1. Must be an effort to pioneer quasi-no-limit hold 'em.

Great to see you blogging at CardSquad, Wil! Your participation this gives me a reason to check the CardSquad RSS feed more regularly. I'm a regular reader of WWdN, a Star Trek geek, avid poker player, professional tech blogger, and my birthday is July 29. Too many planets aligning not to like your writing.

Posted at 9:02PM on Aug 30th 2005 by Rich Miller

2. just curious--

a bet and three raises with at least one of those raisers going all in?

or a bet and three raises without anyone going all in before it got back to the original bettor?

Posted at 6:55PM on Aug 30th 2005 by eltejano

3. ah- sorry, I thought the above text was the whole story, I just saw the link to Iggy's site and the RGB/Tiltboys link too. . .

Posted at 7:27PM on Aug 30th 2005 by eltejano

4. Another blog to check daily... I'm going to have to start using an aggregator one of these days.

I assume part of the rule is that a raise has to be at least the previous raise. Still, say there are 10 people at the table. The first better wants to see the next card so he raises the minimum amount. Three others follow suit. No more raises and everyone gets to see another card on the cheap. If you are in late position with a good hand you could easily get screwed.

On the other hand, it is so annoying when two players raise the minimum bet back and forth and back and forth. I bet it is even more annoying to the television producers who are paying for the camera crew time.

Posted at 9:08PM on Aug 30th 2005 by Alan Oursland

5. Hi Wil! Followed you over here from WWdN. Good luck, and read you later.

Posted at 9:21AM on Aug 31st 2005 by hey4ndr3w

6. eltejano --

A bet and three raises, period. It doesn't happen frequently, although Perry mentions it happened twice at his table (I believe one was a three-person deep-stacked broadway-pocket-pair confrontation).

Of course, I hear they rescinded the rule yesterday, so the debate is now mostly moot (except perhaps, "What the heck were they thinking?")

Posted at 2:54PM on Aug 31st 2005 by Tapin

7. Actually, I was willing to bet my life VERSUS a dollar. When I first offered to bet my life that the tournament director was wrong about the TDA rules, there was silence. So I offered to bet my life versus $1.

It appears that they finally announced on Tuesday that they were changing the rule. However, I am not sure if they are actually changing the rule, or finally coming to their senses and realizing that they were wrong all along. Clearly, they were wrong about it being a TDA rule, and I am pretty sure it was never a Bike rule either. Someone sent me an email containing the live game rules for the Bike, and clearly says that they have no limit to raises in NL and PL games. If they were mistaken about it being a TDA rule, it's likely they were just completely mistaken. They would not produce the rule in writing for me and I suspect it does not exist.

If anyone can find that rule in writing (that they have a cap in NL tournaments) from the Bike, I'm offering a $10 bounty.

Perry

Posted at 9:55PM on Aug 31st 2005 by Perry Friedman

8. Happened to me once, in Vegas, I think it was the Mirage. A dealer enforced a max three raises in the no limit game, more than once. She was very clear on the rule, only one bet and three raises allowed in a round. And she pointed to the sign on the wall where it was written. We all assumed it didn't apply to NL games, but the sign didn't say that.

The next dealer didn't enforce that rule.

The Bike has one of the best dealer staffs in LA. I'm suprised something like that could happen there.

Posted at 1:55AM on Sep 9th 2005 by ExMember