I read this before I read where it came from and it added value to the response that wouldn't have otherwise been there. So there's that. Thank you =P

Oh come on, it was in the tipping containment thread. You really expected me to elucidate? It was in response to a post that basically told someone why they were doing something with no basis in fact, and calling them out simply because of a difference in opinion.

$1-3 NLHE today. CO makes it $12. Button cold calls. SB 3-bets to $35. Dealer: "That's a cap!"

Table: "Um, no, the cap is a bet and three raises. $12, one. $35 two. That's just two raises."

Dealer: "Oh, I'm sorry, I must have miscounted."

Oh, Washington. Oh, Washington.

===

Later, a guy with $202 buys another stack of red. Dealer tells him he has to put the two white chips in his pocket for now because the table max is $300. Here in Seattle we love blind adherence to the rules. We love to follow rules so much, it leaves us no time for pondering the reasoning behind the rules we're following. Heck, nothing's worse than running out of rules when you still want some more rules to follow, so sometimes we make up a few more!

Sounds like a 2+2 forum I know...

Sounds to me like that wasn't NLHE.

Sounds like spread limit to me.

Do they also allow a re-raise in this situation:

Player A raises from $2 to $12
Player B reraises from $12 to $30 (18 more)
Player C goes all in for $40 (10 more, over half of 18)
Player A calls
Player B can now raise?

I hate spread limit so much.

Technically it's spread limit. Effectively, as chillrob is no doubt aware, it's what everyone here knows as NLHE. (Tribal casinos can allow up to $500 max bets; for local cardrooms the limit is $300.)

It's even more fun for PLO. Now the limit at a cardroom is the lesser of the pot or $300, still subject to the bet and three raises. Or, at the tribal that spreads $10-25 PLO, it's effectively PLO preflop and $500-500 limit Omaha high postflop.

Not 100% sure but I think answer is no, B cannot reraise because the betting is capped there. The limit rather than big-bet rule applies so half a bet counts as a bet for reopening the betting. So in an analogous situation where C made the second rather than the third raise, betting would be reopened.

But in standard NLHE B can't reraise there either, right? Because in proper NL an insufficient reraise (anything < 18) wouldn't reopen the betting. (FWIW A can't reraise above because the betting is capped, but A could reraise in proper NL because A never acted on B's reraise to $30 so C's action is irrelevant.)

For added fun it's very house-dependent whether straddles count as a raise or not.

Ah, the good ole days. Player A straddles for $5. Player B raises to $10. Player C raises to $15. Player D raises to $20 and it's capped so everyone gets to see a flop for $20.

Nobody straddles after that.

Forgot about the betting being capped. I was trying to point out the stupidity of opening the action again because of the "halfway" rule when the game is attempting to emulate a no limit game.

Ah, makes sense. Don't you hate when pointing out the stupidity of the halfway rule is trumped by the even greater stupidity of having a 4-bet cap in "NL" and "PL" games?

On the bright side I guess it's one more tactic to learn and use against less thoughtful players. Occasionally players here will preemptively cold mincap if the 3-bet was small because they want to lock in their price for mining a set, etc.

Yeah I knew what you were talking about was really spread limit. Just thought it was funny that you specifically called it "NLHE" then complained about a rule that would obviously be incorrect for that game but correct for the game you were actually playing. The fact that nearly everyone there calls it NL doesn't make it so. As you have pointed out many times, it is very easy for nearly everyone to be wrong, especially in Washington.

I disagree that the rule is correct for spread limit. There are two types of spread limit games. On type is closer to limit and should use the limit rule (2 to 10 would be an example) the other is designed to emulate NL and has a.much wider spread (2 to 500 would be an example) and would make much more sense to use the NL rule.

Is there any place that has wide spread limit games and doesn't use the traditional limit poker rules? I've never heard of it and assumed what you suggest was impossible based on existing gaming regulations. I agree different rules would be better, but our opinions don't determine what is correct.

It may be that gaming regulations require the rule. I just don't think it's a good rule in those spots.

Is it just me or do the 1/3 games in Vegas seem noticeably tougher this WSOP than last year? Maybe my table change game sucks, or maybe training sites like upswing poker are turning a lot of break even regs into winning regs?

I don't play too much NLHE so I can't opine but I am curious. Does "noticeably tougher" mean LV 1-3 plays as what Ed Miller (2014 Ed Miller, I suppose) would describe as a LV 2-5 game?:

• Still too loose preflop,
• but not as loose, so fairly unlikely to generate a 4- or 5-way raised pot,
• unlikely to pay off multiple streets with marginal hands,
• so extremely vulnerable to barreling because they still often make it to the turn with hands with little equity against TPGK (because of loose preflop play)?

Regardless, learn PLO. In Las Vegas it's tougher than it was in 2012 but still has great opportunities. In my local 1-3 game here in Seattle it's a gold mine.

The main thing I noticed is increased aggression. I have to question in some spots Ed Miller's advice about not paying people off cause the amount of people that bluff this year are way more than last year it seems. I saw a 50 yo tourist at Aria who was playing pretty tight get caught turning 98 into a bluff by raising a A97T turn. Wtf. Not saying it's necessarily a good spot but 1/3 players aren't supposed to have moves like that. They're supposed to just play their showdown value passively and pay off AK when they're behind!

Basically last year I did very well treating Ed Miller's "don't pay off big bets" advice like the Bible. This year I have to take that advice with a grain of salt.

Also there seems like there's a lot more grinders in their 20s and 30s this year as opposed to recs.

Yeah, I think Ed Miller's books are great but they're written for people like you with the savvy to identify when 2018's 1-3 games are playing like (supposedly) 2014's 2-5 or even 5-10 games. I'm curious if your observations are true of the population or just that you drew an anomalous sample, etc. Also curious how different CA games are. From what I understand, very different.

The little bit of LV 2-5 I played seemed to have a couple of very aggressive young guys I presumed were [semi-]pros, a couple of older tourists who were just trying to hit flops, and perhaps maybe a wild European who liked to raise and call 3 bets to hope something good would happen.

The 1/2 I've been playing for the past couple weeks has not been anything like 2/5. It has been a little tougher than before, but still long way from 2/5. As for whether I was bluffed, I don't know because I folded.

I'm very sad because this is the time of year where Vegas rooms start emptying and the games slowly get worse and worse.

LA's 4 hours away. 3 if you drive fast.

So this was a new one. Aria 1/3 last week. Room is SUPER busy because of everything going on in summer poker. We're at the table right at the side next to the rail and the burger lounge, it's a tight fit.

Seats 2 and 7 see a flop, bet, call. Dealer brings in the bets, raps the table, burns a card, and is simultaneously shoved vigorously by someone trying to walk past behind her, pushing into her chair. She pauses and half turns her head to deal with the distraction.

Somehow drunk seat 2 thinks action is on her and bets the flop again. Seat 7 is also drunk and tired, sees the bet, but realizes that this may be flop deja-vu. He asks the dealer if it's really his turn. Rather than wait for an answer, he tosses out calling chips just as the dealer is turning her head back to the table after dealing with the physical distraction. Dealer sees that the second burn card is already on the table, sees the chips in front of the players, scoops the chips into the pot and lays out the turn card.

Seat 7 wakes up and realizes the flop did indeed have two rounds of betting, dealer counts the pot and realizes the error, and asks for the floor.

My description really doesn't cover the beauty of it all, but it was like drunk poker ballet.

Floor ruling was incorrect, in my opinion. The extra bets were removed from the pot, given back, and seat 2 got to bet the turn anew.

I would think it should have been treated as a blind turn bet and call, and dealer should have just put out the river card.

That's all.

That ruling seems extremely correct. Both players acknowledge the mistake. What's the harm in fixing it, and why hold them both to the mistake?

I agree with the floor's ruling.

Why should it be treated as a blind turn bet and call? So it speeds the game up for you?