand, and used the ruling to get all his chips in.

I think the chip color debacle needs to be taken into account. I'd have much less problem with the ruling, if there wasn't a chip color issue. Yes. It is my mistake, but I think I could have been shown a little consideration based on the problem with the chip colors....

Some people will do anything for money, if they aren't already trying this angle, they certainly would if they found out the supervisors would let them get away with it.

Are you saying the supervisor made a mistake and bad ruling by allowing the player to decide or that he didn't allow you to make a call or what? Ultimately speaking the correct ruling is a min raise. You bet more than 50% of the raise. That is the rule, its written...not debatable, its not a mistake when the supervisor ultimately upholds the rule. I still 100% think the supervisor should have just made a decision, not allow someone else to make it, but perhaps he thought that the other person, might give you the benefit of the doubt vs. just saying NO its a raise, because that would be the ultimate ruling.

Agreed. If I were the other player in the hand, I would have been considerate and let you take your chips back before the supervisor ever got there. I don't think the supervisor has much leeway though.

I think we can all agree that the supervisor should be making a firm decision and not allowing the player in the hand to decide. He was probably just hoping that the other player in the hand would be fair and let the original guy take his bet back but no such luck.

I understand it is the rule, and I would have had no real issue with it but for the chip color problem....I think that is an important variable to consider...Obviously management is aware it is a problem, so why not cut me a break and give me a verbal warning? It was obvious what my intention was and it was obvious the other guy took advantage of me calling the floor. He knew I was weak.

This post is hilarious and the reason why if limit hold em ever makes a comeback (history is known to repeat itself) it will be super profitable. Most people playing 1/2 belong at the limit table anyways.

What if you had a dirty stack of reds that somehow had a black chip mixed in, you pick up the stack and drop in some chips thinking it will add up to a call but the black one falls in. Do you think that should count as a call or raise? In both cases you intended to make a call but mistakenly put the wrong color chips in the pot, like it or not, that is your mistake and no one else's.