Perhaps it varies from casino to casino? I have indeed been in that situation in card rooms, and seen people bet "pot" in NLHE, and had that bet be as binding as saying "I'm all in" without knowing how much they have behind.

well said

because the betting limit is key element to the game and players shoudl be allowe dto know how much they are allowed to bet. If you ask me in a fixed limit game how much is in the pot ..... there is no reason why i should tell you. But if you ask me how much you are allowed to bet i will tell you the betting limit. Same is true of NL. But in Pot limit the pot size defines the betting limit so I can;t tell you one and not the other.

Actually I hate this. When a player says $235 all-in I cringe because I imediately start worrying that the player has $245 and now we have a problem because he declared both trhat the bet is $235 and that he is all-in.

No, i meant nothing like that, and it has nothing to do with anyone getting to fold. You could theoretically be angling your opponent, who may not be able to see that you have less than the amount of whats in the pot still behind. In a spot where he wouldnt fold for what you had left, you could say pot and before anyone had a chance to see how many you had he could be folding with the assumption that you had that much or more and couldnt continue in the hand. Whereas if you simply said all in, it would indicate that you put all your chips in and he would know that, and make a better decision for the situation. In a PL game this sometimes happens, but in a NL game, i could see this angle all the time. Granted, a player who is thinking would ask for a count then or double check to make sure how much he had preflop. Not all players do this, and if someone says all in and it scares someone who doesnt know they have $1 left then thats their fault, no angle there. But the other way is shady IMO.

Well then i think it would be pretty obvious that it would vary from casino to casino if you have witnessed this since most of us havent. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of casinos do not let this occur tho.

Why are all your posts so snarky?

-----

Oh, but NOW you want to change your tune?

that would slow things down because people would have to count their stack.

was sarcasm, thought you wouldve recognized it.

you see, when he stated that he had seen the opposite of what i had been saying, then said that it was possible, even tho it was already seen that would make it truth, not a possibility

I still disagree, and have yet to play in an establishment that would allow this. Doesnt mean they dont exist i suppose, but it has been the opposite of my experience thus far.

and lol @ you calling anyone snarky

here's a pro tip: while most of 2+2 may operate as if it were chat at an online poker table, Home Poker operates as if it were a bunch of guys who hang out every week and like each other.

Have a beer and chill out. Larry's a good guy -- one of the best, in fact.

@OP:

"Half pot" is not a bet. A number is a bet. In pot limit and pot limit only, "pot" is a bet, largely because it speeds up the game dramatically. (could you imagine if this wasn't the rule? "I bet 450." "You can't bet that much" "ok, I bet 425." "sorry, you can't bet that much either" "ok I bet the pot." "I need a number, sir..."). Allowing people to announce bets as a fraction of the pot does not speed the game up, it just forces other people to do your arithmetic for you.

So are you saying that Larry is the know it all guy who constantly talks down to everyone, but you guys dont say anything cuz if you shunned him he'd have no where else to go?

why are you picking a fight? getting along with people is much more pleasant, believe it or not. It takes a bit of effort, but it's worth it.

The only argument for allowing "half pot" would be to speed the actions of someone who would otherwise have to have this conversation:

"I bet half pot."
"That's not a legal bet sir."
"Ok, well, how much is in the pot."
"$185."
"Well, I'd like to bet half that much."
"Uh, OK."
"Seriously...how much is that."
"I can't do the math for you, you have to figure it out."
"So, it's like what 90-something? That's what I want to bet."
"Ok, uh, 90-what?"
"Half pot, whatever that is."
"We asked you first."
"How much is there in the pot again?"

I'm not sure how all-in and pot are all that much different, regarding your scenario, but I'll take your word for it, I guess, since you have more big-bet experience with shady characters, it seems?

To all: is there really that much angle-shooting going on, in the NL games? I don't play in them that often.

hee hee.


"I like you, mister- you're fuuuuuunnnnny!"

LL and DPP LDR...twins split at birth?

I kicked him out of the car on a trip to Grandma's- he was too uptight.

Thats not the only argument. In fact I would argue that in a No Limit game a bet of pot even though technically not legal should be somewhat enforced.

If a player indicates he is making a bet of a certain size I would not allow him to alter is bet size after gauging the responses (or even seeing action) of the other players. So in a no limit game if the pot is $500 and a player announces I bet the pot. After explaining to him that he will have to state an actual bet amount and that we can't count the pot for him if he says okay then I bet $80 I would not permit that as it is clearly a ridiculous angle to allow a player to indicate a much bigger bet and then not be bound to it. He has already committed him self to a bet of a certain size. And I would require that his bet be actually close to that size. So if he said $480 I would find that acceptable.

That same thinking applies here ...... but since it is a pot limit game I see no reason not to bind him to the half pot size exactly (if possible since the structure may not allow for him to bet exactly).

In both cases the player should be warned to knock it off and that it is not acceptable to bet this way .... even when binding him to the bet.

Believe it or not, some people have more than whats in the pot by the turn or river.

Stay with me here. So, in theory, one could bet pot, and not be all in at that time.

I didnt say that i see it all the time, ive seen it on accident multiple times over the years for a multitude of reasons, sometimes its due to angling, sometimes honest mistakes. But the point isnt why it happened, its that it could happen, and its unnecessary, so why not just fix the problem that makes it have the potential to happen?

LOL- nice response. I imagine the teacher, with the stern face and the ruler, talking to the dense 7-year old.

Then why not just eliminate "pot" and other verbal non-amounts, altogether? I would assume that, even in a PL structure, it wouldn't cost that much time for people to determine an amount.

Currently, in a PL game, when someone says "pot" and someone raises, how do they handle the amounts, if it's not obvious? Do you spend a lot of time monitoring people's betting for exactness, so no one is shaving off the amounts?

Do you rarely have to count the pot out, to insure the correct amounts are going in?

If there's a lot of that... it seems more headache than it's worth.

I take *some* issue with allowing "pot" in a game where the size of the pot is something players are supposed to keep track of; but I allow spreading the pot in my NL games, so I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.

But I have no issue with making "half pot" a binding value in pot-limit games; but it's something you'd have to choose to allow.

Half Pot isn't a valid declaration in PL games. Check, fold, a number, or "pot" are valid.

Eh, as long as no one tries to shoot angles with this, I can live with the restriction.

I think, unlike any other game format, pot-limit is about building pots of certain sizes, for later leverage. Since there is a cap at any time, on what can be bet, the precision of exact amounts such as quarter-pot, 2/3d's pot and the like are possibly more important in this betting structure.

But, I shall remember the 'nothing but "pot" and "all-in" counts... and only in PL' concept.

some BnM's and home games i go to either have a same denom 2 blind ($1/$1 for example) or they just have the sb count as a full blind to make pot betting a more round number. It usually helps if the dealer has it stacked up and is keeping track of it street to street, some can do it in their head, others need to stack it, either way works.

It can get complicated when action is a bet, then a pot, then a pot. But as long as everyone isnt splashing its very easy to figure out.