Does your house require minimum in the pot for the quads or better payouts as well?

Just want to make sure to give them credit for every ounce of dumb.

No requirement for bonus hands, only for BBJ.
It was 4/8 limit and correct, only $8 in the pot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brutal.

Not at all they deserve it

So no BBJ was voided.

They never qualified in the first place.

And they definitely deserve it. And now countless people will have to hear these two worthless morons tell the story for the rest of their lives. That actually makes me smile.

When there's an issue between the verbal and physical you go with what makes the most sense. If a player makes a verbal statement that could go either way but then follows up with a physical action that fits a verbal 'option' then you go with that.

'On top ... ' is on top of the current bet facing a player. The SB must complete the BB or the bet it's facing before adding chips 'on top'. 800 'on top' IMO would be a raise to 1200 if facing an opening bet of 400 during 75/150.

Some 'learning' Dealers use 'on top' or 'behind' when calculating PLO Pot bets until they get the hang of announcing the 'real' bet size. Never seen where 'on top' means on top of whats in front of me when facing other changed action. GL

Player puts a friend in the game and they agree to split any winnings.

Friend ratholes some chips during play so he can buy some smokes after he busts out.

Hits the bad beat without enough in the pot. Think they're still friends? Hope those smokes were worth it.

Gambler Friend A gives Friend B a tip about a horse that can't miss. Bet is made (at other legal establishment) and hits .. for $150K. Friend B doesn't give any 'commission' to GFA.

Are they still friends?
Whom is the silliest friend IYO? GL

GFA, imo, because if the bet misses, I doubt GFA is reimbursing B. Also, if it was such a great bet, GFA should have put some money down on their own behalf.

I've worked at a few rooms in the area, including at a track where players would bet on the dogs or ponies.

On occasion I'd announce who the winner would be as they were about to start and a player would put down a 5 or 10 dollar bet on my hunch. For the record I had no clue about the race and would just call a number at random.

Inevitably this would turn into a freeroll for me. if my pick won I was practically guaranteed a few bucks.

I always say "I like the four horse on the snout."

I got the "on the snout line" from Danny McGoorty's book.

I think I heard the "four horse" line somewhere.

It's amazing how often people agree.

How would you rule this one?

2/5, 10 utg straddle this hand, one guy limps, guy in MP raises to 35, folds to SB who has a nickel out there, throws out 2 chips, a black and a white.. whites don’t play (only in $5 increments), so is this still ruled a raise to 105? Or is it a call of 35 since the white chip wouldn’t play, and now he is calling with the single overchip since he didn’t announce raise?

If he already has a nickel out there and threw 2 chips ($100 and another $5 chip) wouldn’t that be a raise to $110?
Or did he pick up the original nickel?
Why did he have a $100 chip if they don’t play in this game?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty sure he meant the $1 chip doesn't play in this game.

Never mind then, was thinking California $100 chips. Which are white


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What if he had thrown out $104 and not $101? No difference to me, multiple chip bet is a full raise to the nearest legal amount. There's a rule out there that states if you take away the smallest denomination chip and it's still a raise, then it's a raise. Don't have time to find/quote it right now.

There could be a room issue with rounding the $104 up to $105 (thus $110 to go) but I think at that point hopefully the Dealer gets right on it and clarifies with the Player. GL

It's tricky - in other situations we simply ignore the $1 chips as if they weren't there, but in this case the player seems to be using it to indicate a raise. If the dealer stopped right away and asked for clarification I'm just going with what they say. If there was action behind or too much of a delay I'm calling it a raise.

Did the player eventually say what they were attempting to do? Did they grab the $1 by mistake thinking it was a larger chip? Or were they trying to raise to $105 without having to speak?

I don't feel that we treat the chips as though they don't exist. Saying they don't play except in multiples of 5 is simply saying betting must be in increments of 5. It's not the same as saying they don't exist.

Clearly the intent is to raise. He may have intended it to be a bigger raise but their is no doubt he was raising. I rule this a raise.

Without being able to ask any questions, I would call it a raise to $105. Push back the $1 chip. I'm guessing he thought he grabbed a black and a red?

I was taught to treat anything under an increment of 5 as though it doesn't exist. Multiples of 5 are treated as red chips. Let's say there's no bet and he just throws out $104. I would consider that a bet of $100, though I'm sure others would disagree and it might even be in some rule books that it should be rounded up.

It would be a bet if $100. But that's not the same as saying the chips don't exist. It's just that the bet of $104 isn't permitted by rule.

I just see no reason to pretend the chips were not there.

I ruled it a raise on the spot. Next guy to act starts acting up, says white chips don’t play so it should be a call, another guy agrees (both still had hands so I took it as they just wanted to see a flop for 35 and not have to fold to the 105), I didn’t want to argue so just called a nearby floor over, floor ruled it a call because “$1 chips don’t count”. Later on the guy said he intended to use the $1 chip to raise without speaking, but wasn’t upset at the ruling as he could’ve just as easily verbalized raise or used a black and a red to go to 110.

One day players will learn to verbalize their actions to take ambiguity out of the equation.