Well I know most people at this point have torn their bracket up moved on past the NCAA tourney unless of course you were one those people that picked UNC. Well Memphis got bounced and that eliminated me from my pool and a chance at cash, although in my other bracket challenge that I was head to head with SouthPawRounder our championship game was yesterday with UNC/OU b/c our final four and champion was the same except for him having OU and me UNC so now I have a free lunch when I get to Vegas in June. Saturday I boiled some crawfish and some friends over and after we were done eating and with a good bit of beer in us we decided we needed to go bowling. That was pretty fun and entertaining, bowling is definitely one of those things done better when drunk. Sunday was a weird day for me, I woke up and the weather was great and I definitely didn't wanna spend the day at home doing nothing. Being the good Catholic kid I am I woke up and went to Mass and then got some really sad news about a friend that I ride with in a carnival krewe. I received a text message saying that Bubba Dove was in automobile accident and was died on the scene. Just really unsettling news b/c he was a nice guy and was fun to hang out with the few months out of the year we had Mardi Gras parties. After a bunch of phone calls and texts messages from friends and the news kind of settled down I decided I really wanted to play live and NOT at Harrahs.
I hopped in the car and headed to the coast for some cash game action and a potential appearance in the $200 second chance tourney at 7pm. Well I got there and around 3:30 and went upstairs to see what was going on and ran into a few people I hadn't seen in a while and then went sit down and flopped the nuts on the first hand I played and broke a guy. After that I just pretty much maintained and was bouncing the idea back and forth if I wanted to play the second chance or not. While I was cashing out I ran into Jacob and he and I shot the shit for a while and went upstairs to sweat Clint at the final table from event 1. He and I ran into a bunch of familiar faces and talked to Reid for a few minutes while he was waiting for his dinner break to end. I opted to not play in the second chance for a couple reasons: one was that with about 10 minutes before 7 they only had like 30 players and two; was that I didn't know if I felt like driving back after that late after I won. My cash session wasn't that much to brag about but it was a win and got me really wanted to go play this week! I'm making plans and I'm pretty sure I'm going play cash Wednesday evening and I'm going play the Saturday tourney which should have a really big turn out.
One thing that had me confused was two rulings by the floor at the Beau, one was on my table and the other was on the 4/8 game next to us. I know they had a dealer that used to blog on GCP as well as a Tourney Director but I'm not sure if they check the site anymore. Well this is the situation and ruling on the 4/8 game:
The blinds are $1 and $2 in the game and a player wanted to straddle. The dealer didn't know how much the player had to straddle for b/c the bet is $8. (I'm still confused kinda). Anyway the dealer didn't know if the player should have to straddle for $4 or $8. The floor ruled the player should straddle for $4 and everyone has to call $8 to enter the pot. So based on this ruling the player who straddled can fold for $4 even if no one raises. This would make the straddle the dumbest play in the history of poker and makes the ruling one of the weirdest I've ever heard before. Please let me know if you know the proper ruling.
The second was in my cash game and once again I'm not sure if I agree with the ruling. This hand involves the 7 seat (playerA), 8 seat (PlayerB), and 3 seat (playerC), button is on the 4 seat:
After the flop: PlayerA checks, PlayerB bets $40, PlayerC calls as well as playerA.
Turn: PlayerA checks, PlayerB bets $100, PlayerC moves all-in for $130 toal PlayerA then attempts to raise to $200. The dealer tells him he can not raise that amount and pulls the raise back. This is the part that ANNOYS THE HELL OUT OF ME!! douchebag in the two seats starts talking to the guys next to him and they start questioning the dealer WHEN THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE HAND! (bit of advice, if you're not in the hand and it's not a pot/money issue then keep your mouth shut!) Regardless if I know I'm right or someone is wrong I refuse to make statements or anything that will affect someones money...it's the same as talking in a hand when you're not heads up. If the player has doubts he ask for a ruling not the dip shit who wears his sunglasses and hoodie and analyzing everyone's hand and watches entirely too much tv poker. Anyway, the floor is called and the floor rules that playerA can make it $200 b/c playerC did not make a full raise and all playerA is raising the original $100 bet. PlayerA put the $100 extra and PlayerB called. The river went check-check and PlayerA won the hand.
So my question is: Did the floor make the correct ruling? I can see how it would be the correct ruling and I could see an argument against $200 not being enough to count as a raise. And I could definitely see this being ruled differently in different poker rooms.
Well the plan is to head to the Beau Wednesday after work and win at least my buyin for Saturday's tourney. I really wish I had more time and could get away to play more tourneys the next two weeks. I might try to play a second chance or something the following week. Well good luck and safe travels to everyone heading to the Beau.
Till Next Time.
Keep It Real Homies.
I hopped in the car and headed to the coast for some cash game action and a potential appearance in the $200 second chance tourney at 7pm. Well I got there and around 3:30 and went upstairs to see what was going on and ran into a few people I hadn't seen in a while and then went sit down and flopped the nuts on the first hand I played and broke a guy. After that I just pretty much maintained and was bouncing the idea back and forth if I wanted to play the second chance or not. While I was cashing out I ran into Jacob and he and I shot the shit for a while and went upstairs to sweat Clint at the final table from event 1. He and I ran into a bunch of familiar faces and talked to Reid for a few minutes while he was waiting for his dinner break to end. I opted to not play in the second chance for a couple reasons: one was that with about 10 minutes before 7 they only had like 30 players and two; was that I didn't know if I felt like driving back after that late after I won. My cash session wasn't that much to brag about but it was a win and got me really wanted to go play this week! I'm making plans and I'm pretty sure I'm going play cash Wednesday evening and I'm going play the Saturday tourney which should have a really big turn out.
One thing that had me confused was two rulings by the floor at the Beau, one was on my table and the other was on the 4/8 game next to us. I know they had a dealer that used to blog on GCP as well as a Tourney Director but I'm not sure if they check the site anymore. Well this is the situation and ruling on the 4/8 game:
The blinds are $1 and $2 in the game and a player wanted to straddle. The dealer didn't know how much the player had to straddle for b/c the bet is $8. (I'm still confused kinda). Anyway the dealer didn't know if the player should have to straddle for $4 or $8. The floor ruled the player should straddle for $4 and everyone has to call $8 to enter the pot. So based on this ruling the player who straddled can fold for $4 even if no one raises. This would make the straddle the dumbest play in the history of poker and makes the ruling one of the weirdest I've ever heard before. Please let me know if you know the proper ruling.
The second was in my cash game and once again I'm not sure if I agree with the ruling. This hand involves the 7 seat (playerA), 8 seat (PlayerB), and 3 seat (playerC), button is on the 4 seat:
After the flop: PlayerA checks, PlayerB bets $40, PlayerC calls as well as playerA.
Turn: PlayerA checks, PlayerB bets $100, PlayerC moves all-in for $130 toal PlayerA then attempts to raise to $200. The dealer tells him he can not raise that amount and pulls the raise back. This is the part that ANNOYS THE HELL OUT OF ME!! douchebag in the two seats starts talking to the guys next to him and they start questioning the dealer WHEN THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE HAND! (bit of advice, if you're not in the hand and it's not a pot/money issue then keep your mouth shut!) Regardless if I know I'm right or someone is wrong I refuse to make statements or anything that will affect someones money...it's the same as talking in a hand when you're not heads up. If the player has doubts he ask for a ruling not the dip shit who wears his sunglasses and hoodie and analyzing everyone's hand and watches entirely too much tv poker. Anyway, the floor is called and the floor rules that playerA can make it $200 b/c playerC did not make a full raise and all playerA is raising the original $100 bet. PlayerA put the $100 extra and PlayerB called. The river went check-check and PlayerA won the hand.
So my question is: Did the floor make the correct ruling? I can see how it would be the correct ruling and I could see an argument against $200 not being enough to count as a raise. And I could definitely see this being ruled differently in different poker rooms.
Well the plan is to head to the Beau Wednesday after work and win at least my buyin for Saturday's tourney. I really wish I had more time and could get away to play more tourneys the next two weeks. I might try to play a second chance or something the following week. Well good luck and safe travels to everyone heading to the Beau.
Till Next Time.
Keep It Real Homies.
3 comments:
sThe first one is incorrect surely. That's crazy. I've never seen that. The straddle is the next size bet. In 3-6, it'd be 1-3-6. No option to fold for half for the straddle. Nor for someone to "call" a bigger size than someone is invested in. Am I reading that right? That's crazy.
The second one I'm not sure what you disagree with... Do you think player A must raise more than a $100? I think the floor got that one right, though I do see your point. Would that be the same if the all-in made it $51 or $99? Could the other guy make it $100. Doesn't seem as right. I've seen that ruled differently plenty of times. I don't know the right answer.
The beau has had bloggers on gcp?
I'm with you on the chatter during the hand... however, not if the dealer is going to incorrectly let action complete. If the dealer is making a mistake you should catch it. Let's say you don't, now you may have to deal with the clusterf$*k if he repeats it to your disadvantage and you won't let it slide.
Also, I think it's important for the game to be run correctly. I'm not going to tell a player he's mucking a winning hand and generally I'll steer clear of talking during other people pots, but if the dealer is making a mistake at my disadvantage I'd hope someone else would speak up.
I say that, though in a very similar situation at the harrahs tournament this past week, I kept my mouth shut. Player A bet, Player B called, Player C called, Player D went all-in for maybe about half of Player A's bet (I think it was less), then Player A shoved over the top. Player B folded, and Player C called. I don't think the betting was reopened for Player A to fire again.
In retrospect, I should have spoke up and here it's illustrative of how it can effect people not in the hand. Player B improves his outs on the turn and calls Player A's shove there. Then player A drags the pot when the river blanks. His mistake actually cost him money. By the same token, my not speaking up kept another player in the tournament, so in that perspective it does directly affect everyone on the table.
Even in a cash game this is true, not speaking up might put more money in someone's stack rather than another person. True, you could stragetize and only talk up when a guy was profiting that is to your advantage, but the ethical thing to do is always speak up if the dealer is making a mistake and make sure the game is run right.
Even if it's not my pot, it's still my business and the table's business for the dealer to do his job correctly. Selective talking is borderline passive cheating. Never talking which is what you advocate isn't but at the same time if you know someone is being done wrong... it's close.
For tertiary reasons, and meta game reasons, I think it's good for the table to see you question a dealer's decision too even if you are wrong. They make mistakes and some act like they don't because their ego is bruised and intimidate players from calling them on it. It's a good precedence to show that you have a recourse if you have a dispute with the dealer because you don't want some noob feeling cheated because he's scared to contradict the guy in the vest. Then that guy's not coming back to lose money because of it.
I didn't mean the beau having bloggers, just darrell blogging on here once upon a time. They're a lot of "ifs" as for as speaking up. I will most definitely speak up in a tournament. My main problem is starting the chatter about the hand or situation. I will speak up if the player questions and I KNOW I AM RIGHT. I won't speak up on speculation or my confusion until the hand is over. I'm sorry if someone loses money b/c they didn't know the rule or the dealer, but if I dont' know the rule I will call the floor and it's each person's responsibility to make sure they know they have the option to call the floor for any question they have or want clarification on.
I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing but the bet for PlayerA to call was $130, not the original $100 PlayerB bet. So in order to raise don't you have to raise the minimum of the bet you're facing?
I'm not arguing with the ruling but I just don't know what is the "by the book rule" the floor person wasn't the most convincing person with his ruling.
This is an example where since I know I don't know the proper ruling I will keep my mouth shut and I feel it's the players involved responsiblity to make sure all their doubts are erased with a ruling by the floor.
I don't know the answer either, but let's change the parameters... say player A bets 100. Player B raise to 200. Player C wants to raise, he doesn't have to raise 200 (to 400). He has to raise to 300 or in an increment of 100.
So if player a bets 100. Player B raises to 130. Player C is facing a 30 bet not a 130 bet. I can see the rationale to say he'd have to raise to 230 (but not 260). Though as it's not a full bet, I think all he has to do is complete it, making it 100 or 200 even.
Post a Comment