Casino & Cardroom Poker 2025 Low Content / Chat thread

I'm not quite sure I follow. Under the current TDA rules, if the BB only has enough for the BB, then there is no ante on that hand. So no one wins it.

Which is the reason the rule was originally ante first, it was considered "unfair" that the all in player didn't have to pay the ante but had been eligible to win other people's BB Ante the previous 8 hands.

It's just that the BB Ante not being able to win anything other than their own ante back was considered "worse" feeling, hence the switch.

At least, that is my understanding.

I had a brain fart, was thinking everyone else's antes were still in.

I understand how it is very slow to have everyone ante, but for awhile I thought they were having the button pay. That makes more sense to me, so these situations don't come up as much.

With BBs ante his ante is all of the antes. So he wins to solely get back his and only his money. This was decided to not be fair to win the hand and win nothing.

For that hand there are no antes to win.

IMO the Antes are basically a 'post' that goes into the Main Pot .. nothing earth shattering there. To fret over a Player picking up an 'extra' BB is about the same as getting screwed on a table change into the BB!

BLINDS should always be paid first and then anything 'extra' goes to the Ante.

We are playing poker. A Player is eligible for all bets they make that other Players can match .. then we have a side pot.

The 'all Players' Ante can create 'one' issue since the SB could post a SB and all/part of an Ante and then not have enough to cover the BB.

The most standard thing in poker is the Blinds .. so they should come first. That's how the Players in those positions are eligible for cards. You don't get cards in a cash game without posting a full BB. Tournaments have a bit of circumstance that a Player technically is still alive even though they can't cover the basic 'entry fee'. GL

The blinds first works better with big blind ante because if BB doesn’t contribute to blinds he can’t benefit in the hand. He can only lose. But in the old form individual antes, a player only in for ante can win the other antes and thus benefit.

In game with individual antes, I believe it should always be ante first. The ante is basically a fee to participate. You pay the hand’s entry fee and then put in the blinds. This works as everyone is paying an entry fee. Thus anyone can improve their stack from antes only.

Ofc the case for antes last in an individual ante game would be consistency with the BBante format. Since BB ante is or has become nearly universal the argument is largely moot.

I think this is an easy one (??) The following took place in a home tournament, but they try to follow TDA.

NLHE tournament
Blinds 4k/8k, no BBA/ante

UTG goes all in for 12k, MP says call and puts out 12k. BB attempts to stop action, but not before at least 2 more 12k callers, including the SB. BB argues MP (and subsequent?) callers owe 16k (the min raise).

How do you rule?

I don't really follow the issue. If the BB is 8k, and someone goes all-in for 12k preflop, that is fine, the current bet is 12k, and everyone else can fold, call 12k, or raise. If raising, they must raise to at least 12+8=20k (not 16k). This is a standard ruling for someone going all in for less than a minimum raise, which happens a million times every day - other players are not forced to call to the minimum raise amount.

A more interesting case would be if this happened pre flop and the BB only had say 6k left and goes all in for that. The BB/min bet is still 8k though. Do other players need to call 6k or 8k (potentially creating a side pot)? TDA doesn't specifically cover this situation any more I don't think. I think in the most recent version of rules that included this situation they allowed other players to just call the 4k (or raise to a min of 12k), but I may be misremembering.

TD is correct. Not even sure why this is a question. Consider if MP is actually SB. Btn calls and SB calls w only 4k back. Now on the flop SB all in for 4k. Can BB call 4K? If you say no, then you give btn advantage because BB must risk 8K to continue but btn can call only the 4k.

Another way to look at it. Say there is one limper before MP and it folds toBB If BB calls but has to put out 16k, can the limper now raise? If it is 16k total to him, 8k more, he is facing a full raise so his option should be reopened. But if it is only 12k to continue, nit a raise so all the limper can do is call the 4K.

What if btn wants to raise MP, what is min raise? 20k? 24k? Other?

The TD is correct but even the wording of the ruling as relayed by OP is weird. The calls "stood" as opposed to what? No standing?

They stood because they were legal calls. TD should clarify that this wasn't a Rule #1 situation.

He turned his cards face down? Or that's the way they were dealt? Anywhere I have played, the players' cards are dealt face up, and the players aren't supposed to even touch them.

From a shoe, cards are face up and no need for player to touch them. But in pitch, esp double deck pitch, cards are dealt face down and players look at them that way and generally leave them face down. Player puts them under the bet chips when they stand. Upon completion the dealer turns them over to read.

The first bets definitely should have been $5000, as $500 would not be a valid bet. Did you actually have them put in $500, or was it just a call?

But in general, in both of these cases, if no one else had yet acted, I think it would have been better to just ask the player to clarify how much they meant to bet.

Since you follow TDA rules, let's consult them:

[QUOTE="TDA Rule 57: Non-Standard and Unclear Betting]Also, if a declared bet can legally have multiple meanings, it will be ruled the highest reasonable amount that is less than or equal to the pot size* before the bet. Ex: NLHE 200-400, the pot totals less than 5000, player declares “I bet five.” With no other clarifying information, the bet is 500; if the pot totals 5000 or more, the bet is 5000. *The pot is the total of all prior bets including any bets in front of a player not yet pulled in. See Rules 2, 3, 40 and 42.[/QUOTE]

So, the correct ruling in the second scenario depends on other factors. If the pot was less than 2200, then the bet is 2200, else 22000.

However, I believe that your ruling in the first scenario is incorrect, as 500 is not a reasonable interpretation during the 200-400 blind level.

if post flop it is ok

gd, you'll get better answers in the dedicated dealer threads like bobby's breakroom

imo you were right both times, it would be absurd to give it 2200 with 2x 5k chips out there

Yeah, I did interpret it as being a preflop action.

He did ask first in the dealer thread and was denied.

That would be absurd. I read the question to be about a verbal bet that was followed by chips.

Sorry, left out important information. For sure, the "five" bets were post, not facing action.

Not as sure on the "twenty-two" bet. Player could've been in the small pre and raised, or first to act post. Just can't remember at this point.

I need to get better about clarifying action, as pointed out above. "What are you trying to do?" would've been a better solution than making a ruling so quickly.

In no case did the players argue. Once I explained the ruling, they all agreed that was reasonable given what happened. I just want to be closer to good.

Thank you all for the good feedback!

We don't really want that thread cluttered up with basic ruling questions from non-employees.

We've found it better to let everyone from the community discuss ruling situations either here in this thread, or in dedicated threads to the ruling in question.

i mean he's an employee who's dealing cards who is asking a question about how to do a ruling - which is what most of bobby's room is

feels like you're just putting in an artificial us vs them barrier - ugh he deals at a bar not a casino so gross

and he would have gotten a much better and professional answer from a fellow dealer rather than an educated guess from a player like he got from me

just feels really petty, elitist, and arbitrary to tell gd he can't post there - especially since in the time it took to tell him that you guys could have just answered and then moved on

I wonder if a thread for "not-threadworthy rulings/situations" would be worthwhile. Simple, quick things people at any level of the game could answer/give feedback.

It's a pretty low traffic forum these days. I think *well titled* threads about any individual ruling situation would work out okay here.

Reminds me of when Rapini threatened to temp-ban anyone who started a thread with a dumb, unimaginative title. And he may have actually done it once or twice. The good old days.

"Ruling" "Can I get a ruling" "What would you do here" "Another Ruling"