Those of you who follow me on Twitter
(and if you don’t, why the heck not?) saw my tweet last night about a
questionable interpretation of the rules for raising in No Limit Hold’em that I
witnessed at the Aria. Since it normally
takes me 1,000 words to tell a 150-word story, there was no way I could tweet
out the issue, but fortunately I have this very blog where no one can limit the
amount of words I use to tell a story.
In doing so, I want to make clear that I
think Aria is one of the premier poker rooms in Vegas and what I witnessed in
no way affected that opinion. If, as I suspect, I witnessed an incorrect
ruling, I chalk it up to the fact that the ruling was made by a human (well,
two, actually, counting the dealer) and that to the best of my knowledge, we
have yet to discover the human being who has never made a mistake.
The game at Aria is 1/3 and I had only
recently taken my seat. The player on my
immediate right limped in to the pot, and I raised to $15 with Ace-Queen of
clubs. A player behind me called, the
blinds both called, and the limper called.
The flop was King-7-3, two spades and a
red card. Not exactly a great flop to
me. I figured I was done with the hand
but it checked to me, with only one player who hadn’t acted left. The manner in which everyone checked—very quickly—made
me consider a continuation bet.
Ordinarily with that many players I wouldn’t do it, but it was early, I had
my full $300 starting stack, and I have seen such a bet work on occasion…..and
if it didn’t work, I’d have time to get it back. So I put out $40 with nothing more than one
overcard and a backdoor straight draw.
The last player folded but one of the
blinds, a woman, put all her chips in, but it was $49 total, just nine bucks
more than my bet. The last player left,
the guy to my immediate right, asked if he could re-raise. Note:
At the time, I wasn’t sure if he had asked if he could re-raise or if he
was asking if I would be allowed to re-raise if he merely called. The second question was certainly legitimate—not
knowing what he had, he might want to call if he knew it was just $49 but would
think twice if the preflop raiser was allowed to bump it up some more. However, it soon became apparent that he was
specifically asking if he could raise the $49 bet he was now facing.
The dealer said no, he couldn’t raise.
His explanation was that her raise was not at least 50% of my bet. It had to be at least half of my bet again in
order to re-open the action.
I’ll refrain from my own commentary
until I finish the story. But I said
nothing. Other players insisted that he
could raise. I’m not sure if the player
facing the bet questioned it all that much but two other players not in the
hand were adamant that he could raise.
The dealer called the floor, and received the full explanation of the
situation from the dealer.
The floor said that he couldn’t raise
because the bet wasn’t more than half the bet she was facing. In other words, if she had been able to go all-in
for $61, he would have been able to raise.
That’s my own example for illustration, not what the floor said, but
that was the clear interpretation of what both the floor and the dealer were
saying. The other players pointed out that she hadn’t raised the player
facing the bet, she had raised me, and that he hadn’t put any money
into the pot at this point on this street.
The floor asked if the player facing the
bet had
acted at all on this street.
When told he had, but that he had checked, the floor ruled that since he
had had a chance to act on this street, and had checked, he couldn’t re-opening
the betting because the lady’s all-in was not large enough to re-open the
betting.
And so, that was the ruling. The player to my right could only call.
I swear this is a completely accurate
retelling of what occurred at the table last night.
OK, so what do you think of this ruling?
How many mistakes do you see made by the
floor and the dealer?
I count two.
The player to my right was not trying to
raise the lady, he was trying to raise me.
The fact that he had initially checked means nothing, unless this is the
first poker room I’ve ever played in that doesn’t allow check-raising! But in fact, the lady herself had
checked-raised me! So, of course he
could raise…he could raise me. The only thing
that was a question in my mind was what his minimum bet would have to be. Would he be allowed to bet only $80 (double
my bet) or would he have to bet at least $98 (double the lady’s bet)? I’m assuming that $98 is the right answer.
But seriously, how could he not be allowed
to check-raise there? How was the fact
that he had initially checked the flop relevant to whether or not he could raise? Check-raising is a key part of poker. He had obviously checked hoping that I would
c-bet and I had totally fallen into his trap.
Note: clearly if he had just called (as
he ended up doing), the betting would be closed to me, I would not have been
able to re-raise. But that brings me to
the second mistaken ruling at the table by the dealer and the floor.
Both of them stated that the action
could only be re-opened if the lady’s all-in was 50% or more of the bet she was
facing. For the player to my right, that
was irrelevant, as I’ve just explained.
But for me, if he had just (voluntarily) called, it was totally
incorrect. The 50% rule applies to limit
games. In No Limit hold-em, it’s
100%. Many dealers—and even floor people—get
this wrong. I did a post not long ago
covering this very topic. You can find
it here.
Say I had hit the flop, and would have
been more than happy to re-raise there.
I couldn’t have because her bet was only $9 more than my bet. But even if her all-in was $79, not $49, I
wouldn’t have been able to raise, because this is No Limit, not limit hold-em.
Note, in that post I just linked, there
was some back and forth, and it was determined that there are actually some
poker rooms across the country that do have it as a house rule that re-opening
of a NL betting is the same as in a limit game.
But I would be totally shocked if Aria was one of the rooms with that
particular house rule.
Anyway, to finish off the story with the
results of the hand, for those curious, the guy called the $49. I knew I was badly beat, but for the size of
the pot, I couldn’t fold for a measly $9.
The pot was over $200! So I threw
away another nine bucks on a gazillion-to-one chance I still had a shot at the pot.
The turn card was another 7, and the guy
on my right shoved all-in for about $200.
I folded like a cheap suit.
Turns out he had flopped a set of 3’s
and turned the full house. The lady had a
weak flush draw.
Note….I think the shove was not a great
play on his part, but I think because he couldn’t raise the flop he was already
in shove mentality (because of the flush draw) and couldn’t stop himself when
he turned the boat. Not that it made any
difference, I wouldn’t have put another penny into that pot at that point.
I should point out though, that the
error did cost me $9. If he had been
allowed to raise on the flop, a real raise, not just nine bucks, I would never
have called it, and saved myself the nine bucks.
After the hand, we were all discussing
how absurd it was that the floor ruled the guy couldn’t check-raise. But I was the only one noting that the 50% interpretation
was incorrect as well.
Unless I’m wrong? So, dealers, floor people, poker room
managers…..please let me know. Have I
gotten anything wrong?
Or did I just witness what humans
sometimes do….make mistakes?
(Edited to add: a bit of a follow up to this story can be found at the bottom of the post here).
(Edited to add: a bit of a follow up to this story can be found at the bottom of the post here).