More than mine?

Everybody's entitled to their opinion, can make w/e arguments pro and con that they want to but I posted what I did for a reason.

------------------

DC: This entire thread would've gone much differently had we known that you are talking about the half-kill in your game. I know that I've been addressing the full-kill that I deal with.

You are ignoring frequency. Almost never will someone be forced to raise, but they have their right to raise stolen on a regular basis. Again, if it's a concern the rule can just be to require the player to clarify his action when putting 8 chips out in a kill.

I'll bet he was drunk when he posted that.

But as smart as pigbot is, customers opinions are the ultimate test. Ask one after they got angled out of a raise.

I am still having problems with this because the players getting angled are almost always the better players who are simply on autopilot not paying attention because they are playing WWF. It never seems to be a recreational player because they raise less often to begin with.

So why should I try and help another winning reg(WR) because of the supposed intention of his play. You would think after having this called on WR time and time again WR would learn to actually like try and pay attention and stuff. But no, lets try and protect WR so WRs lack of paying attention doesn't affect his bottom line so WR can play more WWF.

First, because you are wrong, it most often happens to rec players who rarely can keep track of anything going on. If it seems different to you it's probably because most winning regs refuse to call it on other players, ESP. rec players.

Secondly, if the situation doesn't change, winning regs are going to be forced to call it on others just to avoid free rolling their opponents. Then it will get even uglier.

BTW: if I see a reg call it, and they resist my explanation of why they shouldn't, I call everything I can on them, from string bets to any other rule violations.

IT's A VISUAL GAME, and in every kill pot, there is an announcement AND A BRIGHT RED KILL BUTTON flipped up with the 8 chips placed next to, on, or behind it in EVERY KILL POT.

If the dealer did a poor job of verbalizing it, then that needs to be addressed dealer by dealer, but as verified by most peoples posts in this thread, the times this has been an issue, it was due to lack of paying attention. Why should a rule be changed to make up for that?? Makes no sense to me... If you meant to raise but didn't know it was a kill pot, its your own fault and the hand should be played out from there. If the dealer (or your neighbor) catches it as its happening then I am fine if no other action has happened with it being allowed to be a raise, otherwise it is what it is, a call.

I saw it mentioned also that by adjusting this rule to eliminate the 'so-called' angle, it would only open up for an even worse angle by the player who now is paying full attention, but claims otherwise once action has already happened behind his 'call'.

FWIW I play mostly 2/3 and 3/5 these days, but I have played thousands of hours of 8/16 and 4/8 LHE in that room and I've seen it all. I haven't played the 20/40 or above so perhaps I am missing something that makes sense for those games, but to me, it has nothing to do with the stakes other than you probably have more regs in the higher games with a smaller pool of players, which would make a rule change seem even more absurd to me as most people in those games are more experienced players, which SHOULD in turn mean they pay more than the usual attention to whats going on at the table.

Just my .02...

Nope.

There is not always an announcement (which of course can't always be heard in the noisy room with or without headphones). And often the red kill button isn't found or placed out until after action has started.

Why do you not want recreational and casual players to play in the room? Why do we not want rules to be friendly to new players and visitors? Why would you want gotcha rules to penalize players who engage in conversation or get caught watching a game on one of the rooms many over-size TVs?

What is the purpose of having the string bet rule in kill pots in a half kill limit game? You, like all the "traditionalists" on this thread, can't give one good reason for the string bet rule to exist in this situation.

You know the player wants to raise. Yet you want to allow his raise to be taken away by another player shooting an angle in the rules.

It's not a call when a players action clearly indicates it's a raise. The raise is turned into a call only by the "string bet" angle.

No one has described how changing the rule can create any angle, let alone a worse one. The player is forced to raise, as they intended. The action behind doesn't matter, anyone folding to a limp is folding to a raise, anyone calling or raising can reconsider.

And it's not a "so called" angle. It's a clear angle that happens 20 times a day at CAZ. Preventing someone from raising is nothing more than an angle.

What you are missing is the regs have learned to abuse the rule to angle other players, esp. new players and visitors. And anyone who says they always pay attention so it isn't a problem is delusional, every single player in the game has been caught by it, I've seen the best high stakes players at CAZ caught by it.

This rule seems to be argued for by the marginal player who can't win playing poker straight up, and needs to angle players to compete. But it hurts the player pool for all of us. It's already been pointed out that irregular players view the mid stakes limit games as infested by angle shooting regs and this rule is a big part of the reason.

I'm sure people on this thread are tired of me repeating myself, but when new posters continue to ignore the facts I feel obligated.

I have personally called it on PP back in this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/53...volved-112771/

I have seen both you and J_Locke say it happens to you frequently.

Yet you keep saying it is a rule to help the tourists and recreational players...

DC: I'll say it again: You didn't mention that it's a half-kill that you're talking about in your OP so responders are not realizing that in the 40-80 game ppl who put out 8 chips (which is a raise plain and simple in a non kill pot) instead of 12 chips to actually raise the kill pot 60-120 kill stakes are having the problem. In this situation I can understand that it's a forced raise you're looking for and it makes more sense this way but GL getting a critical mass of ppl to go along in your smallish player pool and the (how shall I say it?) 'this is the way we do it' management to make the change.

Why is there so much drama at CAZ?

Is the casino really filled with angle-shooting nit-regs always trying to get the best of it?

I don't play at DC's levels so can't comment but not much in my games EXCEPT for the very thing that he's talking about itt which happens all the time. Which is one of the reasons that I always announce 'raise'.

The other is bec of selective memory: I raise, some random doesn't notice, puts in one bet, is told by dealer that there's been a raise, random shrugs shoulders and puts in the other bet so of course I lose to 9-5s. That's the other reason why I fairly shout 'RAISE!'

This is a huge difference and I didn't realize it was being discussed/proposed in relation to the half kill games only... I think the points I made in the thread above remain valid for FULL KILL games and I will respectfully step aside and allow discussion for the intended games to carry on!

Clearly my stance in no way implies this in any way shape or form, but your argument makes sense after I reread that you are only talking about half-kill games. If you put in enough chips to raise in that game, then it is clearly MORE than an exact call would have been, which changes things completely. I would vote YES for the half kill games only.

In a full kill game, the mistake that is made when someone wanted to raise is an EXACT call, and that is why I made my stance the way I did for that particular type of game... in no way is that a "gotcha" to penalize the recreational or casual player, it is a simple rule in place to guard against someone trying to angle players around them to get a reaction out of them, that is all.

As a "Traditionalist", I like to keep that type of angle out of the game to ensure that the game remains friendly and pure for all those casual and recreational players as well as the winning regulars.

So now angle shooter #1 puts out 8 chips UTG w/ AA during an announced kill pot(knowing that DCs new airtight rule allows this to be a raise 100% of the time). Rec player #1 and #2 see it is a kill pot, haven't heard raise, and notice two stacks of chips out in front of AS#1. They each put out 6 chips to limp in as well. The player after rec player #2 folds and now AS#1 says "I raised" and adds the 4 chips to his 8 and forces RP#1 and #2 to either forfeit their 6 chips, or call all 12.

Nope, they should be able to pull back their limps, it's called a gross misunderstanding of the bet size.

Yep, you got called out as an angle shooter because of it 3 years ago.

And you really want to claim that this rule doesn't hurt tourists and rec players? You think they all arrive at CAZ with a built-in understanding of the rule, and pay rapt attention at the table?

I could call it on randoms 5 times a day if I chose, but I don't. Other regs do. What happens to your count of regs vs. randoms if all regs start calling it on all randoms?

It looks like the best rule change is to get rid of the kill altogether.

Like I said, my only current course of action is to object to the kill when someone tries to put it in. The last time I removed my objection after the entire table agreed not to call string bets in this specific situation. I guess it's part of an ongoing educational effort on my part.

Isn't every poker room?

I think DC (and others agreeing with him) has this all wrong. Y'all can all disagree with me - that's fine And please forgive me for writing this like a speech to DC - it's not really meant to be (except the part about "educating" all of us poor unfortunate ones who aren't as smart ...

1. The rule IS clear. You just don't like part of the rule - the part that puts the responsibility to call a string on the players. Now, I don't like it either, but that's the rule. But if it is less than half the chips required to make the raise it is a string and that is not in dispute in any game. So I don't agree that the rule is not clear.
2. If you required anyone who put out 8 chips to complete the raise, you are just making a reverse bad ruling from what is being done now. In this case the person not paying attention who looks over and sees two stacks but doesn't register that they are stacks of 3 instead of 4 and throws out their customary cold call of a raise now is REQUIRED to put in another 4 chips? Personally, I think the recreational players will be WAY more PO'd to have to put money in the pot they didn't intend to than to have their raise called a string.
3. I'll just say it - if I know the rules and you don't that is an advantage I have and I do not see why I should not be allowed to use it. If I know the rules and you're just not paying attention, that's an advantage I have. You spending the next hour being a rule nit with me because you and I have different world views makes the game MUCH more uncomfortable for people there for football and beer - and makes it clear that they don't understand enough about the game to be in the 20. You're not educating, you're being an A$$.

You are applying winning player mentality to losing players (and this whole thread reads like you just don't like people calling string raises on you and you've justified it by saying it's bad for the game). Losing players are not really that likely to be raising to thin the field - they're raising because they have a hand (except for the losing to break-even nits who you don't want in there anyway so why not make them mad?). They like winning big pots so they build big pots. And it's FUN to RAISE! You'll do much more damage to what you see as your customer pool by requiring them to raise when they don't want to.

Even better than the point I made. Thanks.

No one ever said it wasn't. I've said it's a valueless rule that is only used for angle shooting.

Not exactly. You need to read Roberts Rules of Poker.

Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.

Where is the fairness in the application of the string raise rule in kill pots?

No. Few ever put in extra chips without wanting to raise. And the dealer can clarify intent if necessary.

The 20 at CAZ is slowly dying. If your opinion is that regs should be allowed to angle the few new players to drive them away because they can't play actual poker well enough to beat them, then we disagree.

You show no understanding of how to attract recreational players, or how a good poker room should be run. If they ever believe the game is corrupt, or unfair, you will lose them. Some have already posted on this thread, yet you ignore what they wrote because it doesn't match up with your fantasy of how they think.

Again the dealer can be allowed to clarify intent here if its' a problem. There really isn't any angle in that.

But remember if the player put 9 chips in instead of 8, they are already forced to raise, so the difference is fairly slight.

DC, I agree with you that this angle is bad and I have vowed to stop it myself and will try to get others to do the same if it comes up while I am playing. Just because we agree on this doesn't mean your proposed rule change will fix it.

Sweet multilevel angle from last night.

Kill pot obviously, killer is SB. Folded to button, who puts 8 chips out to raise, realizes mistake and reaches back to complete bet.

BB says, hey isn't that a string? Dealer orders button to pull back the raise. He does while pleading with BB, come on man, you know I was raising.

BB says, "I'm sorry, you're right, you did intend to raise. I apologize, go ahead and raise" and puts out 12 chips for what he believes is a call of buttons raise.

Button immediately announces "3 bets!!" and shoves out a raise out of turn. Killer in SB instamucks in disgust. BB is confused, and dealer tells him it's three bets to call, and when he protests informs him that he was the one who put in the first raise.

As BB reluctantly calls, button announces "that's karma baby!"

I laugh when button says that because 30 minutes prior I had been playing 3 handed with button, asked him if he wanted to continue playing before I took my blind. He said he wasn't sure, played his one free hand, and immediately racked and left without taking a blind.