|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 9/5/2008 4:57:06 PM PACIFIC |
 Rules on Limit Poker when Heads Up, 27o, 13. Nov 2003 12:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I've heard in some B&M casinos for limit poker tables, where the betting in rounds is capped at 4 bets, that once the there are only 2 players remaining, it becomes "no limit". 2 questions regarding this change: 1) if you are in the middle of a betting round (say the flop) and there were initially 4 players, and 2 fold, does it become heads up in the round that is still active (on the flop) or does it get capped in this round, and only become heads up on the next round (the turn). 2) what exactly does heads up imply. Does it mean unlimited raises (not capped at 4), or does it become true no limit (where you could go all in with 1 bet - and deviate from the structured betting) Thanks for the clarification. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Rules on Limit Poker when Heads Up, Schuster, 13. Nov 2003 13:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| 1) Varies from cardroom to cardroom. 2) It's still limit, just no cap on the raising. If both players agree to go all in, then you don't have to spend the time raising each other back and forth, you just put the money in. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Rules on Limit Poker when Heads Up, MozMan, 15. Nov 2003 12:46 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 13. Nov 2003 13:39 Schuster wrote: > 2) It's still limit, just no cap on the raising. If both players agree to go all > in, then you don't have to spend the time raising each other back and forth, you just > put the money in. Absolutely. I have been in this situation, and all it really took was agreement from my opponent for me to push all-in. As it turned out, he had about $20 less than me, but he called all-in. Basically, I said to the dealer, "hey, there's no cap heads-u, right? So can I just push all-in instead of wasting time raising back and forth?" My opponent said it was fine with him and that he'd call almost before the dealer could answer... seeing that we were in agreement, the dealer said there was no problem and counted down our chips for us. -Moz "One November spawned a monster in the shape of this child..." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Rules on Limit Poker when Heads Up, Mark Barnett II, 14. Nov 2003 08:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| again i think this rule has to do with potential collusion and trying to protect the players. if there are 3 players and two are doing all the raising, the third person would be kinda screwed if unlimited raises were allowed and the other 2 players were in collusion. the clubs i have played at, once the pot became heads up unlimited raises were allowed *even if a betting round started with more than 2 players* Rule #1 of Poker Circumstances alter cases Rule #2 NEVER forget rule #1 | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Rules on Limit Poker when Heads Up, Easy E, 14. Nov 2003 10:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "again i think this rule has to do with potential collusion and trying to protect the players. if there are 3 players and two are doing all the raising, the third person would be kinda screwed if unlimited raises were allowed and the other 2 players were in collusion. " That's also why you shouldn't allow unlimited raising if there were still 3+ players in when the second raise is placed, even if it then drops to two players Here's why- 3 players in, 3 raise limit. A and C are in collusion. A bets, B raises, C calls, A reraises, B caps (or so she thinks) and then C folds, allowing A to reraise again. Or: A checks, B bets, C raises, A reraises, B caps, C folds, A reraises It allows A and C to get the maximum and more into the pot at the expense of B. If B would just call at any juncture, A and C could still whipsaw raises up to the cap, maximizing their collusion return as well, so they have a shot at an extra raise with no risk of missing a normal raise and a capped pot amount, when A has the best hand. it would be worse if there was an automatic "overs" agreement in place (if that is ever done), opening A to raise more than one bet's worth after C has folded. Now, you could allow the raising to go unlimited if C would drop after the first raise, because then B would know that their reraise of player A(the 3rd raise) is NOT a cap, since two raises came AFTER C had folded.... but I think it is much easier to administer if you just say "start round with 3+, no unlimited until the next round that starts heads-up". It's a lot easier to keep track of and reduces arguments, as well as cutting down on the collusion bonus $$. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| as Schuster said, Easy E, 14. Nov 2003 10:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "2) what exactly does heads up imply. Does it mean unlimited raises (not capped at 4), or does it become true no limit (where you could go all in with 1 bet - and deviate from the structured betting) " Generally heads up means unlimited raises. It can also be played as "overs" with agreement between the players, where you can raise larger amounts than normally allowed to save time, or go all-in, or whatever the agreement about overs is. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|