Blinds/Dealer

[Manc Jesus]

Many ppl have commented on the differences between rules in the live poker league and in internet tournaments, especially with regards to what happens to the blinds when players are eliminated.
It seems to me that there is one situation in particular that is causing aggro, and it is this: when a player is eliminated, and WOULD have been on the small blind, LPL rules mean that the blinds move round - and the player that would have been on the large blind is on the small blind instead - and therefore misses their large blind.
My understanding is that most internet tournaments would forego the small blind, and have only a large blind posted on the following hand in this case.

Any thoughts?

[drwinston]

there are a number of LPL rules that don't actually follow the "correct" rules of poker, the one you stated is one of them. You're correct that when a player is eliminated when they're in the big blind and therefore should've been in the small blind the next hand, there should only be the big blind posted.

The other rules that have people guessing, with some people playing one way and others playing differently are:

1. You can re-raise someone by the size of the big blind. For example, the blinds are at 100/200. Someone raises to 600. Some people seem to think you can then re-raise their 600 bet to 800 (200 more). This is incorrect, as any re-raise should be a minimum of the original persons raise. Therefore, if you wanted to re-raise a bet of 600 you would have to put in 1200.

2. When someone is all-in. If someone goes all in for less than the size of the big blind more than 1 player can call that all-in. Some people think you have to put in the big blind value. eg. the blinds are at 200-400. I've only got another 300 and I go all-in. 2 players want to call my all-in. They should be allowed to match my 300 and then that's it, whether there are more streets to come or not. Again, some people seem to think they would have to put in a minimum of 400, resulting in a side pot of 200. This is incorrect.

I would also like to say I hate the LPL rule that allows players to turn their cards over and show an opponent before they make a decision. IMO if a player shows their cards without stating "call" then they have automatically folded. Plus when someone folds their cards, they should remain folded. None of this talking about how they would've flopped 2 pair or hit a straight on the river. I don't really care too much about the last one after a hand has finished but all too often I hear and see people doing it when others are still in the hand. If you have folded then don't say a word or try to get your cards back from the muck at least until the hand has finished. It's unfair on the players still in the pot.

[RevStu]

Originally Posted by drwinston

I would also like to say I hate the LPL rule that allows players to turn their cards over and show an opponent before they make a decision. IMO if a player shows their cards without stating "call" then they have automatically folded.

Why? If you're prepared to give another player the massive advantage of knowing what your cards are, for the possibility of gaining some kind of read from their reaction, isn't that just part of the game?

[drwinston]

yes and no. I understand the reasoning behind doing it but as far as the rules of poker go it's a no no. Also, it's not really giving the other player an advantage as it only ever happens just before a showdown at which point the other player can't do anything about it anyway. Lets be honest too, how many people who play in the LPL can actually get a read from someone when they do it?

The other thing I see that happens a lot is when someone calls someone, the person who was called sometimes doesn't show their cards when they realise they've lost. Again, the rules of poker are that the person who is called has to show their cards first. Then if the person who called has lost they can muck their cards unless anyone at the table says they want to see them and then they HAVE to show them. Not a biggy I know, just while we're on the subject.

[LPL_Mike]

would also like to say I hate the LPL rule that allows players to turn their cards over and show an opponent before they make a decision. IMO if a player shows their cards without stating "call" then they have automatically folded.

I really like to know why you think thats a LPL rule?, i have only ever seen or heard of one person doing this and that was a while ago, he even came to me and asked if he was breaking any rules..i suggested that in my opinion this would be considered poor etiquette so he promised that he wouldn't do it again...the subject was then dropped, so this is the first i have heard of this?.

[LPL_Mike]

2. When someone is all-in. If someone goes all in for less than the size of the big blind more than 1 player can call that all-in. Some people think you have to put in the big blind value. eg. the blinds are at 200-400. I've only got another 300 and I go all-in. 2 players want to call my all-in. They should be allowed to match my 300 and then that's it, whether there are more streets to come or not. Again, some people seem to think they would have to put in a minimum of 400, resulting in a side pot of 200. This is incorrect.

What you have stated is incorrect

if player 1 goes all in for 300 and the BB is 400, then any other player who enters the pot MUST put the size of the big blind in (400) of course the pot can be also raised.
So a side pot is created as you correctly state, as the turn and river are dealt the 2 players left will bet into the side pot.

Lets make an example on your theory:

Player 1 after the flop goes all in for 300 more BB is 400, player 3 calls 300, and player 5 raises 1200.. player 3 folds (but hang on he has only put in 300) BB is 400 so the guy who raised is losing out here!...make sense? thats why no matter who before you has gone all in you must at least bet the size of the BB...phew i think that makes sense

[LPL_Mike]

when a player is eliminated, and WOULD have been on the small blind, LPL rules mean that the blinds move round - and the player that would have been on the large blind is on the small blind instead - and therefore misses their large blind.

This is also incorrect and have spoken to Nic on this matter several times.
Let me clarify.
If the person who is the small blind goes out, the blinds DO NOT move around, the dealer who dealt previously deals again.

[RevStu]

Originally Posted by drwinston

yes and no. I understand the reasoning behind doing it but as far as the rules of poker go it's a no no. Also, it's not really giving the other player an advantage as it only ever happens just before a showdown at which point the other player can't do anything about it anyway. Lets be honest too, how many people who play in the LPL can actually get a read from someone when they do it?

Well then they're just giving away an advantage, so why should it be against the rules? I really don't see why it'd be either against the rules or bad etiquette. Poker is 90% about trying to psyche the other players out, it seems a perfectly fair tactic to me.

Then if the person who called has lost they can muck their cards unless anyone at the table says they want to see them and then they HAVE to show them.

That's interesting to know, though.

[drwinston]

Originally Posted by LPL_Mike

What you have stated is incorrect

if player 1 goes all in for 300 and the BB is 400, then any other player who enters the pot MUST put the size of the big blind in (400) of course the pot can be also raised.
So a side pot is created as you correctly state, as the turn and river are dealt the 2 players left will bet into the side pot.

Lets make an example on your theory:

Player 1 after the flop goes all in for 300 more BB is 400, player 3 calls 300, and player 5 raises 1200.. player 3 folds (but hang on he has only put in 300) BB is 400 so the guy who raised is losing out here!...make sense? thats why no matter who before you has gone all in you must at least bet the size of the BB...phew i think that makes sense

You've confused the buggery out of me there Mike !! lol. However, basically you're saying if someone goes all in for less than the minimum bet then if there are 2 or more players who wish to call they must put the minimum bet value in?

I'll have to let every Casino I've played in, plus get in touch with the WPT and World Series of poker and let them know that because none of them play that rule. The reason I brought it up was because I thought you could just call the all in and then obviously if you wanted to continue betting on other streets a side pot would be made, but people in the LPL went with your interpretation of it.

Last night I got clarification on the matter as I was watching a WPT event and it was down to the last 3. someone went all in for less than the big blind. the 2 other players just called his all in and then checked it down. I would presume the WPT plays by the correct rules of poker and therefore the LPL doesn't. Really not an issue just that if you're playing a game it makes sense to play by the correct rules.

[drwinston]

Originally Posted by RevStu

Well then they're just giving away an advantage, so why should it be against the rules? I really don't see why it'd be either against the rules or bad etiquette. Poker is 90% about trying to psyche the other players out, it seems a perfectly fair tactic to me.



That's interesting to know, though.

I don't really have a problem with it as such. It's just given that some people who play in the LPL may one day want to play in a casino or such like and if they do that, their cards will be mucked and they'll lose the hand.

Likewise, if they were to throw their cards face up onto the muck pile. Even if they've got the absolute nuts, if their cards hit the muck pile before a winner has been clarified that hand is deemed dead and they would lose the pot.