12 thoughts on “Episode 141”

  1. I enjoyed the discussion of the out-of-turn call and the betting rules.

    What do y’all think the betting rules SHOULD be?

    Should there be a betting line, etc.

  2. I don’t like the current situation where each room’s rules are unique.

    I was at Chocktaw, Durant, OK recently and was surprised when my forward motion with chips in the air, not touching the table, forced me to bet everything I was holding. I’m not a big-stack chip cutter so it worked out fine but it did make me feel uncomfortable that I might unknowingly make other mistakes.

    Personally I would prefer a betting line and rules similar to chess where your bet is complete when you have put chips over the line and released them. This is very clear and is similar to other games’ rules so it is more natural and familiar.

  3. I know it’s exactly opposite from the style of most experienced players, but I’m a big fan of people just verbally announcing their action before making any physical movement. “Raise. Make it $35 to go.”

    Nice episode this week.

    m

  4. In the “poker 201” question Nate says that the villain turns over AA and commits to call whatever you bet. Surely we shouldn’t have a bluffing range then if he is committed to call? The answer given seems to be right if we see AA but he can still choose his action. The question reminded me of this crazy Spanish hand

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKsV6oqZW38

    I think I’m calling every time with AA though because (like in the video) it’s too tempting for the player who can see the opponents hand to try to “play poker” instead of just giving up.

  5. I really like your podcasts; I have listen to every single one.

    However I think you made huge blunder saying you shold have blufing range into a person who has commited to call. You are bluffing to make someone call enogh so you will get value, but newer into somone who is calling 100% of hands! Just bet all in all hands that beat his AA and fold everything else!

    Your argument is OK if he would not have been commited to call – that is probably what you ment to say.

    • Thanks! And yes, you’re correct. What I think Nate intended to ask is the question of what Hero should do if he knows Villain has AA but Villain is NOT committed to call. Perhaps he misspoke or I misheard him, but that’s the question I was answering.

      • Yep. Either an abrupt change of subject or just, as a logic professor of mine would say, a “think-o” (when he’d made a typo-like mistake but at the level of thought). I hope the intended meaning was clear enough,

  6. I like a betting line on the table. I’d like it if chip cutting was required (enforced) behind the line. But in the end I usually just wait until I am sure better is done not reacting to how many chips they bring forward to cut. I usually do as Matt suggests and announce my bet anytime the amount is not easily picked from my stack without careful chip cutting. I always cut behind the line when there is one.

    I don’t find fault with player 1’s $5 bet. It doesn’t feel like he deserved the warning to me. Player two was at fault here.

    • I’ve only played at 3 casinos, and they all have a betting line and enforce it. I guess my region just has an “immature poker culture” or whatever Nate said. I’ll be playing in Vegas for the first time next month. It will be interesting to see how the mechanics are different.

      • I do think that strict betting lines are mostly found in newer poker jurisdictions. That said, if people know what to expect and if the rules aren’t used to angle out-of-towners, I think it can be a pretty effective system. Perhaps one day it will be the status quo in most places.

        Good luck in Vegas!

Comments are closed.