Limit Cash Ruling

[Tristan]

We have a spread limit game here.  The betting went: Player A bets $24, Player B raises to $64, Player C raised all-in to $100.  Player A asks if they can raise, and seemingly brain-dead dealer says "No".  A then says "Call".  Player B then says "I want to raise and I know I can (half bet in limit), call the floor".  Floor comes over and rules action misdirected by the dealer and then lets Player A fold!  I hate that ruling...

The rest of us are divided between:

Option A: Back up action to A and allow them to call or raise.

Option B: Keep action where it is and tell Player B that since Player A was not allowed to raise, that they cannot either.

I am in support of option A

[Nick C]

Yes, I agree with correcting the dealer and backing up the action. There is no way Player A gets to take his 100 back, no matter what. If I understand the situation, Player A's declaration, or question of raise should be firm to the minimum of what? You say it's spread limit but you fail to tell us the amounts.

I will modify my answer from last night. Player A should have been able to raise, because Player B made a full raise. Player C's all-in was not a full $40 raise but, in limit poker, his raise counts as a full raise because it is more than 50% of the $40 raise he is facing (the all-in action was $36). So, Player A should have been allowed to raise to a minimum total of $140.

I guess it would be unfair to hold Player A to a raise, because he didn't say raise, he just asked if he could. However, I see no way to allow him to retract his call after he realizes that Player B is going to raise! That, in my opinion, would be a bad call by the floor.

Bottom line: I agree with Tristan, Option A is better than B, but, they are both better than letting A retract his $100.

[K-Lo]

I'm going to defer to the cash game experts here, but I don't see why A should be permitted to take back chips that were voluntarily placed into the pot in turn.

As far as options go, option B would be my last choice - why restrict player B's options, effectively penalizing him, when he did nothing wrong?  If anything, A should have the obligation of knowing what the raising rule should be, despite the dealer's misinformation.

In this regard, would we even consider not backing up the action to A at all? Should A have some obligation to know the raising rule himself? Does it matter that in this case, B is going to raise anyway, thus re-opening the action to A so he will have a chance to raise again if he wishes? 

[Tristan]

Great feedback guys, thanks!

In this regard, would we even consider not backing up the action to A at all? Should A have some obligation to know the raising rule himself? Does it matter that in this case, B is going to raise anyway, thus re-opening the action to A so he will have a chance to raise again if he wishes? 

Great point, I hadn't thought of it like that.

Another point that was brought up was that maybe Player A should be allowed to take back his call because he may have called only because he was acting on the assumption that Player B could not raise. 

I do think Player A should have had some obligation to knowing the rules, but I also believe that Player B, who clearly knew the rule, should have chimed in when they heard the dealer give incorrect information. 

Even with all of that said, I think I still like Option A.  I'd also be ok with keeping the action where it is, because like you said K-Lo, Player A will get opportunity to act following Player B's raise.

[Nick C]

Tristan, and K-Lo:

This gets more interesting every time I read it. K-Lo, I think you are expecting too much from the average player if you think they can figure out what constitutes an all-in raise sufficient to re-open the betting. I wonder how many floorpersons, or dealers would get it right? In the example Tristan gave, what if the all-in were a total of $84 instead of $100? How many would recognize [$84] as a sufficient amount? Likewise, if Player C went all-in for a total of $83?

Looking back I also feel that the best move would be allowing Player B to call (and not raise) Player A. K-lo, I appreciate what you said about Player B doing nothing wrong, but I also feel that Player A gets the worst of it. I like what Tristan said about Player A betting because he thought that Player B could only call.

The dealer made a mistake (what's new?), so let's minimize any further financial damage to any player. Player B can fold, or call, and the best hand wins!

[Tristan]

Nick,

I agree that many dealers and floors can get stumped by that...but Player A had only bet $24 and was faced with a $100 bet.  How do they not know?  They were raised twice.  The first raise was unquestionable even if the 2nd raise was tricky.  Does this change your opinion?

[K-Lo]

I agree with Tristan... How could A not know facing such a huge bet??  He just simply took the dealer's word for it?

We need Accepted Action for cash games... Nick??   

[chet]

LOL    LOL    LOL    LOL    LOL    LMAO    LOL    LOL  LOL 

[Nick C]

Hey you guys are funny

Tristan, I don't know what opinion you want me to change. I was trying to point out the problems that many would have trying to determine the size of the all-in from Player C that would re-open the betting to Player B.

Player A should have been allowed to raise. After he was denied, the only option I didn't agree with was the one the floor decided on.

I still want to know what the amounts were for the spread limit game being played.

Thanks

[Tristan]

Nick,

I don't want you to change any opinion!  I was just wondering if an additional point would sway your decision-making process.

It is a 2-100 Spread game.

Post-flop.

Player A led out for $24
Player B RAISED to $64
Player C RAISED to $100 all-in

Without a doubt, Player A should be able to raise.  But as K-Lo pointed out, he has an obligation to know when/if they can raise.  Nick, you pointed out that the last raise was tricky and could fool some people, which is very true...but Player A bet $24 and was facing a $100 bet when action came back to him because he was raised twice.  It should have been very obvious that he could raise.

I just wondered if you would still penalize Player B by holding them to only a call.

[Tristan]

I love interesting situations like this!    

It is what makes being a TD or a floor in poker fun.  Always something new coming up...

[Nick C]

Tristan,
This is good stuff!

My opinion was based on the incorrect information given to Player A by the dealer.

I agree the players should know the limits of the game being played, however I believe the dealer must know. There are always new players that come to our card rooms for the first time. We need to keep them coming back.

If Player A didn't ask the dealer, there would be no topic to discuss. I'm just trying to put the players on an equal playing field. I'll bet my bottom dollar that Player B had the best hand.

I am very familiar with all types of spread limit games but, I have only heard of the $2 to $100 spread. Sounds like a hell of a game! Also sounds like the type of game that the solid player would much rather prefer than the no-limit games played everywhere today. I get it a little more protection for the guy that wins 10 pots, but doesn't want to risk losing his whole bankroll on one hand. Essentially, it's like setting the raise limit for the first deal of a no limit game with a max buy-in of $100!

Gee, maybe we can introduce a spread limit like, $2 to $10,000

[Nick C]

Hey Chet,

I hope you didn't fall off your computer chair while you were laughing your ass off, did you?

[chet]

Yup, couple of times as I recall.  Don't know exactly, cuz as I get older and older, I remember less and less. 

Although someone mentioned during a turney last night that he had a photo of Ronald Reagan signed by John Tower.  He is about my age, maybe a few years younger and had absolutely no idea who John Tower was.  I told him that if I remembered correctly he was a US Senator, maybe a Secy of Defense and that I thought he was from Texas. 

Chad Holloway was sitting next to us and looked him up on his SmartPhone and sure nuf' I was right. So maybe I am being selective in what I remember.  Since I can't remember some stuff and can remember other stuff, maybe selective isn't the right word.

[Brian Vickers]

In my opinion, "spread limit" rules should be treated like "no limit" but with a cap.  I don't believe that spread limit should be governed by the 50% rule that limit games follow, but rather a 100% raise should re-open action. 

That being said, A bet $24 and he was raised $76 more, he obvs should have been able to raise, I don't think anyone is disputing that one.