You deal too well. We're going to decrease your income. Enjoy!

The solution of course involves better training and hiring practices. Butnaaaaaaaaah forget all that! Just punish the good ones!

If you're going to do a closed rotation, for lack of a better term, you need to throw some juicy games into it as well to compensate.

EDIT: Went into the topic and read the previous reply. There's a difference (IMO) between having specific dealers deal the high-limit games (which should be interspersed with the juicy games), and letting dealers skip games because they don't know how to deal them (example used is PLO and O/8).

The dealers who are put into the high-limit rotation should be rewarded by getting a piece of some good low limit games (let's say some 2/5s). The dealers who have to skip tables because they can't deal the damn game should be re-trained/replaced.

The argument is "they're just chips", and that's all the pile of stuff in front of the dealer is at the end of the day, but I can understand from personal experience the mentality in having to overcome dealing with some of the high limit ****shows that go on, and some dealers can't handle that. Fine.

But to not be able to deal a game at all, for example O/8 at even say 4-8 limits, inexcusable.

Places where I have been familiar with their rotations also have the very best games to deal in the same rotation as the not good games.

Pulling the bets in.

Where I work, dealers have to deal all the games spread equally - mixed, NL, etc. Rotations are done almost universally without regard to the specific dealers in the various parts of room.

And I do fine on our bigger games - generally its a little below my per-table averages, but not horrifically so. The big NL games are generally very high variance to deal - but I'm pretty sure its within 20% of my norms over my full sample size.

Our club is the same way. There's no A dealer or B dealer rotation and I love it. We all get to cycle through pitt and poker. Helps my back and hands from hurting being able to sit for a 1/2 hr and then stand.

Sorry Rapini, but I just noticed your request to comment here in this thread, after I already made comment in the original thread.

Oh well. Maybe they catch the drift.

Saw something new. Heads up and a guy calls a string bet on his opponent... An then raises him the max allowed.

I would assume it was to induce tilt/ piss off the opponet. The worst is when someone calls stringbet then folds, or some jackass who's not even in the hand calls string.

Or rather, just someone who thinks it's some terrible thing that someone can do that's "illegal" and had zero cognitive thought about how it affected the situation at hand.

It was bizarre. 2-100 spread limit.

Bet of 60.

"Raise" - Places out his call of 60, comes back, places out 75 more, then goes back for 25 more. The 25 more would be considered a string in my room.

"string! omg string!" Then he proceeds to think for 10 seconds, and raises 100 on top.

I mean, w t f.

Trying to resteal the pot and leaving fold equity I guess

It only recently occurred to me that things like this can be explained in three letters: OCD. Same as the "bettor mucks at showdown, caller gets the pot without showing, OCD kicks in and people freak out if no cards are tabled" thread that's running right now.

There's something about poker that makes it interesting to people who suffer from this need to have everything in its place, everything in order, everything done exactly by the book at all times.

Why is this so strange? Even if I had the nuts, I would call out an obvious string raise. To me, it's borderline angling when you let your hand strength decide whether or not to call a string raise. This is also why I believe it should be up to the dealer to call out a string.

Also, it boggles my mind how many times I've seen the situation you describe and nobody thinks its a string. This happened to me the other day. I bet $20, opponent announced "raise" put in $60, then went back for $20. I was folding anyway, so I did, but I said something like "I'm folding, but that's a string raise. The last $20 shouldn't count" just trying to give the guy a heads up. The dealer and everybody else at the table thought I was insane. They all said "He said raise! He can go back!" Sigh...

The traditional rule is that a player that states raise can continue placing chips in the pot until his hands come to rest outside the betting area.

And this is an uncommon rule in the modern game

If the bet is 20 and he says raise he can put the 20 in then the raise, if he puts anything more in he can't go back, say if he puts 30 in its a min raise to 40 if he puts 60 in the raise is to 60 that's it

Sent from my SGH-T999 using 2+2 Forums

RR was referring to how it once was way back when...

It is the traditional rule. I no longer work in gaming, so I have no real interest in what places are doing these days, here is the rule in the most recent version of Robert's Rules of Poker.
I have never worked in a room where the above was not the rule, but at some places I had the benefit of either influencing or being the final arbiter of what the rules would say.

In the first room I worked in (2006) that was the rule on the books for cash. Never saw it used after that.

I'm a dealer and I am curious if you guys know of any tips and tricks to quickly counting the pot in PLO? I know how to do it manually through adding, but that seems slowish and the players seem faster than I am. Something like: If it's pot/re-pot, it's the open bet * 3, plus the pot? Is that correct? Are there other tricks to doing this faster?

Sounds like you're correct but I'll clarify.

Any pot raise is always 3x the previous bet plus the pot (prior bets on that street + whats in the middle).

If a player who has already bet/called who attemtps to pot, don't count the initial bet he made in the calculation (the money sitting in front of him).

In those situations, if a guy at the table (not the one who won the pot) throws you a couple dollars, do you speed back up? That's my M.O. in those spots when an undertipped dealer is sabotaging the game; it works about 2/3 of the time. (FWIW, I play quickly and slightly overtip. When the game is slow I give $2 for most pots and $1 even on blind-steals.)

Unless my math is wrong - isn't it 2x the prev bet (not 3).

100 in the pot on the flop - player A bets 20 - player B calls - player C says "raise pot". A non-math (read: new) player would first "call the 20" then "raise 160 (100 + 20 + 20 +20) more" making Player C's total bet - 180.

Mathematically:
Current Pot is 100 + 20 + 20 = 140
Last Bet (20) x 2 = 40
140+40 = 180 (Total player can bet).


A8

The 3x math takes the bolded 20 into account (previous bet). So you're taking the bolded bet of player B 20x3 (60) plus the bet of player A (20) plus the pot (100).

You're method multiplies by 2x then adds all the bets back in, essentially adding his 20 again. You're really just doing the math the "regular" way by looking at pot first.