15-30 Limit Holdem - Cap Rule
California card room, 15-30LHE. Board 2,2,3, 10, A. River round starts with 3 players. Bet, raise, call raise, 3bet, 4bet,(3rd player folds) 5bet, 6bet, 7bet, fold.
Question immediately raised as to 4 bet cap rule with round starting with more than 2 players.
Floor rules once 3rd player folds, no cap rule. Reads aloud rule reading from his phone. Losing player complains wrong ruling and demands reimbursement of last 2 bets = $60.
Floor later says he will run it up the flagpole to see if the casino will reimburse the $60.
What do you think?
Btw, yes quad 2s v Aces full.
14 Replies
There’s no way as a floor I’m ever ruling in favor of the guy with aces full. It’s heads up, at that point I’m not interfering as a dealer or a floor.
But there were three players on the river, therefore it was not heads up. In my room that makes it a 4 bet cap. Perhaps other rooms are different.
So this is almost certainly room dependent although I believe in the majority of rooms it would be capped at 4 bets.
How it would work according to Robert’s Rules is that the betting would be capped because the third player folded after the betting was already 4bet.
4. Unlimited raising is allowed in heads-up play. This applies any time the action becomes heads-up before the raising has been capped. Once the raising is capped on a betting round, it cannot be uncapped by a subsequent fold that leaves two players heads-up.
I imagine many rooms still base their cash game betting rules on Robert’s Rules even if they don’t know it, so very likely this is the rule in this room.
The reason I think it’s unreasonable to rule in the guy’s favor is that he actually himself made it 6bets, which means that he not only didn’t speak up at the time, but actually broke the rule that he tried to retroactively have enforced.
Some rooms have the rule that it's capped if the round starts with more than two players. Some have the rule that it's capped if there are only two players left when the last allowed bet is made.
If the OP was correct, betting should have been capped at 4 bets under either set of rules. Though I wouldn't be surprised about the rule being ignored, and in this case no one should get any money back. Wagers made and accepted. The only person with any standing to make a complaint would be the player who was bet out of the pot (though in this particular case it would be silly for him to complain after seeing that he was in 3rd place).
BTW, in Washington (at least in the rooms where I have played), the betting is always capped, even if the entire hand is played heads up.
Also, this thread belongs in the Casino and card room subforum, not a strategy subforum.
But for some actual strategy content...
Spoiler
lol at 6-betting and folding to a 7-bet
The third player was still in the hand when the 4th bet was placed, so it should be a cap at that point.
If the third player folded when there were 3 or fewer bets in on the street it is fine.
Pretty simple IMO.
But I also agree that the bets should not be given back, especially since he put in one of those 'extra' bets. Shooting an angle, losing the hand, and then quoting the rules as a freeroll for those extra bets should not be rewarded. If he complained when the 5th bet went in, and was told no and just called, then yes I would repay it after his appeal.
Anywhere I’ve played the rule has been that the street has to start heads up for betting to be uncapped. But I imagine room dependent
It should be a cap but the room should not repay the bets. I’m sure the many lawyers in this forum have ideas about the right doctrine that captures this concept but I don’t feel inclined to debate about it 😀
Unjust enrichment!
Found out they did not reimburse. He is a good player but he did make 6th bet even after 3rd player folded after fourth bet.
Quite something he then folded after the quad player reraised to 7th bet. Even after fold he showed the quads
Btw if someone folds to your 7bet you should not show. If they’re going to tilt you then tilt them back.
