blonde poker forum

In cash games you can't raise unless you have enough for a full raise i.e. double previous raise amount

is this grosvenor wide? it's the worst rule ever, what if it's a 10,000 raise and you have the nuts on the river but because you only have 9999 you can't raise!!!!

ridiculous

That can't be right - which Grosvenor was this in? Were you told it was chain-wide?

"How much do you have left?"

"£250"

"I bet £126"

"I raise!"  (I lied, I have £253).

*calls with nuts*

*shows the Over-nuts*

what a loada rubbish !!!

Stoke Grosvenor, honestly i just laughed but the girl said those were her orders.

*outdraws overnuts on whatever it is that comes after the river*

*unfortunately you're playing the wrong game as it's Omaha hi-lo and you only have the hi-nuts, and I have both the lo and hi nuts.*

Sounds like it could be an inexperienced dealer confusing normal raise requirements (at least double the big blind) with someone wishing to go all in?? Just a thought, as I can't think of any other explanation.   :dontask:

This is not a grosvenor rule, but sometimes people make mistakes I dont know who gave this ruling but they are only human.

I think it should have been if you dont have enough for a full raise you are moveing all in which is deemed as a call not a raise.

That explains why your trousers look all wrong.

the raise was £10 and a guy had £18 and wanted to go all in, he was given £8 back by the dealer. We all questioned it, he then asked the girl who was running the cardroom who confirmed it and the cardroom manager was asked and he confirmed it to.

Is not having enough chips to make a normal raise called an underbet?

If someone is going all-in for a re raise that is smaller than the previous raise it is classed just as a call.

If the play is heads up players may under raise without being all-in

my understanding would of been its classed as an underraise but any action following would be that as if it was a call


ie any person who hasnt acted on the last raise can still raise but the orginal raisers or anyone who had all ready called the orginal raise could only call

correct ;topman; ;first;

so the guy after the guy who had gone all in with an under raise can still raise but could raise for example another £2 then allowing the original raisor to raise again?

its like that in the pot limit games at naps. say a guy raises to 1500 and you have 2000. you have to just call the 1500 and put the 500 in on a later street!!!

I play at the grosvenor stoke, very regulary and im not sure whether this was the cash game or the tornament you played in, but either way if someone raises and you dont have enough to make a re-raise, then your all in.

I reckon this would of been the cash game and tbh it does get a little manic there, but if your all in and its an under-raise, then any action after that would have to be double the initial raise and so on and so forth etc...

this stupid rule is ridiculous and ive had to follow it before. one time when blinds were 2000/4000 i only had 7900 and had AA and wasnt allowed to go all in cos it was classed as an underaise. i was only allowed to call which allowed some other limpers. was a load of bollox

till the flop came A 5 5 ;)

utter;y berserk.

and i thought things could only get better once his lordship left......

sigh...

Can you tell me when this happenened?

and here's me thinking this was a thread about the implementation of a new toilet regime at the casino chain..........

This is NOT a new rule at Grosvenor - it was just a mistake. These things happen.

I have no inside knowledge on this, & am not party to any info that anyone else is not, but common-sense suggests, strongly, that it was just human error.

Let he who is without sin......

it was monday night in the cash game. i assume it was a mistake but they were they exact circumstaances as describe earlier in this thread.

Appears that you were on the wrong end of the mistake. At the end of the day, if you disagree with a call from the dealer, call the floor man, they are all sound enough there and will listen to you.

I have also seen this rule applied in Sheffield.  I questioned the supervisor about it and pointed out that it doesn't happen in any serious cash game or tourny on the planet.

The only credible explanation given was that when someone under-raises all in, in teh past it has created massive scraps arguing about when the betting has been re-opened and a 3rd player is allowed to reraise.  So by having this rule, they prevent the fight.

Still not ideal and needs changing.  The underbet rule isn't hard to supervise properly when someone wants to raise all-in with an underbet.

So the girl in Stoke didn't make a mistake - she was following orders.  The cardroom is making a mistake, but the girl wasn't.

It used to be quite common not to allow all-in under-raises in cash games (apparently to prevent collusion although I cant really think why). 

LOL.  And the goverment, supposedly potecting our interests, wants to put poker for anything other than small stakes exlusively into the hands of these clowns!

In the old wild west they carried pistols! Let the game be played how it was meant to be :) Tis a silly rule, considering the point of cash games is to make your opponants poor.

It used to be commonplace for under-raises not to be allowed, just the same as table-balancing by moving the lowest stack.

This was certainly the case in the Midlands and North of England up until the last few years.

What we need is an association to standardise the rules... ;booder;

Hi All, I occasionally play the dealers choice/Texas cash games at stoke Grosvenor......And have just returned from playing there tonight...This ruling was obviously a mistake from the cardroom supervisor and not Lord and Master who is the cardroom manager....Tonight at the start of the cash game, players we informed by Matt, the cardroom supervisor that obviously you can under-raise when going all in..i.e if someone before you goes all in for £50 and you have £60, you can of course raise all in for £60 (£50+ your remainder)

Think this was just a misinterpretation of rules, and a storm in a tea cup which is now sorted. ;)

Hi Everyone,

This rule is not a rule of Grosvenor's nor is it a rule of Stoke's. It was however a mistaken rule of a supervisors. How the supervisor came to this rule is quite honestly beyond me as it makes no sense as the grosvenor rules clearly state that a person can under raise in 3 varied situations, one of those being when moving all-in.

I made sure i took the time to sit down with the cash players tonight to ensure that the ruling was clear to them and to the staff, for future reference, to which they are obviously happy about normality returning to the cash game.

Unfortunately cardrooms are run by human beings and they do make mistakes but by the use of all these wonderful forums we are able to correct mistakes and inform players who may or may not be regulars in our cardrooms that they have indeed been corrected. I would actually like to thank ACE for bringing this rule to my attention seeing as nobody had in-house. It is now resolved and a lesson learnt by the supervisor. It is of course myself that bears the brunt and ridicule for the mistakes of others and not myself but that is what I get paid for in the end.......


Thanks for the comments folks, the constructive ones anyway your Portship............... :)up

Good Post Lord, or is that Good Lord, Post?

Nicely cleared up, I think we all knew the score though.

As it happens, I believe the weird "all-in under-raise" rule still plays at Sheffield. But you know what they are like in Yorkshire, bloody awkward buggers.

i am intrigued maybe cause its 3am and i have to be up in 3 hours and havent slept in days but when are the otehr 2 ocasions you can underraise apart from when going all in

Behave, get to bed, & stop selling them luxury cars. You've been rumbled.

Hi Ironside,

Just for you.

65.   “Under raises” are ONLY permitted :-

i)   If a player is going “all in”
ii)   In “Heads Up” play. (Active from the betting round after the hand becomes heads up)
iii)   In competition play under raises are only permitted when the field is reduced to 2 players (except point one above)

Note: All in under raises do not reactivate the betting for players who have already acted


Now i am going to bed as i too have been up since 6.30 am and i need to be up at 9.30 to go to the casino to remove the league car from the gaming floor!!!

Regards
Rob

i have never heard of under raises being permissable when heads up
although i can see why when only 2 players are left in the comp there is no point is soft play or chip dumping as your either going to finish first or second
but i cant see the point in allowing in blinds at 50k and 100k with 2 players left and they then start betting 5k and 10k? only thing it will do is keep the casino staff there longer

thanks lord

Ace you are welcome.

I'm a bit confused..don't mean to be annoying but my understanding is that any underraise automatically means a player is all-in. Surely any raise should atleast be the BB amount?

It seems to be a Napoleon's thing; perhaps it's the French influence?  ;)

Yoy may under raise heads up but the bet must still be the same or more as the big blind.

can you explain that mate.

Do you mean if someone raises 100 headsup i can call 100 and raise 50 regardless of chips left etc???

Any raise must be the size of the BB in any situation unless you are going all-in.

In heads up play by the Grosvenor rule book it states that you may under raise.

SB 1000
BB 2000

Sb calls the 1000 and raises 3000 more making it 3000 to call for the BB.
BB calls the extra 3000 but can raise it another 2000 if he wishes without moving all-in.

Why he would want to I don't know as I am not a poker player but that is what can be done.

thanks, i didn't know that.

Hands up those who did???

 ;booder;

thats a standard min raise.

poker play u aint  .

Port.

The previous raise was 3000 so how going 2000 after it in the same round of betting is it a standard min raise??

should be 5,000 if he has made it 3,000 more.

cos u  cant  call  AND raise??

i c the point  now     

but

never seen or heard  such like anywhere in the world  b4.

stoke  gros appears to be in its own universe.

What a load of nonsense, and I thought the Bellagio was the leader in retarded rules, looks like it has some competition.

Clive you do amuse me.


ps I dont write these rules btw

glad to   brighten ur day.



u r the arbiter of rulings tho     anf the   TD    is  always correct ;)



gl in notts

Thankyou for your well wishes.

I take it I will be seeing you down there to at some point Clive?


Or will hell have had to of frozen over first?

 ;)

it does seem a stupid rule IMHO under raise should only ever be permitted when going all in HU or not

i am probably better travelled than the average poker joe         

you set up any decent comp  and im likely to appear(weather permitting ;goodvevil;)

Rob, I know you didn't write them, so I am not having a pop at you. But Grosvenor are supposed to be the front runners in the UK, is this another little quirky grosvenor rule that all will be expected to follow?

 rotflmfao

That is one of the stupidest rules i've ever heard.  So if the blinds are 1K/2K and its raised to 12K you can raise to 14K??? LOL

Hi Dik

Unless i have misread rule 65.

65.   “Under raises” are ONLY permitted :-

i)   If a player is going “all in”
ii)   In “Heads Up” play. (Active from the betting round after the hand becomes heads up)
iii)   In competition play under raises are only permitted when the field is reduced to 2 players (except point one above)

Note: All in under raises do not reactivate the betting for players who have already acted

Make of it what you all will.

Maybe Mike from down South can explain it better than I.