MrCatPants
Full House
For those of you who have issue with the "I bet the total amount of that players stack" type of comment (versus "I put you all in"), is this any different than betting "pot" in a pot limit game?
Tourney "I'm gonna put you all in" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter upNdown
- Start date
Yeah. Because (Please correct me if I’m wrong) I don’t think you’re ever entitled to know the exact amount of somebody’s stack until THEY go all in. “Pot” is a different story. In a pot limit game, you’re entitled to that information.
Mr Winberg
Full House
Any opinions on this?
I just started a new thread about it, but yeah, I’d have a problem with that rule for the same reason above - you’re not entitled to know exactly how many chips somebody has. Just make your own bet.
MrCatPants
Full House
the TDA language is "entitled to a reasonable estimation" and recommends clean stacks, etc. so I guess the best you could do is ask someone to clean up their stack and then place an estimated equivalent bet?
Mr Winberg
Full House
I'll keep this here as it refers to the "put you all in" discussion.
If the rule is formed so that the implication to "put someone all in" is that you are bound to match the stack or die trying (i.e. go all in yourself), then you never need to break the rule you quoted when following my suggested rule - my suggested rule would effectively just turn the bettors bet into an all in.
So why do I suggest this? Because without this rule, the anglers can keep angling, and the bad guys win (as in your OP). With this rule, the good guy wins and your have disarmed this particular angle.
So it's not about "allowing the phrase", it's about protecting the noobs and punishing the d-bags who try to angle with it.
Hell, in the best of worlds the bet would be binding and be subject to a penalty! That way both anglers and noobs get punished, but in different ways!
IMO of course
If the rule is formed so that the implication to "put someone all in" is that you are bound to match the stack or die trying (i.e. go all in yourself), then you never need to break the rule you quoted when following my suggested rule - my suggested rule would effectively just turn the bettors bet into an all in.
So why do I suggest this? Because without this rule, the anglers can keep angling, and the bad guys win (as in your OP). With this rule, the good guy wins and your have disarmed this particular angle.
So it's not about "allowing the phrase", it's about protecting the noobs and punishing the d-bags who try to angle with it.
Hell, in the best of worlds the bet would be binding and be subject to a penalty! That way both anglers and noobs get punished, but in different ways!
IMO of course
AnteAndy
Straight
In our home games, some people, myself included, would say "I'm putting you all in." With everyone understanding that the person saying in slang that to the other person in heads up he's betting to what amounts to his opponent going all in if he calls.
No one ever brought up this concern. We all never discussed this but all clearly understand what the aggressor meant to his short-stacked opponent. It's easier to say it than "I'm going to bet to where you'll need to go all in to call."
Personally when I look back as to why I say "putting you all in," I see it is not being as intimidating to the short stack I'm betting against, where it feels like if I say "all in," it might have my opponent really look at my larger chip stack and fold. That's just my mindset on the whole thing.
Of course in a more formal/public/casino setting it's best to be as specifically clear as possible and simply say "all in." But in a home game setting, where everyone probably knows each other well enough, everyone would probably know what the aggressor would mean if he'd say that.
No one ever brought up this concern. We all never discussed this but all clearly understand what the aggressor meant to his short-stacked opponent. It's easier to say it than "I'm going to bet to where you'll need to go all in to call."
Personally when I look back as to why I say "putting you all in," I see it is not being as intimidating to the short stack I'm betting against, where it feels like if I say "all in," it might have my opponent really look at my larger chip stack and fold. That's just my mindset on the whole thing.
Of course in a more formal/public/casino setting it's best to be as specifically clear as possible and simply say "all in." But in a home game setting, where everyone probably knows each other well enough, everyone would probably know what the aggressor would mean if he'd say that.
With some exceptions, I like to run my home game with the same rules and practices that the players would encounter in a casino. Way back when, I would have responded with a long explanation, as I am wont to do. More recently, it's "That's not a bet."
How the hell did voir dire (French) get into the legal lexicon?
I never took a class in Latin, but they taught me all the Latin I needed in law school. Habeas corpus, res ipsa loquitor, mandamus, obiter dictum, sua sponte, etc. I’m a walking Latin dictionary.
How the hell did voir dire (French) get into the legal lexicon?
No clue ... somebody obviously made a mistake.
I never took a class in Latin, but they taught me all the Latin I needed in law school. Habeas corpus, res ipsa loquitor, mandamus, obiter dictum, sua sponte, etc. I’m a walking Latin dictionary.
Latin in law school is just marketing in disguise.
My late father earned a Greek Law degree in Athens (enrolled back in 1947 thoughLatin in law school is just marketing in disguise.
) having had to endure half of the courses' textbooks being in pure f*ckin Latin (especially in Civil Law)
It's just second or third generation Latin:
"According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it comes from the Anglo-Norman language.[2]
The word voir (or voire), in this combination, comes from Old French and derives from Latin verum, "[that which is] true".[3] It is related to the modern French word voire, "indeed", but not to the more common word voir, "to see", which derives from Latin vidēre. William Blackstone referred to it as veritatem dicere,[4] which was translated by John Winter Jones as "To speak the truth".[5]"
DeeVee8
Flush
I do my best to catch "I put you all in" guys before there is any action taken by other players and point out that "I put you all in" is not a bet. I've found that this only happens once with new players and they quickly learn that its not tolerated at our tables.
If there is action before I can get to "IPYAI" guy, the action is not binding as there has been no legal bet. "IPYAI" guy has to check or bet. A player who acted quickly will just have to accept it. This happens very infrequently. Usually new player v. new player.
Most of my players roll their eyes as soon as "IPYAI" is spoken, and they know what's coming...
If there is action before I can get to "IPYAI" guy, the action is not binding as there has been no legal bet. "IPYAI" guy has to check or bet. A player who acted quickly will just have to accept it. This happens very infrequently. Usually new player v. new player.
Most of my players roll their eyes as soon as "IPYAI" is spoken, and they know what's coming...
Dix
3 of a Kind
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
- Messages
- 733
- Reaction score
- 972
Same here.... heard it used plenty of times... even used it myself.... never heard any objection to it, & seemingly it was understood for what it means every time. (as in: no one's ever tried to have it mean anything else)
So, I fail to see a problem with it.
In fact, for all of you who whine about the "speed of the game", I have a question for you....
(and, before you gripe, I'm with you... I hate when the action is slowed by unnecessary crap)
A short-ish stack places a bet. I have that player comfortably covered, but, the big stack at the table is also in the hand & yet to act.
The play I want to make is to place a bet that would put the shorter stack all-in to call, but, if the big stack comes over the top still leaves me the option of folding without risking more than I need to accomplish that.
Would you rather......
A. Have me simply state that I'll put the shorter stack all-in?
or....
B. Spend the next few moments counting his stack for a bet size? (on top of the time it took me to figure out this is the play I want to make)
If the big stack wants a count before he decides, so be it. If he folds, we've saved time. If the short stack calls, we run out the board & if he wins the hand we count 'em up to find out what I owe. Otherwise, it's all time saved & we move on to the next hand.
@Mr Winberg - I'd have no issue with it becoming an official rule. It's pretty much a de facto one anyway in these parts.
Is the dealer gonna have a plaque to toss in front of you that says "He put the other guy all in?"
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
asian bino
Two Pair
If player A does not put chips over the line, I won't act on my hand. I'll make the dealer clarify the action, and make the chips go over the line. I've read a few instances where the guy says 'all in', loses the hand, grabs his chips and takes off, and the casino won't do thing-1 about getting me paid. Pretty sure this happened at at Bellagio or V within the last year.
Trying to get a forward motion rule enforced is tough...Especially if the floor is called, cuz he didn't see it....player usually gets off with a warning....and then what?? He has gotten his angle to work, or, at worst, had no negative repercussions.
..Remember the WSOP debacle with the Russian guy and the LA Pro in the purple Lakers jersey? Even Jack Effel wouldn't enforce the forward motion. IN THE WSOP ME!!!
Dix
3 of a Kind
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
- Messages
- 733
- Reaction score
- 972
You really NEED a plaque for an all-in?... I've always viewed those as kind of pointless. What is this Romper Room? We need a sign for everything now?
Not always.... in fact, the last couple times I recall this exact scenario playing out, the 3rd guy folded both times & the short stack called once, folded the other.
Always been pretty clear who was putting who all-in when I've seen it.
Might seem like romper room if you fired out a plaque at your home game, but I’ve never seen a casino or cardroom that doesn’t use them. I’m not sure why, but I bet there’s good reasons, and I don’t mind guessing.
Since all-ins are often only verbalized, the plaque tells the security cameras exactly what’s happening. Also, because the chips often don’t go across the line, the plaque tips off the other players, who may not have heard what was happening.
But if you think you how to run things better than the casinos, go ahead. That’s what home games are for, I guess.
The Casino using the All In Plaques are kind of useful. Sometimes a person might say All-In, but you may not hear it because they don't talk loud enough. If the plaque is in front of the person or persons you will know and can call accordingly. I'm for them at Casinos. Once I had someone say all-In and I didn't hear him say it and he didn't not put all his chips in, but threw in a single chip $25. I thought he had said something else and I saw the $25. The dealer did not repeat all in and I said call. It was a $200 call when I thought it was like a $25 call and was forced to put in $200. The other players at the table said they didn't hear All-In either. But the dealer said she did hear him say it. I was PO'd because at most Casino's when someone says all in they will force them to put their chips forward. It's usually only the caller that can throw in the one chip.
asian bino
Two Pair
Plaques are for the casino cameras to see.......since no chips moved, and no sound on security cameras, an 'All In"plaque claifies the action......
Chips in the middle ALSO clarify the action
Chips in the middle ALSO clarify the action
phdlance
Sitting Out
Thank you for this story, I would have fallen for the line "I'm going to put you all-in"
Dix
3 of a Kind
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
- Messages
- 733
- Reaction score
- 972
OP states "well run establishment".... which isn't necessarily a joint with security cameras.
Personally, I have ears as well as eyes. & if the intent is clear, so be it.
I let common sense rule the day... of course, how much of that is in supply these days is a whole 'nuther sermon.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
