Posts Tagged ‘calling’

WSOP Alters “Calling Clock” Rule

 WSOP Alters “Calling Clock” Rule

The World Series of Poker has implemented a new rule for 2017 regarding how things will be handled when a player wants to “call clock” on an opponent. For those of you who are new to poker, “calling clock” or “calling the clock” is a formal process by which a player asks that a floor person force another player to make a decision on a hand if that player has taken too long to act.

The tricky part about calling clock has always been that it is very subjective. Who is to say, exactly, if a person is taking too long or is stalling? In one hand, protracted thought may be appropriate while it is not in another. Maybe someone who looks like they are stalling is really thinking hard. And how much time should be given by the floor?

The changes are not really much more concrete than they were, but they do seem to take into account tournament situations and give the floor leeway.

Previously, the rule gave all players a “reasonable amount of time,” which was defined as at least two minutes, to act in a hand. If the clock is called, the player in question gets one minute more to act, the final ten seconds of which are counted down by the floor person. If the player still hasn’t acted, his hand is dead. The floor person could also shorten the time if it is deemed that the player is intentionally stalling.

Here is the new rule:

Once a reasonable amount of time has passed and a clock is called, Floor People, in their sole discretion, may give the participant an additional 0 up to 30 seconds to make a decision. If action has not been taken when prompted by the Floor Person, there will be a 10-second countdown followed by a declaration or stopwatch alarm. If a participant has not acted before the declaration or alarm sounds, the hand will be dead.  Rio, in its sole and absolute discretion, reserves the right, at any time, to invoke a clock or speed up the amount of time allotted for a clock. Any participant intentionally stalling the progress of the game or unnecessarily calling the clock will incur a penalty in accordance with Rules 40, 113, and 114.

As you can see, there is no two minute minimum applied to the “reasonable amount of time.” Additionally, the clock time is shortened from one minute to anywhere from zero to thirty seconds plus a ten second countdown.

The new rule also gives the Rio (and by extension, the floor person), the flexibility to call clock without a player asking for it.

One point of interest from the WSOP’s notes about the new rule is that the floor person can also decide to not start a clock on a player, even if someone at the table asked for one. There are plenty of situations where tanking for several minutes should be permitted and if an impatient player wants clock called, the floor can easily deny the request, ruling that the hand is a crucial one in a key spot in the tournament, so those involved should be granted all the time they need.

Poker News Daily

Why is my Opponent Calling? Perhaps He Has a Hand?

 Why is my Opponent Calling? Perhaps He Has a Hand?

Success in the game of poker is entirely based upon the decisions that a player makes while they are on the table. There is that visual element – money won – that some would like to make the most dominant part of the game but the reality is if you don’t make the right decisions, you’re not going to be in the position of using that visual element. Thus, there are times when the decision you make – especially if it is wrong – can cost you.

One thing that can be especially costly is the “triple barrel bluff” that, in the testosterone fueled age that poker has become, is seen quite frequently. This tactic is usually used as the initial raiser in a hand – normally with something along the lines of Big Slick or some other Ace – powers through bluffs after whiffing on each street that are calmly called by the opponent. The three streets of action sometime end up with one or the other player all in, at which point the caller shows a hand that connected with the board and the bluffer is toast. We must ask ourselves if the bluffer ever said, “Why is my opponent calling?” Perhaps it was because he had a hand?

Success in the game of poker is entirely based upon the decisions that a player makes while they are on the table. There is that visual element – money won – that some would like to make the most dominant part of the game but the reality is if you don’t make the right decisions, you’re not going to be in the position of using that visual element. Thus, there are times when the decision you make – especially if it is wrong – can cost you.

One thing that can be especially costly is the “triple barrel bluff” that, in the testosterone fueled age that poker has become, is seen quite frequently. This tactic is usually used as the initial raiser in a hand – normally with something along the lines of Big Slick or some other Ace – powers through bluffs after whiffing on each street that are calmly called by the opponent. The three streets of action sometime end up with one or the other player all in, at which point the caller shows a hand that connected with the board and the bluffer is toast. We must ask ourselves if the bluffer ever said, “Why is my opponent calling?” Perhaps it was because he had a hand?

The most recent demonstration of this situation came at the 2016November Nine” play down earlier this month. After playing some outstanding poker on the first day of the final table, the Czech Republic’s Vojtech Ruzicka came into the second day and the tires blew out. After climbing as high as second place, Ruzicka came up against the veteran Cliff “JohnnyBax” Josephy and, by appearances, never even paused to consider what the wily Jersey pro might be sitting back on.

In the hand, Ruzicka raised to 2.5 million with a suited Ace (A♣ 10♣) and Josephy just called from the button with pocket eights. The Q♣ 8♠ 4♣ flop hit both players squarely and, with excellent reason, Ruzicka fired off another bet. Josephy, with the set, just made the call and, after a 3♦ came on the turn, Ruzicka shot off another salvo. Once again, Josephy just called with a board showing that only pocket Queens currently beat him. On a blank river, Ruzicka waved the white flag (this time) and, after Josephy popped a good bet out, Ruzicka let the hand go.

If the “double barrel bluff” wasn’t good enough, the “triple barrel bluff” that came next would eventually doom Ruzicka. Still sitting on a great stack, Ruzicka this time fired off with an off suit Big Slick and Gordon Vayo looked up his preflop raise with pocket eights in what was a “blind versus blind” battle. A Q-8-3 flop was a complete fan by Ruzicka, but he still opened the post-flop action with a six million chip bet. Vayo, on the same set Josephy had held, used Josephy’s action and just called Ruzicka’s bet.

A blank seven on the turn gave Vayo nothing to worry about, but Ruzicka shipped a 11 million chip bet to the center. A call again from Vayo saw a five on the river and, with only a 9-6, a 6-4 (neither raising hands) or pocket Queens beating him, Vayo was confident. Thus, when Ruzicka shipped the remainder of his stack to the center – 27.5 million into a 50 million-plus pot – Vayo immediately called and, when the results were seen, Ruzicka’s once mighty stack was down to virtually nothing; he would be out in fifth place a couple of hands later.

This wasn’t the first time that such a situation had arisen at the WSOP. In 2011 (and we have the video to show it), noted British poker professional JP Kelly found himself in a fight against Kenny Shih. After a Shih raise, Kelly three-bet the action and, after Shih called, a Q-Q-7 flop hit the baize. As the video shows – well, why don’t we let the video do the talking, shall we?

At a certain point – and probably WAY before the river even arrived – Ruzicka and Kelly both failed to think about why their opponent was staying with them in the hand. Just because you have a stack that is dominant, you can’t just fire off chips without considering two things. First is that thought regarding your opponent’s holdings. In this day and age of set mining, when your big Ace fans on the flop (and even if it hits), you must be aware of the potential for your opponent to be on a pocket pair (especially with position) and looking to hit against a non-made hand and an aggressive opponent. Then the set miner can sit back and let the aggressor do the betting and wait for a moment to strike.

The second part is that, for a bluff to work, it must tell a convincing story. In both Ruzicka and especially Kelly’s case, the board didn’t present any threat in that it was ragged enough there wasn’t any sneakiness that could occur. Shih’s hand is probably a bad example (as he held quads) but what if he had A-Q. Did he think that Kelly was three-betting with a 6-5 for the straight? Unlikely. Same with Ruzicka…when you’ve missed everything with your Ace, the board better present something to allow for your story to be told convincingly. In both cases, that story wasn’t there.

There are times when double and triple barrel bluffing can be successful. But there are also times when the bluffer must pause and consider that, per the old axiom, the “hunter” has become the “hunted.” By taking that moment to think, both Kelly and Ruzicka may have gotten out of their situations. In Ruzicka’s case (and especially with his chip stack when the meltdown occurred), it might have cost him a shot at poker’s World Championship.

At a certain point – and probably WAY before the river even arrived – Ruzicka and Kelly both failed to think about why their opponent was staying with them in the hand. Just because you have a stack that is dominant, you can’t just fire off chips without considering two things. First is that thought regarding your opponent’s holdings. In this day and age of set mining, when your big Ace fans on the flop (and even if it hits), you must be aware of the potential for your opponent to be on a pocket pair (especially with position) and looking to hit against a non-made hand and an aggressive opponent. Then the set miner can sit back and let the aggressor do the betting and wait for a moment to strike.

The second part is that, for a bluff to work, it must tell a convincing story. In both Ruzicka and especially Kelly’s case, the board didn’t present any threat in that it was ragged enough there wasn’t any sneakiness that could occur. Shih’s hand is probably a bad example (as he held quads) but what if he had A-Q. Did he think that Kelly was three-betting with a 6-5 for the straight? Unlikely. Same with Ruzicka…when you’ve missed everything with your Ace, the board better present something to allow for your story to be told convincingly. In both cases, that story wasn’t there.

There are times when double and triple barrel bluffing can be successful. But there are also times when the bluffer must pause and consider that, per the old axiom, the “hunter” has become the “hunted.” By taking that moment to think, both Kelly and Ruzicka may have gotten out of their situations. In Ruzicka’s case (and especially with his chip stack when the meltdown occurred), it might have cost him a shot at poker’s World Championship.

Poker News Daily

$4.40 NLHE MTT: what is the maximum stack size that I should commit to calling coin flips preflop

 $4.40 NLHE MTT: what is the maximum stack size that I should commit to calling coin flips preflop
Hello,
what is the maximum stack size that I should commit to calling coin flips preflop?

http://www.handconverter.com/hands/2761414

Here in this example Villian was loose and crazy and two hands ago I won a big pot against him. He would make this move with 77-JJ AKo AQo,and maybe QQ
With QQ+ he would prabobly be more willing to see the flop.

good play , or my stack 45 BB is too big to go all in ?

If it is too big than what is the right stack size to call him ? I am thinking max 25 ?? I have a problem with that and lose too many chips on coin flips

Thanks for advice.

Poker Forums

Calling a bet when worse hands wouldn’t have called my bet?

 Calling a bet when worse hands wouldnt have called my bet?
More than time I Have comprehended the concept of, will a much better hand fold, or will a even worse hand get in touch with when I wager. And occasionally when i am in this circumstance, i’ll check and then get in touch with, but will not that defeat the object in this logic? Am I knowing this correct that I should just fold if my opponent bets?

Illustration:

Hero and Villian both limp from the blinds.

Hero retains 78

Flop arrives 7K6

Hero bets

Change comes T

Hero decides to verify as he thinks no even worse hand will phone his pair of 7’s and a better hand is unlikely to fold..

Villian bets

Hero calls.

Is this a miscalculation? Would contacting after you decided to check be a negative concept taking into consideration you imagined no worse hands would call your wager in any case?

Cardschat Poker Community forums

Heads up sngs: Limping preflop against calling station and maniac in button?

 Heads up sngs: Limping preflop against calling station and maniac in button?
Actually, I am low stakes Heads up typical and I have a really large question on min raising on button with trash palms or AK, AQ fingers when you are dealing with maniacs and calling stations?

Scenario I: experiencing a calling stations

When I am raising 2xBB from this sort of participant, then they are likely to phone me. And c-betting against them with air out of issue. So, why are you losing one much more big blind when you are going to make thin price guess in great palms to consider his all income when you hit. (free passive opponent hyper)

Circumstance two:- going through a maniac

When I am elevating 2xBB then they are heading to 3-bet me which is extremely undesirable simply because if i do not strike in flop then i have to lose six-7BB but when i am limping, then i am heading to lose 2-4 blinds increase. And if maniac limps with my min raise, then right after he is heading to bet from my c-wager in OOP or reraise my c-bet. (unfastened aggressive opponent hyper)

So, can you explain to me that is this pondering correct for my sport from calling station or maniac? Limping is proper for this variety of lower stakes gamers

Gamers are unfastened intense or loose passive.

But in opposition to restricted aggressive and restricted passive, min elevating is a correct choice but in minimal stakes, this variety of gamers are less than maniacs and contacting stations.

Cardschat Poker Community forums



usa poker svenska poker finland poker Deutsch poker spain poker italy poker france poker japan poker greece poker china poker brazil poker denemark poker netherlands poker india poker russia poker korea poker turkey poker
romanian poker bulgarian poker croatian poker czech poker israel   poker norway poker poland poker serbia poker slovakia poker slovenia poker