WSOP Event #31 - $2000 NLHE

[terrencechan]

They let me out on day parole, so I decided to play the $2000 NLHE that I was bought into via PokerStars. At my starting table was a guy by the name of Brandon Adams, who has a new poker novel out entitled Broke. Brandon gave me a personalized copy at the table. He seems like a nice guy and played well in the time we were together, so I look

Comments

[dmorr]

From an EV perspective, it sort of depends on how much he has. If he has $2k or nearly that, you make a little money against like ATo at the risk of busting. If he has only $1k, then you definitely want him to fold.

In general you have a weakish hand, so you probably want him to fold there. You're not *that* desperate yet.

[terrencechan]

I think he had around 1600 or so. We'll use that.

[true_north]

I think you're right not to say anything, both ethically and from an EV standpoint.

You figure to be probably a pure coinflip against his range, maybe slightly less. If he folds, you're getting 300 chips with no risk; if he calls, you're staring at an EV of around 100 (half the BB). It seems to be an EV no-brainer.

Ethically, the rule is in place to protect you. Given the option, you have the right to not have it enforced.

Am I close?

[adb_foldem]

A race doesn't sound horrible there. OK to be nice too.

Don't forget to register for BARGE: www.barge.org

[mathew5000]

First, there’s room to argue about what the proper ruling is if the floor is called. Verbal declarations in turn are binding (TDA Rules, Rule 30); therefore if he had you covered he would be obligated to raise. But since he only had 1600 chips left and the bet to him is 2400, it is impossible for him to raise; his argument is that he cannot bind himself to do something impossible, and therefore he retains the options to either fold or call. Most likely, the floor would rule that saying “raise” constitutes a call where raising is impossible, and I do agree with that ruling, but it is a situation not covered explicitly in the TDA Rules so the point is arguable

[andy_ward_uk]

I don't think there's anything unethical about allowing someone to reconsider their decision if they genuinely misunderstood the action in front of them. In fact I would consider this the "right thing to do".

Andy.

[mathew5000]

After a player says “raise” it is totally improper for the dealer to ask “are you sure you want to raise?”. The dealer’s job is to enforce the rule that verbal declarations in turn are binding, or to call the floor if there is any uncertainty.

Otherwise, players could pretend to be unaware of the action ahead of them, thereby gaining the opportunity to reconsider the play they have made (perhaps after gauging other players’ reaction to that play).

This is particularly true in a tournament, where every other player still participating, at every table, has an interest in two players going all-in against each other at any table. When two players at a table have legally bound themselves to an all-in confrontation, it is unfair to all the other players still in the tournament to allow those two players (or either one of them) the option of rewinding the action.