If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL game?
If there's 4,450 chips in the pot and the bet is 4,150 to you, how big is the pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL game?
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
------- RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL game?
You can't answer the question.
If you're calling on a draw, it's a 150 call with a chance to win the 450.
If you're raising on a steal, it's a X% chance to steal 450 - a 100-x%*(actual chance to win) chance at the 'big pot' if you get called.
If you're ahead and raise to shut the pot down, it's a 600 chip pot you're protecting by raising the rest of your stack.
If the rest of your stack is 3000, he'll need to call 3000 to win 3600
It's REALLY important to look at it that way if you're raising way ahead, to see what kind of odds you're laying.
> If there's 4,450 chips in the pot and the bet is 4,150 to you, how big is > the pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > game?
Same answer, although if the stacks AREN'T deep, it matters a lot less.
If you call, you're calling about 4500 to win about 9000. If the stacks aren't much deeper, raising doesn't matter. If you both have 100,000+, then the pot size of about 12,500 may well matter, and calculating it at a little less than 9000 is wrong.
> If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL game?
You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the pot.
I am trying to make sense of the questions.
Does "bet" meant a single bet or have there been raises?
Please fill in more of the blanks ... before the flop or some time later?
Why do you care?
Presume for a moment that the blinds are 25/50 and nine people call including the small blind and the big blind checks. There is 450 in the pot. Flop comes down and the small blind bets 150 and all fold to you.
There is 600 in the pot and it is 150 to you.
Again, why do you ask?
> If there's 4,450 chips in the pot and the bet is 4,150 to you, how big is > the pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > game?
Same questions. Post a real series of bets and a real question.
Sounds like a question about whether an all in constitutes a full raise in NL.
>> If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the >> pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL >> game?
> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the pot.
Sorry Raider ... I did not know this was a Beldin fight.
"SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + 150 = 450 all day long."
Raider Fan wrote: > If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL game?
> If there's 4,450 chips in the pot and the bet is 4,150 to you, how big is > the pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > game?
> "This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a > fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
> ------- > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
This could be argued many ways I suppose. However, the most correct way is that the "pot" is all the "called" money in the pot.
For instance, in the first question, 450 is the pot, 150 is the bet, and its heads up at this point, there would be 600 on the table, and if you called, the pot would be $750 dollars. If this were pot limit, you could call and then raise the pot, you would call the 150, and then be able to raise 750 dollars.
If for instance this hand was 3-way, and it started at $150 dollars on the SB and the BB called the $150 and you were UTG, then there would be $450 in front of you on the table, the pot would be $450 dollars (The amount of called money), but if you called, the pot would grow to 600 dollars, instead of the $750 dollars as in example 1. You would also be able to raise 600 dollars at this time in pot limit poker.
The size of the pot comes up as called money in a couple of cases, first would be in a PL game (even though you're describing an NL game), or in cases where you have to have a pot minimum for certain promotions. In case 1 the pot is $450 with 600 on the table, the second the pot would be $450 with no extra money on the table. The first case would be a 4:1 call, the second case would be a 3:1 call.
This said, this is often not always said this way. It is often said in a way to make the odds correct, and easier to say. In case 1 people would say it like that, but would actually mean there is a 300 dollar pot a 150 dollar bet, and that it is $150 to call. And it is a 3:1 call and the final amount of called money in the pot will be $600 dollars.
People get used to this, and it becomes a stumbling block for them when moving to PL, or measuring the pot for certain promotions, because they are not using the term in the correct fashion.
It is very common to hear the non correct way used.
> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:hvfgs6xtdp.ln2@recgroups.com... > > If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the > > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL game?
> You can't answer the question.
> If you're calling on a draw, it's a 150 call with a chance to win the 450.
You're an idiot Beldin.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
---- RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> > If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the > > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL game?
> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the pot.
That's it. If there's 450 in the pot, there's 450 in the pot. Somebody here contends that there's 600 in the pot when considering a raise. Somehow the 150 mysteriously moves from his stack to the pot before he acts.
I'm guessing he's thinking about what is allowed for a raise in a pot limit game. The fact of the matter is the pot size is the pot size. Period.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
_____________________________________________________________________ looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
>> If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the >> pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL >> game?
> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the pot.
> I am trying to make sense of the questions.
> Does "bet" meant a single bet or have there been raises?
> Please fill in more of the blanks ... before the flop or some time later?
> Why do you care?
Because we disagree on how much of a pot I'm protecting with an all in.
He's not thinking about the action, or anything else. He's thinking the pot is 450 because that's what it was before I acted, and I'm stating I'm protecting a 600 chip pot by moving in rather than calling.
> That's it. If there's 450 in the pot, there's 450 in the pot. Somebody > here contends that there's 600 in the pot when considering a raise. > Somehow the 150 mysteriously moves from his stack to the pot before he > acts.
> I'm guessing he's thinking about what is allowed for a raise in a pot > limit game. The fact of the matter is the pot size is the pot size. > Period.
Foreshadow to future blog entry:
ThePrize3: shall i run you through multiple scenarios where anyone can raise 4 times the pot? ThePrize3: in pot limit ?
>>> If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is >>> the >>> pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL >>> game?
>> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the pot.
> Sorry Raider ... I did not know this was a Beldin fight.
> "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, > guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + > 150 = 450 all day long."
> There is indeed 450 in the pot.
Christ almighty, Pickel. Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. If you can't see that, quit the game now.
>> > If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is >> > the >> > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL >> > game?
>> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the pot.
> That's it. If there's 450 in the pot, there's 450 in the pot. Somebody > here contends that there's 600 in the pot when considering a raise. > Somehow the 150 mysteriously moves from his stack to the pot before he > acts.
> I'm guessing he's thinking about what is allowed for a raise in a pot > limit game. The fact of the matter is the pot size is the pot size. > Period.
Shithead, we aren't talking about the pot before I act.
If I'm moving in, and you're commenting on the pot size that I'm moving in to claim, the size is what it would be if I called.
> On Nov 7 2009 9:30 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:hvfgs6xtdp.ln2@recgroups.com... >> > If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is >> > the >> > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL >> > game?
>> You can't answer the question.
>> If you're calling on a draw, it's a 150 call with a chance to win the >> 450.
> You're an idiot Beldin.
No, shithead, I'm not. YOU clearly are.
What am I trying to do if I shove, shit for brains? End the hand.
What will I win if I do that?
The pot, as it would be if I called instead and let the hand continue.
How big would that pot be? 600 chips. Fuck, you're an idiot.
> He's not thinking about the action, or anything else. > He's thinking the pot is 450 because that's what it was before I acted, and > I'm stating I'm protecting a 600 chip pot by moving in rather than calling.
It's a 450 pot. You're talking about protecting chips you haven't put in the pot. That's wrong, but you'll never see it.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
_______________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> On Nov 7 2009 9:30 AM, Beldin the Retard living happily in my killfile wrote: > > You can't answer the question.
> > If you're calling on a draw, it's a 150 call with a chance to win the 450.
> You're an idiot Beldin.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Are you telling me this retard can't even figure out poker 101 pot odds?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
To doggy: you gonna keep defending this fucking idiot who can't even figure out basic pot odds?
No wonder he played K5s UTG+1 and made up a whole bunch of bullshit about having odds when he was calling bets/raises with no hand, no draw. He doesn't have a clue what odds really are.
> >>> If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is > >>> the > >>> pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > >>> game?
> >> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the pot.
> > Sorry Raider ... I did not know this was a Beldin fight.
> > "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, > > guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + > > 150 = 450 all day long."
> > There is indeed 450 in the pot. > Christ almighty, Pickel. > Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. > It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. > If you can't see that, quit the game now.
LOL. You'll be the only poker player in the world if you take that line.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:hvfgs6xtdp.ln2@recgroups.com... > > If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the > > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL game?
> You can't answer the question.
> If you're calling on a draw, it's a 150 call with a chance to win the 450.
> If you're raising on a steal, it's a X% chance to steal 450 - a > 100-x%*(actual chance to win) chance at the 'big pot' if you get called.
> If you're ahead and raise to shut the pot down, it's a 600 chip pot you're > protecting by raising the rest of your stack.
> If the rest of your stack is 3000, he'll need to call 3000 to win 3600
> It's REALLY important to look at it that way if you're raising way ahead, to > see what kind of odds you're laying.
> > If there's 4,450 chips in the pot and the bet is 4,150 to you, how big is > > the pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > > game?
> Same answer, although if the stacks AREN'T deep, it matters a lot less.
> If you call, you're calling about 4500 to win about 9000. > If the stacks aren't much deeper, raising doesn't matter. > If you both have 100,000+, then the pot size of about 12,500 may well > matter, and calculating it at a little less than 9000 is wrong.
No one in the world is going to agree with you on this. The fabrications of "600 in the pot" are yours alone. The wise thing to do would be to bow out of the conversation before you look any more retarded and admit that you were wrong. Then, you can even point to this when people (rightly) say that you've never admitted error, just link them here where you do.
Odds of Beldin taking this advice? 3 to 1? Or 4 to 1? (hehe)
> No one in the world is going to agree with you on this. The fabrications > of "600 in the pot" are yours alone. The wise thing to do would be to bow > out of the conversation before you look any more retarded and admit that > you were wrong. Then, you can even point to this when people (rightly) > say that you've never admitted error, just link them here where you do.
> Odds of Beldin taking this advice? 3 to 1? Or 4 to 1? (hehe)
He'll never admit he's wrong. He never has, he never will. He's a class A, certified, card-carrying moron, and you could give 1,000,000 to 1 odds and I would never take the bet because he'll never, ever admit that he's just clueless.
> > > If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is the > > > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL game?
> > You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the pot.
> That's it. If there's 450 in the pot, there's 450 in the pot. Somebody > here contends that there's 600 in the pot when considering a raise. > Somehow the 150 mysteriously moves from his stack to the pot before he > acts.
> I'm guessing he's thinking about what is allowed for a raise in a pot > limit game. The fact of the matter is the pot size is the pot size. > Period.
Most people would say "there is 450 in the pot and the donkey (these morons always denigrate their opponents) bets 150." In this case, the pot is 600 when it gets to you. If he means that there is 450 in the pot _when the bet reaches him_ he should phrase it that way. Either way, it is no problem to tell at the table because there is no semantic issue to cloud things. There is either 300 plus 150 or 450 + 150 and you know which.
If it is 450 + 150, then it will be 750 when you mentally "call" and the legal raise at PL is to nine hundred.
This is more a question of "how do we phrase this in a poker discussion" than anything else.
> >>> If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is > >>> the > >>> pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > >>> game?
> >> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the pot.
> > Sorry Raider ... I did not know this was a Beldin fight.
> > "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You check, > > guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 + > > 150 = 450 all day long."
> > There is indeed 450 in the pot.
> Christ almighty, Pickel. > Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. > It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. > If you can't see that, quit the game now.
If you are still thinking about protecting the chips in the pot, quit the game five years ago.
> >> > If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is > >> > the > >> > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL > >> > game?
> >> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the pot.
> > That's it. If there's 450 in the pot, there's 450 in the pot. Somebody > > here contends that there's 600 in the pot when considering a raise. > > Somehow the 150 mysteriously moves from his stack to the pot before he > > acts.
> > I'm guessing he's thinking about what is allowed for a raise in a pot > > limit game. The fact of the matter is the pot size is the pot size. > > Period.
> Shithead, we aren't talking about the pot before I act.
> If I'm moving in, and you're commenting on the pot size that I'm moving in > to claim, the size is what it would be if I called.
> If you can't see that, quit the game now.
This is both a stupid semantic argument and an imbecilic poker concept. An amazing double.
> On Nov 7 2009 9:54 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> He's not thinking about the action, or anything else. >> He's thinking the pot is 450 because that's what it was before I acted, >> and >> I'm stating I'm protecting a 600 chip pot by moving in rather than >> calling.
> It's a 450 pot. You're talking about protecting chips you haven't put in > the pot. That's wrong, but you'll never see it.
No, shithead. It's a 600 chip pot to call. Are you THIS fucking dense? IF I call, it's a 600 chip pot that's hanging there. If I RAISE instead, it's STILL a 600 chip pot I'm protecting. My PROFIT in there isn't 450, because some of that 450 I already put in there, but the pot as a whole WHEN I RAISE is 600.
The next guy isn't calling my bet, he's calling my bet - 150.
>> On Nov 7 2009 9:30 AM, Beldin the Retard living happily in my killfile >> wrote: >> > You can't answer the question.
>> > If you're calling on a draw, it's a 150 call with a chance to win the >> > 450.
>> You're an idiot Beldin.
> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Are you telling me this retard can't even figure out > poker 101 pot odds?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
> To doggy: you gonna keep defending this fucking idiot who can't even > figure out basic pot odds?
> No wonder he played K5s UTG+1 and made up a whole bunch of bullshit about > having odds when he was calling bets/raises with no hand, no draw. He > doesn't have a clue what odds really are.
> That's priceless. I love it.
Xaq can't read worth shit. Of course, he stopped reading my posts, so he's mostly making shit up to amuse himself.
>> >>> If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is >> >>> the >> >>> pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL >> >>> game?
>> >> You are not clear ... if there is 450 in the pot there is 450 in the >> >> pot.
>> > Sorry Raider ... I did not know this was a Beldin fight.
>> > "SB 25, BB 50, one limper 50, SB another 25. Pot equals 150. You >> > check, >> > guy bets 150, one call for another 150 and it's back to you. 150 + 150 >> > + >> > 150 = 450 all day long."
>> > There is indeed 450 in the pot. >> Christ almighty, Pickel. >> Try reading the entire goddamn thread before looking stupid. >> It's a 600 chip pot that I'm protecting by shoving. >> If you can't see that, quit the game now.
> LOL. You'll be the only poker player in the world if you take that line.
No, but I'm apparently the only one who can think in this thread.
> On Nov 7 2009 8:30 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:hvfgs6xtdp.ln2@recgroups.com... >> > If there's 450 chips in the pot and the bet is 150 to you, how big is >> > the >> > pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a NL >> > game?
>> You can't answer the question.
>> If you're calling on a draw, it's a 150 call with a chance to win the >> 450.
>> If you're raising on a steal, it's a X% chance to steal 450 - a >> 100-x%*(actual chance to win) chance at the 'big pot' if you get called.
>> If you're ahead and raise to shut the pot down, it's a 600 chip pot >> you're >> protecting by raising the rest of your stack.
>> If the rest of your stack is 3000, he'll need to call 3000 to win 3600
>> It's REALLY important to look at it that way if you're raising way ahead, >> to >> see what kind of odds you're laying.
>> > If there's 4,450 chips in the pot and the bet is 4,150 to you, how big >> > is >> > the pot regardless of whether or not you intend to call or raise in a >> > NL >> > game?
>> Same answer, although if the stacks AREN'T deep, it matters a lot less.
>> If you call, you're calling about 4500 to win about 9000. >> If the stacks aren't much deeper, raising doesn't matter. >> If you both have 100,000+, then the pot size of about 12,500 may well >> matter, and calculating it at a little less than 9000 is wrong.
> No one in the world is going to agree with you on this. The fabrications > of "600 in the pot" are yours alone.
Wrong, shithead. Anyone who actually thinks about the situation will do so.
See, fuckface, folding isn't on the table. Shit for brains Raider said that I moved in to protect a 450 chip pot, which makes him a retard.
If I call, the pot is 600. Even you two fucking morons can't argue that's wrong. If I move in, shit for brains, the pot I'm trying to protect by moving in is STILL 600.
Christ, you're fucking imbeciles.
The wise thing to do would be to bow
> out of the conversation before you look any more retarded and admit that > you were wrong.
You should really do that then, you and raider, because you're both embracing your inner fuckhead.
Then, you can even point to this when people (rightly)
> say that you've never admitted error, just link them here where you do.
That'd be lying, because noone with a brain thinks this is an error.
|
