1. I don't play.
2. I don't teach.
3. I don't Floor.
4. I don't have a roll.
This is the governement of Ontario for you. Allowing someone who doesn't play the game decide on how it should be played. And if you were not involved in a decision like this, or don't play the game, why are you on a poker forum ?
This is the governement of Ontario for you. Allowing someone who doesn't play the game decide on how it should be played. And if you were not involved in a decision like this, or don't play the game, why are you on a poker forum ?
Good Point. I guess walking around the casino with a mop and toilet scrubber qualifies him.
You know guys, I know this is an internet forum and we can "generally" say what we want, free speech being what it is and what not but don't you think we are being a little harsh on 13... I agree he comes across as somewhat arrogant at times but who hasn't, present company included. Just because he isn't currently playing poker or working in a poker room, does not mean he can't have an opinion like the rest of us. We all know he was in the poker room (and isn't carrying a mop) so does have some inside info that can be helpful at times. We have always been somewhat of a friendly place as compared to other internet forums and would like to see it remain that way, so please stop with the lame attacks and "piling on". It is not becoming...
***I am going to assume this is a cash game (not tournament!!) as some answers may differ under tournament rules (#3).***
NOTE: Raise from $10 to $60 is a raise of $50. By raising by the minimum again, UTG+1 makes is $110. By raising by the minimum again, UTG+2 needs to make it at least $160 total!!
So, I can explain each scenario as follows:
1. If I remove the smallest chip (one $100 chip), is what is left enough to call?
ANSWER: No! $100 is not enough to call the $110 bet. Therefore, throwing out two $100 chips ($200 total), without verbal declaration, would be a call.
2. If I remove the smallest chip (one $25 chip), is what is left enough to call?
ANSWER: Yes! $150 is enough to call the $110 bet. Therefore, throwing out one $100 chip PLUS three $25 chips ($175 total), without verbal declaration, would be a raise to $175.
3.Throwing out one $100 chip plus two $25 chips plus one $5 chip (total $155), without verbal declaration, would NOT BE ENOUGH to raise and therefore would only be a call.
I hope that my line spacing, italics, bold font, CAPITALIZATION and clear, concise explanations bring so much anger and hatred to some of you that you take the time to berate me some more. It really makes my day :-)
Wrong answer and Wrong reasoning/explanation of a legit raise!
Wait citizens!!! I do believe Milo's answer in Wrong. Better keep reading.
By your reasoning, if MP tossed in two black $100 chips, it would only be a call?!?!? I think most here would agree that reasoning is flawed!
You almost grasp the concept but you still need to keep reading...
I 100% agree that this is the correct application of the rule and exactly how the situation should be resolved!!! Meistro, what is your screen name on Pokerstars? I wanna ship $5...
It is a legal raise AMOUNT however the WAY that MP did it does not make it a LEGAL RAISE. The same as throwing in one oversized grey $5,000 chip is a legal raise amount but, without verbal declaration, not a legal way to raise. BTW, I expected you to be one of the members to get this right. :-)
I feel this is the WRONG application of the rule; one $25 chip does NOT match a bet of $125. Sorry you got a weak pit boss.
If by "the colour chip rule" you mean One Chip Rule or Oversized Chip Rule, it applies to cash games as well as tournaments. The rest of your reasoning is wrong too as the AMOUNT was sufficient for a raise. Sorry.
***I am going to assume this is a cash game (not tournament!!) as some answers may differ under tournament rules (#3).***
NOTE: Raise from $10 to $60 is a raise of $50. By raising by the minimum again, UTG+1 makes is $110. By raising by the minimum again, UTG+2 needs to make it at least $160 total!!
So, I can explain each scenario as follows:
1. If I remove the smallest chip (one $100 chip), is what is left enough to call?
ANSWER: No! $100 is not enough to call the $110 bet. Therefore, throwing out two $100 chips ($200 total), without verbal declaration, would be a call.
2. If I remove the smallest chip (one $25 chip), is what is left enough to call?
ANSWER: Yes! $150 is enough to call the $110 bet. Therefore, throwing out one $100 chip PLUS three $25 chips ($175 total), without verbal declaration, would be a raise to $175.
3.Throwing out one $100 chip plus two $25 chips plus one $5 chip (total $155), without verbal declaration, would NOT BE ENOUGH to raise and therefore would only be a call.
I hope that my line spacing, italics, bold font, CAPITALIZATION and clear, concise explanations bring so much anger and hatred to some of you that you take the time to berate me some more. It really makes my day :-)
Do you not see the two totally different ways you responded to this scenario?
The first way, you were overpowering and come off as a knowitall jackass out to trap respondents with a little known and underused ruling, but in the example above, you took the time to explain WHY and WHERE our responses are incorrect.
I doubt that if your second example where your first, you wouldn't be getting the hate you are getting. Well, maybe from some, but I for one would have not thought less of you.
13C, you have a knowledge that you could share, but if your sole purpose in using the knowledge is going to be making some of us look foolish, then keep it to yourself. Try taking a more educator role and less of a superiority complex one.
13C, you have a knowledge that you could share, but if your sole purpose in using the knowledge is going to be making some of us look foolish, then keep it to yourself. Try taking a more educator role and less of a superiority complex one.
Now, THIS is one of the more mature responses to 13's posts I have seen. Well said AJ. methinks there is some maturing to do, regardless of age. Life is so simple if we only take a more reasoned thought out approach. AJ for mod!!!
You know guys, I know this is an internet forum and we can "generally" say what we want, free speech being what it is and what not but don't you think we are being a little harsh on 13... I agree he comes across as somewhat arrogant at times but who hasn't, present company included. Just because he isn't currently playing poker or working in a poker room, does not mean he can't have an opinion like the rest of us. We all know he was in the poker room (and isn't carrying a mop) so does have some inside info that can be helpful at times. We have always been somewhat of a friendly place as compared to other internet forums and would like to see it remain that way, so please stop with the lame attacks and "piling on". It is not becoming...
Wrong answer and Wrong reasoning/explanation of a legit raise!
Wait citizens!!! I do believe Milo's answer in Wrong. Better keep reading.
By your reasoning, if MP tossed in two black $100 chips, it would only be a call?!?!? I think most here would agree that reasoning is flawed!
You almost grasp the concept but you still need to keep reading...
I 100% agree that this is the correct application of the rule and exactly how the situation should be resolved!!! Meistro, what is your screen name on Pokerstars? I wanna ship $5...
It is a legal raise AMOUNT however the WAY that MP did it does not make it a LEGAL RAISE. The same as throwing in one oversized grey $5,000 chip is a legal raise amount but, without verbal declaration, not a legal way to raise. BTW, I expected you to be one of the members to get this right. :-)
I feel this is the WRONG application of the rule; one $25 chip does NOT match a bet of $125. Sorry you got a weak pit boss.
If by "the colour chip rule" you mean One Chip Rule or Oversized Chip Rule, it applies to cash games as well as tournaments. The rest of your reasoning is wrong too as the AMOUNT was sufficient for a raise. Sorry.
Comments
no shit...get the fuck off the forum
This is the governement of Ontario for you. Allowing someone who doesn't play the game decide on how it should be played. And if you were not involved in a decision like this, or don't play the game, why are you on a poker forum ?
Good Point. I guess walking around the casino with a mop and toilet scrubber qualifies him.
And He charges for it.
5-10NL, UTG raise TO $60, UTG+1 raise TO $110, UTG+2....
1. throws out 2 $100 chips = call
2. throws out 1 $100 + 3x $25 = call
3. throws out 1 $100 + 2x $25 + 1x $5 = raise
***I am going to assume this is a cash game (not tournament!!) as some answers may differ under tournament rules (#3).***
NOTE: Raise from $10 to $60 is a raise of $50. By raising by the minimum again, UTG+1 makes is $110. By raising by the minimum again, UTG+2 needs to make it at least $160 total!!
So, I can explain each scenario as follows:
1. If I remove the smallest chip (one $100 chip), is what is left enough to call?
ANSWER: No! $100 is not enough to call the $110 bet. Therefore, throwing out two $100 chips ($200 total), without verbal declaration, would be a call.
2. If I remove the smallest chip (one $25 chip), is what is left enough to call?
ANSWER: Yes! $150 is enough to call the $110 bet. Therefore, throwing out one $100 chip PLUS three $25 chips ($175 total), without verbal declaration, would be a raise to $175.
3.Throwing out one $100 chip plus two $25 chips plus one $5 chip (total $155), without verbal declaration, would NOT BE ENOUGH to raise and therefore would only be a call.
I hope that my line spacing, italics, bold font, CAPITALIZATION and clear, concise explanations bring so much anger and hatred to some of you that you take the time to berate me some more. It really makes my day :-)
Do you not see the two totally different ways you responded to this scenario?
The first way, you were overpowering and come off as a knowitall jackass out to trap respondents with a little known and underused ruling, but in the example above, you took the time to explain WHY and WHERE our responses are incorrect.
I doubt that if your second example where your first, you wouldn't be getting the hate you are getting. Well, maybe from some, but I for one would have not thought less of you.
13C, you have a knowledge that you could share, but if your sole purpose in using the knowledge is going to be making some of us look foolish, then keep it to yourself. Try taking a more educator role and less of a superiority complex one.
Been there...done that...no fucking chance in hell
lol, but she's not around any more!! hehe..
+1:)
Min raise being 50.
Only way to pit in the wrong denomination and it not being a raise would have been a black chip. (100$)
I agree with 13cards though but also str82ace. Compuease - you are just an arrogant prick however.
f'nnn kids on here... AJ, want the job? Pays at least twice what it did when you had it...
Wait...it pays?!?!
[back on topic...]
This is my response to people that act this way.