PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: madkiwi9 on March 06, 2010, 07:27:13 AM
-
Hi there
My call on this was very simple. However, one of our local poker professionals in a Q&A session in one of the local magazines had a very different view
The flop is open and only 3 players left in the hand
Player A - Checks
Player B - Raises to 250
Player C - All in for 490
Player A -- Wants to Re-raise, allowing that Player Cs' bet was an under raise. Should Player A be allowed to Re-raise?
Again, would love feedback on this
Thanks a mil!
-
Players C's all-in bet for 490 is action only, however player B has made an action which re-opens the betting to player A so yes he has all actions open to him again.
Regards
Stuart
-
Player A can definitely check raise.
Player B made a bet. Player C's all in was not a full raise. Player A's check raise is fine because Player B made a bet which reopened the action to Player A.
If Player A had bet 250, and if Player B had called, and if Player C had gone all in for 490, Player's A and B would have the options of calling or folding, but not raising.
TDA rule # 31 states:
A raise must be at least the size of the previous raise. If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she will be required to make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in bet of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.
-
There are many discussions regarding raises. There was a posting earlier this month that made me realize that rule #31 will have to be addressed at the next meeting. The last sentence; in no-limit and pot-limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. I did forward this to the administration department and it will be addressed. The example that was submitted on March 6, 2010 was a perfect example for explanation. The game is no-limit.
Player A checks
Player B bets $250
Player C goes all-in for $490 (less than the required amount to be considered a raise)
The way the rule is written, because player A has acted prior to the bet and all-in raise, he would not be allowed to raise. That is incorrect. Player A will have the right to raise.
In addition a note of importance, if player A were to call the all-in wager, player B would not be allowed to raise. In other words the all-in bet of less than 100% of the original bet does not reopen the betting to the original bettor.
Hope this will clear up any confusion.
Nick C
-
Sorry Nick, but I believe you are incorrect on this one. Please read the posts by Stuamurr and DCJ001 carefully. Player C's action is just that, it is not a raise. What reopens the action to player A after he checked is the raise by player B. If player B had not raised, but just called then the only options available to both of them would be to fold or call the all-in action of player C for that round of betting. Players A and B are free to do whatever on any subsequent rounds for a side pot.
I really don't see a problem with rule 31 as it is written.
As a direct answer to Madkiwi, Player A can certainly re-raise, but based on player B's raise NOT based on Player C's action.
Hope this helps!
-
The flop is open and only 3 players left in the hand
Player A - Checks
Player B - Raises to 250
Player C - All in for 490
Sorry Nick, but I believe you are incorrect on this one. Please read the posts by Stuamurr and DCJ001 carefully. Player C's action is just that, it is not a raise. What reopens the action to player A after he checked is the raise by player B. If player B had not raised, but just called then the only options available to both of them would be to fold or call the all-in action of player C for that round of betting. Players A and B are free to do whatever on any subsequent rounds for a side pot.
I really don't see a problem with rule 31 as it is written.
As a direct answer to Madkiwi, Player A can certainly re-raise, but based on player B's raise NOT based on Player C's action.
Hope this helps!
What needs clarification in the two posts that I have quoted is that Player B did not raise. After the flop, the first person to put chips into the pot "bets," not "raises." It's important to keep this simple principle in mind.
Often, when I watch poker tournaments in the UK, after the first player "bets" after the flop, dealers and commentators announce that the next player to act "reraises," which is not possible because there has not yet been a "raise."
Preflop, the action can go "call, raise, reraise" or "raise, reraise," etc. Postflop the action can go "bet, raise, reraise."
I sometimes hear players and commentators in the US make these mistakes. This type of mistake can be contagious because people sometimes repeat what they hear because may people do not think about the words that they speak.
-
To Chet DJ001
I am not trying to disagree with anyone on this ruling. Chet you are making reference to the wrong player, please read my explanation carefully. You may e-mail me at nickscasinopoker@comf5.com if you would like.
-
The example that you gave is for no-limit. The answer is player C should be able to raise because the all-in wager was not a complete raise (100% is what I would prefer). Player C could fold, call the $700 or raise to a total of $800 or more. The important part of rule #31 that is not mentioned; When the all-in player (B) makes the action only raise of $300 for a total bet of $700, it will not reopen the betting to player A (the initial bettor) unless player C completes the raise. I hope I am making this a little clearer. Bottom line, this rule will be addressed at the next meeting per Jan Fisher.
Chet this is from a different post, but similar
Nick C
-
I am going to blame my confusion in terms on the fact that I had not yet had any coffee. Player B's action is a BET, not a RAISE as I stated.
Nick: I am getting more confused as this thread goes on. If I remember correctly, A checked, B Bet and C went all-in for less than a full raise. I think we may be talking about two different situations.
Finally, you posted part of your email address, but you left out the part of your address that follows "...@helloworld". Is it .com, .net or .?????
I agree the rule could be clarified.
What I would like to see is an addendum to the Rules created at the next Summit, that would house/hold/provide examples for the rules that may have different interpretations. I don't think we need examples for each and every rule, but in some cases examples would be helpful, I think.
-
There are many discussions regarding raises. There was a posting earlier this month that made me realize that rule #31 will have to be addressed at the next meeting. The last sentence; in no-limit and pot-limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. I did forward this to the administration department and it will be addressed. The example that was submitted on March 6, 2010 was a perfect example for explanation. The game is no-limit.
Player A checks.... Player B bets $250
Player C goes all-in for $490 (less than the required amount to be considered a raise)
The way the rule is written, because player A has acted prior to the bet and all-in raise, he would not be allowed to raise. That is incorrect. Player A will have the right to raise.
Actually, in this situation, Player C's bet of $490 is apparently over the minimum bet for this round, that minimum bet being $250 or less (Player B's bet). Either way you look at it, either Player B's bet of $250 OR Player C's total bet of $490 both are by themselves at least minimum bets and enough to re-open the action to A. Since Player A hasn't acted on Player B's full bet of $250, he has a right to act on it, regardless of whether Player C's raise of $240 to 490 total is a full minimum raise.... am I missing something ? Once Player B makes a minimum bet the action is re-opened for A, it doesn't matter IMO what Player C does at that point.... The only situation where Rule 31 would apply here is if Player B checks and Player C is all-in for something less than whatever the minimum for this round is, but that's not the case (unless I'm missing something at 1am cst which is always possible :) I agree that Player B cannot raise here if Player A just smooth calls Player C, because C's all-in wager of another 240 doesn't constitute a full raise to B.
-
To Chet and Mike B
I guess I'm not expressing the situation properly and please, correct me if I'm wrong. Before I try again; the last line in rule #31 is what I question; an all-in wager of less than a full raise (which the $490 wager of player C qualifies as because it would have to be a raise to $500) would not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. When you consider that player A did act first by checking. Why should he not be allowed to raise player B's initial wager of $250?
Mike I really like it when you enter our conversation. Chet, I'm sorry I omitted part of the address....nickscasinopoker@comf5.com...
The confusion that I see is because the ruling should read (IMO): A wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the original bettor.
I think I have a better example; The game is no-limit player A checks player B bets $100 player C calls, player D calls player E goes all-in for $120...now back to player A. What are his options? he can fold, he can call, or HE CAN RAISE, because he is raising player B and not the all-in player (E). If this example does not contradict rule #31 please explain. Player A (who started the action with a check, still defined as having acted) has every right to raise in that position. To continue, if player A were to fold or call the $120 all-in wager then player B ( the original bettor) can only call. Chet you are right, we don't need any more examples. I do need someone to tell everyone that I am correct. Jan, where are you?
Thanks for your response
Nick C
-
Nick,
I see your point regarding the under raise rule, the wording under your interpretation is misleading. You are correct that the wording needs to be 'cleaned' up a little but even your example: "A wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the original bettor" would be flawed as if with blinds at 50/100 A and B check and then C moves in for 75 the betting is not re-opened to them.
Definitely something that needs to go under scrutiny. I think everyone is happy with the situations and when betting is open and when it is not, but I do see your point that this rule does require clarity.
Regards
Stuart
-
Stuart
I know where we need to go, but it isn't that easy to word it properly. At least that is how I feel. Maybe the word "raise" could be replaced with Under sized bet. I'm almost afraid to write anymore. I just don't want any TDA members to get more confused.
Thanks
Nick C
-
Nick
Just had a read up on RROP and interestingly he does not cover the subject of action being re-opened to players for no-limit:
6. Any wager not all-in must be at least the size of the previous bet or raise in that round.
7. In limit play, an all-in wager of less than half a bet does not reopen the betting for any player who has already acted and is in the pot for all previous bets. A player who has not yet acted (or had the betting reopened to him by another player's action), facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may fold, call, or complete the wager. An all-in wager of a half a bet or more is treated as a full bet, and a player may fold, call, or make a full raise. (An example of a full raise on a $20 betting round is raising a $15 all-in bet to $35.) Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to individually qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.
I was thinking of something like this that would better clarify the rule but try to still keep it uncluttered:
31. Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting round to a player who has already acted where no other action has occured.
Let me know what you think
stuart
-
Stuart
I am very familiar with the half the bet rule (50%) but, I can assure you, we will only muddy the waters even more. That rule works great for fixed bet or structured games; $5 an$10 or $10 and $20. One thing I do like about the rule is the way they reference the percentage (%). My example might be something like this; In no-limit and pot-limit; only a raise of 100% of the initial bet will reopen the betting to the initial bettor. Any all-in player that initiates a bet of less than the minimum required amount will be declared all-in, and a side pot may ensue. Any player that checked prior to an all-in players bet of less than 100% of the minimal required amount can call or fold unless a complete bet is made by an intervening player, this will allow a check-raise.
You are welcome to continue this conversation by correspondence via the internet I really don't want to put any thing out there until we have something solid.
I do enjoy these interesting situations and how we all manage to see valid, yet different interpretations of the same rule.
If interested......nickscasinopoker@comf5.com..........
-
Very interesting conversation:) And just to cause trouble... If player A wished to raise, then what would his minimum raise be? Would it be based on the under raise or player B's initial bet, or some mix of the two???
This has been bugging me for some time and now seems like a good time to ask:)
Lewis
-
Lewis,
I would like to respond but I need to know the exact example that you are refering to. Sorry.
Nick C
-
Lewis,
I thought that I would give you this explanation. Assuming that the game is no-limit or pot-limit. Once a player checks he can only call or fold an all-in player that goes in with less than a minimum bet. The minimum bet is at least the size of the big blind. Example; No-limit blinds $200/$400, on the turn, player A checks, player B checks and player C goes all-in for $350, when the action returns to player A he can only call, if he calls (or even folds) the same option is available to player B (who also checked) unless another player makes a full bet of at least the required amount of $50 more bringing the total bet to $400.
The more complex situation is when a player makes a wager and the all-in player raises with less than 100% of the required raise. Lets look at the example above. Player A checks, player B bets $400 (the minimum required bet) and player C raises and goes all-in with $700 (not 100% of the $400 bet). In this case, the betting was reopened to player A because of the initial bet by player B. Look at it this way, if player C folded, wouldn't player A have the right to check-raise? Of course. This is the best I can do. Remember, other games with fixed bets and structure bet games have different rules for raising. In any form of poker a raise must be at least the size of the bet, or the size of the raise in front of you. Unless you are all-in. I guess I will never be able to get away from these examples, they are almost as boring as the "bad beat" stories that we all have to hear.
Thanks for listening....I hope this makes sense.
Nick C
-
Thanks, that does make sense, however I am confused about what amount playerA's minimum raise would be.
Consider my own example, with blinds at 100/200, after the flop:
Player A checks
Player B bets 500
Player C calls
Player D all in for 800
Action then folds round to player A.
My understanding is that player A can re raise but players B&C cannot unless player A does.
My question is, what is the minimum that player A can raise by in this situation, would it be...
To 1000 (500 more than player B's bet)
To 1300 (500 more that [player D's all in)
Or to 1100 (300 more than player D's all in)
Sorry for such a ramble.
Thanks
Lewis
-
I guess I'm not expressing the situation properly and please, correct me if I'm wrong. Before I try again; the last line in rule #31 is what I question; an all-in wager of less than a full raise (which the $490 wager of player C qualifies as because it would have to be a raise to $500) would not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. When you consider that player A did act first by checking. Why should he not be allowed to raise player B's initial wager of $250? Thanks for your response Nick C
Hey Nick: First off, these bet-reopening situations can be a little tricky. Here's how I'd look at this one:
1) The key is that the only thing that re-opens betting in NO LIMIT game is a full bet or raise. Anything less and you can only call it.
2) It doesn't matter how that full bet is reached. It could be by one better, or a series of all ins that TOTAL a full bet or raise.
3) In this case, we don't exactly know what the full minimum original bet is, but we know it has to be at least 250 because that's what B bet. Once B makes that 250 original bet, then a subsequent raise has to be at least 250. So, let's assert some values here and say we're at 125-250 on the blinds.
4) THIS BETTING ROUND starts with A checking.... If the action doesn't "build up" to at least a full minimum bet (250) by the time action gets back to A, he can only smooth call any all-in wager that's less than a full bet (per rule 31).
5) Now, A checks and B bets 250 (the full minimum for a 125-250 blind level). RIGHT THERE the betting for A is re-opened. 6) Player C goes all in for another 240 and we're up to 490 total to A. 7) A can call, raise, or fold... the action is re-opened because the total bet back to him is at least a full minimum. And in this case, either B's bet of 250 constitutes a full bet to re-open OR lets hypothesize that B checked and C went all-in for his $490... the $490 would also be in excess of a full bet and enough to re-open action to A & B. 7) Now, let's hypothesize and say B checks and C goes all-in for just 240 total, then that's not a full minimum bet, A & B have already acted, and neither of them can raise the 240, they can only smooth call.
-
Very interesting conversation:) And just to cause trouble... If player A wished to raise, then what would his minimum raise be? Would it be based on the under raise or player B's initial bet, or some mix of the two???
This has been bugging me for some time and now seems like a good time to ask:). Lewis
Hi Lewis. Great queston. First off, this is a NO-LIMIT game, that's critical. In No-Limit every bet or raise is considered a full autonomous action. It is not eligible to be "completed" as many limit structures are. So, in No-Limit we would have the minimum for the original example as follows:
1) A checks, B bets 250, C makes an "all-in wager" for 240 more, for a total $490.
2) The $490 is a "complete" bet (not a full bet, but a complete bet nonetheless). Because this is no-limit it is not subject to being "completed" to $500, which would be the minimum required for a raise if C had the chips.
3) SO, we start with 490 for A to call. If A wants to raise, he has to make at least a full minimum raise (which is 250 here), for a total to B of $740.
-
Mike,
This is where I'm lost, completely. In no-limit the raise of $240 does not reopen the betting because it is not a complete raise of the $250 required.I repeat the $240 raise is not a full raise I will not respond any further on this thread until this is resolved. Thanks for your response. There is no reason to write any more, all you have to do is go back and read what I've written several times already. Would a bet of $1,000 that was raised by an all-in player to $1,020. reopen the betting to the original bettor, I don't think so.
Nick C
-
Lewis,
to directly answer your question the minimum raise in your example would be 1300 total (minimum)
This would be constructed as B's bet of 500 + D's all-in for 800 total (300 more) + a minimum full raise of 500
Regards
Stuart
-
I am confused about what amount playerA's minimum raise would be. Consider my own example, with blinds at 100/200, after the flop:
Player A checks Player B bets 500 Player C calls Player D all in for 800 Action then folds round to player A.
My understanding is that player A can re raise but players B&C cannot unless player A does.
This is absolutely true for NO LIMIT and POT LIMIT poker as your example is structured (100/200 blinds with a player opening for 500). But be aware that the rules for limit poker vary, so note the specific minimums to re-open in any limit tournament you officiate. In some limit structures, a raise of at least HALF the minimum can re-open betting and in your example, a 800 is more than a half min-raise over a 500 initial bet, were it a limit game...
My question is, what is the minimum that player A can raise by in this situation, would it be...
To 1000 (500 more than player B's bet)
To 1300 (500 more that [player D's all in)
Or to 1100 (300 more than player D's all in)
In No-Limit or Pot Limit (as in your example) it would be 1300 as Stu Murray described. It's just good to be aware that the rules for min. bets/raises/re-opens/and completions in limit games may be different and should be clearly stipulated to avoid any misunderstandings.
-
Thank you all foryour replies, they are very helpful :)
Lewis
-
Hello to all,
I said that I wasn't going to respond to this question until I understood the meaning myself. I have to say that after a lengthy conversation with Dave Lamb, I understand the meaning of rule #31. I don't like it, but I now know how to explain it. I have to take this time to apologize to those of you that might have been misled or misinformed by my misinterpretation of this rule.
I have been using the ruling in our local jurisdiction in the Buffalo ,Niagara Falls area (Seneca Niagara Casino). The ruling they use is very simple for me to understand and that is what I have been preaching. I have no right to speak for a ruling that I did not agree with or understand until my conversation with Dave. For those of you that are interested, or come to our part of the country to play no-limit poker I would like to explain it to you. This is what they use in cash games.
No-limit
******Any undersized all-in wager is not considered a bet******Any undersized all-in raise is not recognized as a raise.*****
The wagers described above require players to call the all-n bet or raise (of course) to be eligible for any portion of the pot, but a raise is defined as 100% of the bet.
As far as rule #31 we did agree that it could use some "tweaking" and the TDA will look into possibly rewording it.
Nick C