poker etiquette question

two really

first one

if a person bets then 30 seconds elaps and the next person in turn has not made any indication if they are going to call raise or fold does the first person have to option to raise or has too much time elapsed?

Second question

what do you think of this

I was second to bet I told the once person before me that i was going to go all in before i even looked at my cards. That person was pissed at me for palying out or turn even before i looked at my cards - they were first to act then i second - does this person have a right to be mad? did i breack some rule by hinting at what i was gonna bet before that person made there bet? i donno?

Comments

  • if a person bets then 30 seconds elaps and the next person in turn has not made any indication if they are going to call raise or fold does the first person have to option to raise or has too much time elapsed?

    No amount of time is allowed to elapse. Once your bet has been properly placed, it cannot be changed.
    I was second to bet I told the once person before me that i was going to go all in before i even looked at my cards. That person was pissed at me for palying out or turn even before i looked at my cards - they were first to act then i second - does this person have a right to be mad? did i breack some rule by hinting at what i was gonna bet before that person made there bet? i donno?

    Normally, a declared action is binding. And, the rule is "act in turn." Acting out of turn is not only poor ettiquette, but it is against the rules. Truthfully, if you are heads up is it probably an advantage to the other player but if you say "I am going to go all in without looking" thinking that you can say this sort of thing and then NOT do it, you are angle shooting.

    Generally, don't make any indication about your own cards. And, don't act out of turn.
  • Normally, a declared action is binding. And, the rule is "act in turn."

    And these two rules may conflict with each other, either by accident or by angle shooting.

    ;)

    Apart from just repeating what Dave has said, yes, your opponent in the second example has the right to be mad.

    ScottyZ
  • Apart from just repeating what Dave has said, yes, your opponent in the second example has the right to be mad.

    Not to be the devil's advocate but in situation two it really depends on the "HOUSE" rules. It sounds like there are some players (yourself included) who are just learning the game and it is best to stick to the standard rules of Hold'em until every player in the game knows them well.

    Now in casual "get drunk and stupid" type games where you are playing with a group friends and probably small stacks then use your discretion on how strict you want the rules to be...just make sure they stay consistant.
  • Last night in a buddies home game - 5 handed, $20 ish in play, I get checkraised. Thie is the first time in 5 or 6 years we have had a check raise at the game. I got irritated simply because we havent' done that before.

    He got all defensive and explained to me that since he'd started playing online alot, he now knows more about the game, blah blah blah. I only got irritated because I thought we were playing one way, he another. In effect, we were playing with different sets of rules. To clarify, I was not angry with HIM for it, just that it happened. It made sense after a case of beer somehow.

    I agree with Jimmi in that the 'house' rules have a lot to do with this topic. In a real game, it's just a part of the game. I just found it to be in poor taste to pull a move in a get-drunk type of game for $5 with close friends after 5 years of no moves like that.

    I am finished ranting now.

    Cheers
  • Not to be the devil's advocate but in situation two it really depends on the "HOUSE" rules.

    True enough.

    However, the sub-text to the original post that I interpreted was that the opponent in fact did get mad at the original poster.

    This suggests that this sort of angle shooting was not in common practice in the particular home game they were playing in. Or that one or both of the players involved was not aware of the house rules. Or, by far the most common variation, the house had no house rules.

    ScottyZ
  • That's always been an irritant to me. Not knowing the house rules (if they exist). You make a good point though Scotty.
Sign In or Register to comment.