Cash Game Straddles and a Ruling (1 Viewer)

[Irish]

I ventured out beyond the comforts of my home poker room last night and played at a new home game - charity tourney followed by some NLHE micro stake cash games. Fun game, good people, but a bit of a free for all with regards to organization / rules. I was one of the new guys (knew one person). Two questions for the experts:

Rules for straddles came up during the cash game. I know the rules for straddles can vary pretty wildly depending on where you're playing, but this variant was new to me. I've typically allowed live straddles at my games, where UTG has the option to blind min raise before looking at their cards (for a 25¢/50¢ game, straddle would be a $1). The straddle essentially buys last to act rights in the pre-flop round, after which the game proceeds as normal following the flop. For all post-flop rounds, betting opens at 50¢ and dealer is last to act. I've also played in games where the straddle changes the stakes for the remaining rounds, so all opening bets for the remainder of the hand would need to be at least $1.

Last night was similar with the stakes/option in that the UTG had the option to straddle. However, the guy pushing for straddles claimed that the person who straddled was buying the right of last to act in all subsequent rounds as well. Several of us expressed our dissenting opinions, but in the end this was the direction the game went (there were no printed rules and the host had no idea and was wildly drunk by the time the cash games opened...)

It's been a while since I've played in a casino, so I didn't push back too hard on this since I was new, there were very few straddles happening, and I was running pretty well in the cash game . I was curious if this was "normal" anywhere. Again I realize rules for straddles vary. Hell, on our more boisterous nights, we've offered multiple straddles, whereas UTG can straddle ($1), then the UTG+1 can re-straddle ($1.50), and so forth all around the table as long as no one has looked at their cards.

The other question revolved around a ruling on a raise (I was not in the hand, but was dealing). 3 players in the hand for the river, first to act leads out for $13. Next to act says "$20" and throws four $5 chips. I immediately stopped the action and indicated that the bet wasn't correct, a raise would need to be to at least $26. The player says ok and starts to throw out the extra $6. First to act goes ape shit, arguing that because it wasn't the full legal raise, it should only be a call of the $13 bet. Several at the table agree with me, it was over the original $13 bet and obviously a raise, the amount needs to be corrected to the $26. There were no rules printed out, but without an enforcer I doubt they would have helped. The player betting the $20 agreed to just call to keep the game civil, 3rd player folds, showdown and the first player ends up winning with the second nut hand . At this point I check my phone, wait a few hands then announce that I'm good for one more round then I'm heading out.

I check RROP this morning, I would say that rule #11 in section 12 applies here:

11. If a player tries to bet or raise less than the legal minimum and has more chips, the wager must be increased to the proper size (but no greater). This does not apply to a player who has unintentionally put too much in to call.

If anyone has any input/insight to either of the above, I'd appreciate your feedback. After running absolutely card dead for 2+ hours and bowing out 8th in the tourney (18 runners I think), I doubled up and then some in the cash game to come out about even for the night.

 

[upNdown]

I’ve never heard of a straddle where the straddler is buying the right to act last for all streets. Sounds pretty dumb to me. I’d probably be straddling every hand if that were the case.
As far as the raise goes, my understand was always a sort of a halfway rule - so if the attempted raise is half the legal raise amount or more, it’s a minimum raise. If it’s less than half the legal min raise, it’s a call.
I know I’ve heard it expressed this way in cardrooms, but I’ve never checked any published rules.

 

[Burke]

Maybe he was thinking of straddling the button....I have played in some games where that is an option.

 

[Burke]

And if he says "raise (or any verbal notion indicating a raise)" while he is throwing in any value less than the min raise I think that he is committed to a minimum raise regardless if he threw in only $15 dollars (in this example).

Edited for clarity regarding the specific situation

 

[Bill]

I would have agreed that he has to make it $26. Not sure if it's correct or not.

 

[dickzapper]

Yeesh what a mess. Who are these players? They need to be flogged. Buying last to act on all streets, it doesn't even make sense. Wonder if he was just trying to angle the whole table.

I'd say that you were right about the forced min-raise. Since he announced a value larger than the current bet, he was attempting to announce a raise and it should be corrected to the minimum amount to complete the raise.

 

[Justin Olson]

I just returned from Las Vegas. Played in a couple rooms that treat the straddle different. If i remember right at the Flamingo and the Aria you can straddle under the gun or on the button. Your straddle is double the big blind. If you straddle UTG, then UTG +1 is first to act and action circles around where UTG is last to act and just takes over big blind position. if you straddle the button, again 2x big blind, small blind is first to act and circles around to button last to act.
At the Venetian they did the button straddle different. Button straddle 2x big blind, UTG is first to act, circles around, skips button and goes to small blind then big blind, then finally goes back to button as last to act. this only happens if no raise.......

i agree with the over half a legal bet raise. if your raiser had raised to $19 that would have been a $6 raise on the $13 bet i would have made him call the $13. since it was a $7 raise of the $13 bet i would have made it $26

 

[Irish]

As far as the raise goes, my understand was always a sort of a halfway rule - so if the attempted raise is half the legal raise amount or more, it’s a minimum raise. If it’s less than half the legal min raise, it’s a call.
I know I’ve heard it expressed this way in cardrooms, but I’ve never checked any published rules.

I know there's a rule in RROP for all-in bets that are less than half the previous bet in terms of not re-opening action, I don't recall the half rule for non all-in bets. Maybe it's more of casino house rule.

 

[abby99]

Yeah, $26 is right.

As far as the raise goes, my understand was always a sort of a halfway rule - so if the attempted raise is half the legal raise amount or more, it’s a minimum raise.

The halfway rule is from fixed-limit games and according to RROP does not apply to big-bet games. However, house rules rule.

 

[Irish]

Maybe he was thinking of straddling the button....I have played in some games where that is an option.

Could be, I've heard of this as well but have no idea on the details. Mississippi straddle I think?

And if he says "raise (or any verbal notion indicating a raise)" while he is throwing in any value less than the min raise I think that he is committed to a minimum raise regardless if he threw in only $15 dollars (in this example).

Edited for clarity regarding the specific situation

Agreed, that would have made it crystal clear, unfortunately there was no "raise", just "$20".

 

[Jambine]

the guy pushing for straddles claimed that the person who straddled was buying the right of last to act in all subsequent rounds

Straddle rules do vary wildly, but I've never heard of that. Really bad idea.

 

[abby99]

Agreed, that would have made it crystal clear, unfortunately there was no "raise", just "$20".

Not necessarily. If he bet a single $20 chip, the one-chip rule would apply. Any combination of chips is a raise. (According to RROP)

 

[Irish]

Yeesh what a mess. Who are these players? They need to be flogged. Buying last to act on all streets, it doesn't even make sense. Wonder if he was just trying to angle the whole table.

I'd say that you were right about the forced min-raise. Since he announced a value larger than the current bet, he was attempting to announce a raise and it should be corrected to the minimum amount to complete the raise.

lol, I think a good portion of these guys were old college and work buddies that don't play too often. It was a fun crowd, despite occasional my rule nazi eye twitch the tourney went fairly smoothly. If the guy's intent was to angle the table, he failed pretty bad (he was on buy-in #6 or so when I left)

 

[Burke]

Agreed, that would have made it crystal clear, unfortunately there was no "raise", just "$20".

By saying a value other than what is the calling amount I think that he is indicating a raise.

If he bet a single $20 chip, the one-chip rule would apply. Any combination of chips is a raise. (According to RROP)

I think this would make the stated situation a more difficult ruling, and I think I would have still ruled, in my house, that he was intending to raise. (If I were a rule Nazi that is IRL I would likely ask him if he meant to raise or call)

 

[Irish]

Not necessarily. If he bet a single $20 chip, the one-chip rule would apply. Any combination of chips is a raise. (According to RROP)

Quotes might have gotten crossed, I was agreeing if there was a verbal "raise", than the situation is pretty straight forward. The verbal announcement of "raise" nullifies the one-chip rule, no?

Situation 1: "$20" - toss in one chip, could be considered just a call by one-chip rule (that's even messier than OP, lol)
Situation 2: "Raise" - toss in one $20 chip, but verbal action is binding, should be corrected to $26 on the "raise" announcement
Situation 3" "$20" - toss in four $5 chips, should be considered a raise due to multiple chips, more than $13 previous bet

 

[Irish]

I just returned from Las Vegas. Played in a couple rooms that treat the straddle different. If i remember right at the Flamingo and the Aria you can straddle under the gun or on the button.

Does that mean the room allows either the UTG OR button to straddle, or are either/or allowed to straddle on any given hand? If the latter, what happens if they both want to straddle in the same hand, does the button override and the UTG get his straddle back?

 

[abby99]

Quotes might have gotten crossed, I was agreeing if there was a verbal "raise", than the situation is pretty straight forward. The verbal announcement of "raise" nullifies the one-chip rule, no?

Situation 1: "$20" - toss in one chip, could be considered just a call by one-chip rule (that's even messier than OP, lol)
Situation 2: "Raise" - toss in one $20 chip, but verbal action is binding, should be corrected to $26 on the "raise" announcement
Situation 3" "$20" - toss in four $5 chips, should be considered a raise due to multiple chips, more than $13 previous bet

In Situation 1, saying "20" is a raise even by tossing in a single chip because, as you stated, verbal action is binding and would supersede the one-chip rule. In other words, "20" = "Raise."

 

[abby99]

If I were in one of the blinds, I'd be tempted to pay UTG's straddle.

 

[Irish]

In Situation 1, saying "20" is a raise even by tossing in a single chip because, as you stated, verbal action is binding and would supersede the one-chip rule. In other words, "20" = "Raise."

Agreed, I was stretching with the "call" on situation 1.

 

[pltrgyst]

If I were in one of the blinds, I'd be tempted to pay UTG's straddle.

I was thinking exactly that! It creates excellent opportunities for collusion...

 

[TheBigTater]

Never seen the straddle buy the button for every street but I've seen all sorts of crazy straddle rules so I would say house rules prevail (even if the house rule is made up on the spot). Granted I wouldn't want to play with that rule and IMO it could be exploitable.

I would rule that a raise "verbal action is binding" as well, he announced an amount higher than the original bet, and have the raiser put in the extra $6 to make it a legal raise.

 

[upNdown]

By the way, the guy had the 2nd nuts in hold em, and he DIDN'T want to get re-raised?
He's playing the wrong game.

 

[Justin Olson]

Does that mean the room allows either the UTG OR button to straddle, or are either/or allowed to straddle on any given hand? If the latter, what happens if they both want to straddle in the same hand, does the button override and the UTG get his straddle back?

each room has a different set of rules, i think at the Venetian the UTG straddle took priority, cannot remember what has priority at the Flamingo or Aria. Our home games we use UTG as 1st option.

 

[upNdown]

I should probably tighten up the rules for straddling in my game. We allow UTG to straddle for any amount.
Last week, utg three out four $5s. It was obvious that he meant to throw out four $1s. There was some brief conversation before anybody looked at their cards, and the consensus was that he should make it a $4 straddle. I was all for leaving the $20 out there and taking a look at my cards - not sure why the others weren’t.

 

[Mental Nomad]

However, the guy pushing for straddles claimed that the person who straddled was buying the right of last to act in all subsequent rounds as well.

That's wrong by any rules I've seen.

A Mississippi Straddle can be done from any position, and pre-flop action starts after the last Straddle, so they are buying "last to act" if it's unraised pre-flop, but that never extends to post-flop action.

I'll guess that player was confusing things with this statement: if the person on the button plays a Mississippi Straddle, they have bought the "last to act" position for the whole hand. Common statement, but it's only true because the button already has that right post-flop.

Situation 1: "$20" - toss in one chip, could be considered just a call by one-chip rule (that's even messier than OP, lol)
Situation 2: "Raise" - toss in one $20 chip, but verbal action is binding, should be corrected to $26 on the "raise" announcement
Situation 3" "$20" - toss in four $5 chips, should be considered a raise due to multiple chips, more than $13 previous

I think that's right. The "one chip rule" only applies if nothing is spoken. Otherwise, "verbal contracts are binding" applies. Player declared "twenty" which is clearly a raise; they should be forced to pony up the extra $6.

A few places may interpret the "illegal raise" situation differently, using a 50% rule. If opener is $13, the 50% is $19.50. If someone said, "eighteen," it's less than 50% of a legal raise and might be declared a call. But $20 is above the 50% and would be a raise under any typical rule I'm aware if.

 

[Irish]

Thanks for all the confirmations, explanations and discussions, much appreciated. (y) :thumbsup:

 

[Lemonzest]

House rules....so they can do what they want. I have never heard of that and I don't like it.

Straddling rules do vary but straddling only gives you last option prior to the flop. After the flop the game progress as normal.

EDIT: One thing I do like and is fun is the progressive straddle. UTG makes it $1 then UTG+1 makes it $2 and then UTG+2 makes it $4. Everyone, starting at UTG, has the option to continue to straddle by doubling the bet.

 

[JustinInMN]

Maybe he was thinking of straddling the button....I have played in some games where that is an option.

I do know they have the button straddle at diamond jo's in Iowa. IIRC correctly button acts after the bb pre flop and acts in turn thereafter.