PokerTDA
LIVE CASH GAME POKER RULES DISCUSSION => Live Cash Game Rules Questions => Topic started by: markmagic on March 19, 2012, 10:33:58 AM
-
rules about betting line, in cash game a player has many chips in his hand
and he called the bet but the other player says that all of it was comtted because
the chips in his hand passes the line...
-
If the player announced "call", the verbal declaration is binding, regardless of how many chips crossed the line.
Even though a table may have a betting line drawn on it, you need to make sure that the house actually enforces it as such. Many venues will simply ignore the line. If the betting line is a true betting line, and no verbal declaration was made before moving chips over the line, the full amount may well be committed.
By the way, I know there are mixed opinions on this, but I think betting lines cause more problems than they attempt to solve, and don't like them at all.
-
The proper betting line is usually at least 10 inches (or more) away from the rail. IMO, that's far enough to indicate your intent to bet. I ordered betting lines on my tables and found them helpful but, like K-Lo says, many don't like them.
-
I am with K-Lo on this too, I don't like them. I think they cause more problems than they fix. Too many times players end up committed to a call or bet they did not want to make. Many players find creative ways to pump fake a bet with the line. It might be subtle but the hands per hour probably go down because people are taking forever to count out a bet before they get it over the line, whereas players that just take a handfull of chips and cut out what they want will tend to bet a little quicker. (real subtle for sure).
And, of course, it's not a universal thing (yet, I suspect that it will be one day, unfortunately) so too many people won't be used to it.
-
I could never understand how so many TD's are against a betting line. I used them and they were great. Tell the players to stay away from the line with forward movement of chips unless you intend on betting them, and keep your cards away from that line unless you are folding...simple.
I've seen the most ridiculous calls made in big games where players move a pyrimid of chips forward (as far as 10 inches) and then retract them without commiting them to the pot! The only time a player does that is if he wants to get a reaction from another player.
-
Nick, Jasper:
Here's a related question. Table has a betting line, which is actually very close to the edge of the table (probably only 5-6 inches), but it is not an "official betting line". Player A is an experienced player and likes to shuffle chips and play with them across this line while waiting for action to come to her... normally, she takes back the chips when it is her turn, considers her action, cuts out the chips she wants, and then pushes this wager forward to bet. There is generally no problem with this. However, on one occasion, A is shuffling chips in Seat 1, Seat 8 raises to 1200, and A stops to ponder whether or not to call or fold, but in doing so, she has left in the six 100 chips that she was shuffling in front of her across the line, instead of bringing them back to her stack. The Dealer notes that she normally takes her chips back after shuffling them, but this time, when he announced Seat 8's "raise" and then turned to look at Seat 1, the stack of 600 chips were sitting out unattended in front and hence the "floor" call.
Would you allow the player to take back the 600 chips perhaps with a warning, or bind the 600 chips to the pot?
-
K-lo: In my opinion, since you have not formalized the "betting line" on your tables, it is 100% immaterial to any question and should be considered non-existent. Your dealer and floor personnel should be so instructed. As to the situation at hand, I think you can support your ruling based on this players 'history' and past practice of pulling chips back and then cutting out the bet to be made.
Personally, I wish those houses that have the line on their tables would either formalize its use or get rid of the damn thing. Having the line and not using it or using it only in tournaments but not cash games or vice-verse does nothing but cause problems such as this one.
Chet
-
K-Lo,
With the line only 6 inches from the rail you can expect a lot more of the same. A functional line should be at least 10 inches from the rail.
I will now ask a question of all that don't like the betting line. How far do you allow a player to make a forward move with chips, before you consider it a bet? Or is he allowed to retract his chips as long as he does not release them?
-
K-Lo,
With the line only 6 inches from the rail you can expect a lot more of the same. A functional line should be at least 10 inches from the rail.
Yes, I agree. That's why we don't use it as a betting line -- I wish they didn't have the lines on the tables, but I have to make do in this case.
-
K-Lo,
I respect your opinion and I was hoping to get an answer to my question. Without a betting line: How far do you allow a player to make a forward move with chips, before you consider it a bet? Or is he allowed to retract his chips as long as he does not release them?
I went way back and found this old post, for those that haven't seen it, take a look. By the way Jack McClelland was one of the guys that I used to play low limit with, and deal to over 30 years ago.
http://www.cardplayer.com/cptv/channels/13-other-poker-videos/poker-videos/3922-ask-jack-betting-lines
I just watched Jack McClelland and I was surprised at his response. He actually moved across the betting line with a stack of chips and said it was okay to cut the amount that he wanted to wager and return the remaining chips that were still in his hand, back to his stack ??? Sometimes I think we go out of our way to complicate matters that we initially are trying to fix. A betting line should be better than not having one. I think that all we need to do is be sure that our patrons understand what it means. I don't think any player should be allowed to move forward with more chips than they intend to wager, with or without a betting line. It is very easy for dealers to announce to the table that any forward motion beyond the betting line will be action. The betting line was a great addition when I used them on our new tables when we opened our new poker room in 2003. The first time that the layouts were changed (about one year later) the betting line (we used to call it a racing stripe) was no longer used and we missed it. I think some of the decisions that are made are too harsh. Especially in a new room or a room that is using the betting line for the first time. In a recent trip to Las Vegas, I was reminded that my bets were not forward enough, (I hadn't crossed the line). The dealer told me nicely that I needed to push my wager in a little more....problem solved.
-
I think I know where you are going with this ;) Yes, it is somewhat subjective... I consider each player to have a region that is their personal space in which they handle their chips -- if they move their chips forward outside of that region, then it can be considered a forward motion, and he may be committed to putting them all into pot if the house rule is not "chip release" and if the betting action is not 100% clear. Often it is a motion that is the length of the forearm, or across where a "betting line" might otherwise be, but it could be less or more depending on the circumstances.
When there is no betting line, I can see the action that Jack describes as being legal... just because you move forward with a whole handful of chips does not automatically mean that all of the chips are committed; if you do not hesitate, quickly cut out a certain number of chips and then bring the rest back to your stack, I have no problem with that as your action is clear. It's when you move chips forward and then hesitate with those chips in hand, that your bet is not 100% clear, and now you are at the mercy of the TD. With respect, I cannot agree with what Jack is saying in that part of the video because it appears that he is actually using an official betting line -- wouldn't the chips moved across the line be committed in a NL game? Isn't that the point of the betting line? I agree with you that this just complicates matters.
I can definitely see the merit of a betting line because you are turning the otherwise subjective assessment into something objective - you are either over the line with chips or not. One of the arguments often raised against the use of betting lines is that players who are unaware of the consequences of moving a whole stack across a betting line may get disproportionately penalized, or that there are strange circumstances that similarly would make committing chips to the pot seem unfair (e.g. if an "all-in" chip is used in conjunction with a line - which I really don't like - and accidentally rolls over the line, chips from stacks falling forward over the line, etc.) -- but to me, the TD could always be given the discretion to be lenient in these types of situations, especially for first offences, so there may be ways to ensure that the application of the betting line is not overly strict.
My primary concern is a bit of a practical one - we can't really force every tournament poker table in the world to have a line, and also ensure that the betting line is a prescribed distance from the edge of the table. I'm not a fan of having some tables with lines while others in the same venue do not. I think at the end of the day, we may need to simply accept the fact that there will be a signficant number of tables without lines, and so we have to consider rules that can be applied at those tables. Ideally, either all tables had lines, or all tables would not have lines. But if we can't realistically have either, then IMO I think the "lowest common denominator" is a table without lines, and so the rules should at least be clear with respect to play at those tables.
-
K-Lo,
I think we will have to live with the fact that every room will not use a betting line, but many do, and always will. Your argument has merit but I can't see myself asking the dealer if the player moved chips forward and then hesitated with those chips in hand, or exactly what in the hell did he do?
My feelings about the betting line goes way back to a very good player that used to advance with both hands full of chips, and then drop just a single "red-bird" to call the $5 bet! I'll tell you this, there were times the next player was folding because he scared the heck out us with his moves. I believe that whether a player is initiating a bet, calling a bet, or raising it is simple enough to count out the amount and push it into the betting area, or over the line, or announce your intentions, period. I also do not care, with all do respect, what some of the most renouned TD's worldwide rule appropriate. Crossing the line, or moving forward with more chips than you intend to bet is a major "move" that should never be allowed. Pushing a "pyramid" of chips forward and then retracting them is another "joke" that is allowed in too many cardrooms.
I will always respect a persons opinion and everyone certainly does not have to agree with me, but when I'm asked how I feel about any rule in poker and how it applies to a specific situation, I am rarely without a quick reply followed by the reason for my decision. I never fought for a betting line, but if I'm asked, I'll defend it's functionality.
-
I like the line but with release. Once you release your hand off a certain amount of chips while across the line that bet is binding. What I don't like is the rule that ANY chips that come across the line are committed. If you are using a line then release is usualy the best of both worlds. You can commit those people who as Nick says bring across a huge stack just to cut one chip off. Otherwise betting is usually very clear and obvious.
-
Spence,
We are not speaking of the clear and obvious on this post. We are talking about the unclear and the not so obvious. We are not looking at the intent of the player but, based on technicalities, reasons to force players to put more chips into the pot than they wanted to wager.
-
Nick, I disagree. I think we are talking about the clear and obvious here. We are talking about a physical line that is drawn on our tables to show where the players bet. This shouldn't be so hard to understand for the majority of the players that we deal with. It's simpler to be militant about it. Anything that crosses the line is committed. What's unclear about that? While it may not be the best rule to take it is easily enforceable and obvious to all players on the table. Forward motion dictating betting seems to be more easily misconstrued. I do understand your point about players bringing their chips up to the line but if everyone was under the assumption that if it hasn't crossed the line it's not a bet then I don't think you've got a problem. Players who are angle shooting that way should be dealt with separately from the line rules anyhow.
-
Spence,
I don't know why you are so defensive :)...I like the line, too! I guess I have a tough time with the release part of the betting rule, with a line or without. If you move forward with chips they should ALL be commited to the pot. I think it's much easier to determine, and justify the intent with a line. I like the betting/muck line.
I was referring to the unclear moves that could leave the action of players to the discretion of the dealer, or the floor, because there is no line.
-
If we are talking about using a betting line then IMO yes I agree with Jack's interpretation of the rule up to a point. What I am still debating is whether the official TDA rule is forward motion binding? Or release of chips beyond the line binding? I like the forward motion rule personally but Jack seems to think otherwise.
-
So much confusion... Should we have:
a) chip release, no betting line
b) forward motion, no betting line
c) chip release & betting line
d) forward motion & betting line ...?
I doubt I will see a consensus reached on this issue in my lifetime. So for now, we just have... uncertainty.
-
Okay, here's my vote: Forward motion & Betting Line with fixed distance from the rail of at least 10 inches.
Nick C
-
OK, now I will stick my sense in here, if I have any left:
If the tables have a betting line, any and all chips that cross the line are in the pot. If the amount of chips exceeds the current bet, but are insufficient for a full raise, the player must add sufficient chips for a full raise. Same thing if the chips don't meet the amount of the current bet, player has to add chips. Release is NOT considered, only crossing the line.
If there is no betting line, then I go with release of chips after forward motion. Chip release must be a single drop, non of this drip, drip, drip, unless the player has verbally announced the amount.
Chet
-
Spence,
I don't know why you are so defensive :)...I like the line, too! I guess I have a tough time with the release part of the betting rule, with a line or without. If you move forward with chips they should ALL be commited to the pot. I think it's much easier to determine, and justify the intent with a line. I like the betting/muck line.
I was referring to the unclear moves that could leave the action of players to the discretion of the dealer, or the floor, because there is no line.
Those players are angling and should be dealt with in that accord. I would give them a one hand penalty then progressively more rather than commit the chips to the pot. In this way I am protecting the people in the hand from a bet that may cause them to lose chips. I don't like it when rules dictates that a player must bet, then they suck out and the victim loses chips along with his right to fair play. I think you're right in that I am being a bit defensive... ;)
-
I've really enjoyed this discusion. Betting line or no betting line? It is very much like the automated shufflers...some rooms have them and most don't. I don't like them, but I know they're here to stay.
-
I like what spence was saying about release of chips over the betting line. I think that is one of the problems with the line, folks will take more chips over than they intend on betting.
btw, forward motion, according to RROP, only exist in LIMIT poker where your forward motion causes another player to act. This is because of the speed of action that limit generally takes. No-limit has not such rule in regards to forward motion. "Chips released" is the only rule for betting. (going to have to agree that the "drip drip drip" should be dealt with).
That funny trick of pushing a pyramid out and then flopping out one chip for a call is even easier to pull off with a betting line. You can't have a betting line and then say "he pushed all his chips forward" if they don't cross the line.
I suppose in the end, we can get used to whatever rules are being applied regarding any line but the fact that we will never see lines on all tables or the fact that the rules will hardly ever be the same among rooms, we should stick with chips released.
meh....
-
JasperToo,
There should be no difference in the action of players with a line or without. IMO, the only difference is the line as an obvious gauge, where judgement of the dealer (or an opposing player) might raise the question of whether a bet was made, or not. As far as the release, would you require a player that is pushing chips forward and removing his hands as a release? If so, how far? When I used the betting line, players knew that a forward motion (where even one chip hit the line), committed all of the chips being pushed. Educate the players and things go real smooth, and contrary to what many say, it actually would speed up the game.
I would like to ask a question of all of the TD's, and any cardroom employees that play from time to time, when you are interested in calling a bet, do you toss your hand away and try to grab it back before the dealer mucks it? Do you grab chips with both hands and then cut out a couple for your bet?..I don't think any of us do. So why should player's get away with it? Pushing a bet forward (when it's your turn to act), or tossing your hand face down, or announcing a fold, or a call, or a raise is binding, period. In my not so humble opinion, that's how I see it.