PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Suggestions for New TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre 2017 Summit => Topic started by: MikeB on June 10, 2016, 11:12:25 AM
-
Is any clarifying language to Rule 44 (Re-Opening the Bet) needed to clarify situations where the min raise is reached by multiple short all-ins rather than one single min raise?
Such as:
"In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing a bet amount totaling at least a full raise when the action returns to him. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum".
"In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing a total bet that constitutes at least a full raise when the action returns to him. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum".
or, with more explanatory language in the rule itself:
"In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing at least a full raise when the action returns to him. The full raise may result from of a min raise by a single player or multiple players making short all-in wagers that total a min raise. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum.
-
Mike, I suggest wording that states what "does" versus "does not" reopen betting. For example:
In no-limit and pot limit games, betting is reopened for a player who has already acted provided they are facing a wager that is minimally a full raise over their previous wager. In limit games, betting is reopened if facing a wager that is minimally 50% of a full raise. After a player has acted, any wager that is a minimal raise can reopen betting to that player. This includes multiple short all-in wagers that result in a minimal raise.
-
Mike and Bill,
I can't tell you how important a change would be. I like all of the suggestions. however if we could somehow better define that the "short" all-in is NOT a full raise but is recognized as such for all-in players. I prefer this as opposed to our back and forth with the same comments from both sides.
Mike, I'll work on a suggestion or two and pass them along for your input.
Thanks for not dropping this important subject.
-
Mike I will add my suggestions to your prior post and see what you think. I will highlight my input in green.
"In no-limit and pot limit, an (increased bet) from an all-in (player) of less than a full raise (will) reopen betting for a player who has already acted if the amount equals 100% of the original bet. (A player who has "checked" on his turn to act may participate when action returns to him.) In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum".
-
I vote for the Mike B's third example. It is clear, concise and does not introduce any new terms/words that may require clarification.
'nuff said!!
Chet
-
Chet,
Forget the enough said. We're finally addressing a subject that has caused more troubling issues than anything on this forum. I also know of some rooms that don't use the TDA rules because of the no limit raise rules. If you don't want to discuss it any further, that's fine, but Mike posted this link specifically for some new suggestions to make our rules easier to understand. Contrary to what you and others may believe, I know exactly what the TDA rules are trying to say. Just trying to help others understand.
We have your vote for Mikes third example.
Chet, I have a question for you. You're first to act post flop...you check...the next player bets 10...the next player goes all-in for 14...action is back to you, what are your options?
-
Heres another proposed wording from another poster:
The rule says:
...but when added together they total a full raise and thus re-open the betting to “a player who is facing at least a full raise when the action returns”.
Could it be something like:
... “a player who is facing at least the amount of chips which would have been a full raise to his original bet/raise when the action returns”.
Yet another proposed wording change:
I recommend that the wording of the rule in 2017 be altered so that it includes the first sentence of RRoP and includes an example that makes it clear as in the case of Rule 44 Example 1 of TDA 2015.
-
Personally, I think that putting it in the perspective of the player with action clarifies it.
"A player may only raise if they have not acted in the betting round yet or when they are faced with a bet that is at least twice the amount of chips they have already bet in the same betting round."
Disregard any mention of how the bet got to that point.
-
What's wrong with 100%...we use 50% in the limit games. If the action returns to a player who has already wagered, he may raise if his bet is increased 100%. A player that has checked, prior to any bets is allowed to re-enter the round and even raise provided he is facing a valid bet.
-
I think you're still going to confuse people in multiple all-in situations with that wording. Doesn't specify that the increase can come via multiple all-ins in aggregate. Using "100%" is ok, but I think it works better with my wording.
-
Is any clarifying language to Rule 44 (Re-Opening the Bet) needed to clarify situations where the min raise is reached by multiple short all-ins rather than one single min raise?
My vote is a qualified "No"
As seen in the recent thread on this matter, much confusion is ultimately the end result of any rule wording that includes the aspects of multiple short all-ins amounting to a full raise which can reopen the betting.
On the contrary, my vote is a "Yes"
Rule 44 clarifying language in 2017 should be reduced to the core matter of the rule. For example:
For a player who has already acted, when action returns to them, the option to raise exists only when they are facing a bet not less than the minimum or a raise which, in no-limit and pot limit, must be a full-sized raise or larger. In limit, the raise faced must be at least 50% of a full raise.
As you know, there are several good examples of how the reopening raise can be accomplished. There are also good examples of all-in wagers that do not qualify as reopening raises. These are best presented in illustrations and not part of the concise wording in the rule.
-
I vote for the Mike B's third example. It is clear, concise and does not introduce any new terms/words that may require clarification.
'nuff said!!
Chet
Here's Mike B's third example.
"In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing at least a full raise when the action returns to him. The full raise may result from of a min raise by a single player or multiple players making short all-in wagers that total a min raise. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum.
Why is it so important to put the aspects of the all-in wagers in the rule? If we delete that from Mike's example - it makes more sense.
"In no-limit and pot limit, a wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted when the action returns to him. See Addendum."
Let's leave the multiple complications to the multiple examples in the addendum. Otherwise, a completely different format for the rules/procedures/illustrations may be needed so that everything is covered in one section of the document.
-
Because, I think what we are trying to get clarified, especially to us, "Ol' Folks", is that a series of "short" all-in's NONE of which individually qualify as a Raise (forget the term "legal") may cumulatively qualify as a Raise to a better who has already acted, provided the cumulative total is at least equal to the amount needed for a Raise.
The key words being "individually" and "cumulatively" in my opinion.
Hence my preference for the 3rd example.
Chet
-
Chet, the rule would be accurate in the shortened form. The multiple short all-in's is one way to create a raise and is important. Likewise, a single short all-in that does not reopen the betting is important. There are other worthwhile examples which are also important. But, including this information in the rules section makes it harder to understand. The Ol' Folks might have to read the Addendum too. :)
-
I agree with Bill. I believe it just confuses the matter to mention the short all-in situations, except in the addendum. A general rule that only details under what circumstance a player may raise, regardless of action by previous players will cover all bases. "A player may only raise if it his first action of the betting round or if the bet he is facing is at least double his current bet." Addendum: example of normal situation where all-in is large enough, normal situation where all-in is NOT large enough, example of multiple short all-ins where total bet is large enough, isn't large enough. Maybe you don't need all four, but a rule that is more general like the one I attempted above with specific cases in the addendum should answer all situational questions.
-
Gentlemen:
TDA #43 a) A raise must be at least equal to the largest previous bet or raise. This rule applies to all forms of poker.
b) Limit poker shall restrict the amount based on the structure of the event. see addendum for explanation.
c) No Limit will allow, up to, an all-in wager to any player facing a qualifying bet or check. Because of the broad range of possible raise amounts...please refer to addendum.
d) Pot Limit will restrict the maximum allowable raise based on the size of the pot and the "string" of bets you are facing. See addendum.
e) Because of the varied, and differing raise rules involving all-in players, please refer to the addendum for clarification between, Limit, No Limit and Pot Limit.
-
Suggestions for TDA #44 Re-opening the betting:
TDA #44 a) Limit poker: limit poker has a restriction to the allowable amount and number of raises for a specific betting round. This will be based on the type of game (i.e. Stud, Hold-em, Omaha, Draw, etc.) and the structure of the game being played.
b) At Limit Poker: If a "short" all-in wager is introduced, the half the bet rule will be used. See addendum for full explanation.
c) No Limit Poker: No Limit Poker shall have no restrictions on the maximum allowable wager, or the number of raises so long as you have not waived your right by checking on your initial turn to act, and the action was not re-opened to you.
d) The question of when bets and raises are re-opened will be further explained in the addendum...
e) Pot Limit Poker: Pot Limit will restrict the maximum amount of any bet or raise based on the size of the pot and the bet you are facing. Because Pot Limit has no limit to the number of raises it is generally grouped together with No Limit. However, the maximum allowable bet could restrict players from going "all-in." See addendum.
f) Special note: Any player, (not all-in) that places an incorrect amount of chips into the pot without prior verbal declaration, shall have his amount corrected based on a 50% rule. Less than 50% shall be reduced to the minimal allowable bet and 50% or more shall be corrected to the minimal allowable raise.
-
Chet, the rule would be completely accurate in the shortened form. The multiple short all-in's is one way to create a raise and is important. Likewise, a single short all-in that does not reopen the betting is important. There are other worthwhile examples which are also important. But, including this information in the rules section makes it harder to understand. The Ol' Folks might have to read the Addendum too. :)
This whole thread is making my head hurt :o
I have re-read the whole thread and re-read the rule as it's written now. To be honest, I think the current wording is fine. If anything, I would just add a clarifying statement as to what "full raise" means. Something like, In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing a total bet that constitutes at least a full raise (at least double the amount that the player already bet in the current betting round) when the action returns to him.
But, like I said, I think the rule is fine as-is. I can read that rule, apply it to any situation, and get the ruling. If Player A facing a full raise? Yes? Then he can raise. No? Then he can only call/fold. To apply the rule, there is no reason to look back at previous players' actions. Just need to look at how much the player has already bet (X) and how much more he is facing (Y). If X > Y, not reopened. If X <= Y, reopened.
-
Just finished reading the whole thread too :o, I am good with Mike's 1st option on the opening thread:
"In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing a bet amount totaling at least a full raise when the action returns to him. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum".
-
Is there anything inaccurate about my last two suggestions?
My biggest problem with the current raise rule is when the first to act checks...in my opinion he has acted and is deprived of a check raise option, because our rule does not say anything about a "short" all-in bet, it mentions an all-in raise. Without a prior bet (which would re-open the betting to the checked player) a raise would not be possible. That's it I'm not trying to change any TDA rule, just make it easier to explain.
-
Are you saying that, say, on the river, SB checks, BB goes all in for any amount, UTG calls... then SB can't raise because there is no "all-in raise" to re-open the betting, just an "all-in bet"?
Maybe I am misunderstanding your point... but the rulebook says an "all-in wager" which covers a bet or raised all-in. The only reason SB wouldn't be able to raise is if BB's all-in was less than a big blind (minimum legal bet above the amount he has put in, which is 0)
-
The rule says: an all-in wager of less than a full raise...it does not say less than a full bet. So a bet was necessary before the all-in could raise...correct? To me, it implies that because I checked (acted) I have no right to raise.
All I know is, in all the years I've worked in poker I've never had a single problem with raises in limit games...only no limit :(. I don't even want to get into pot limit. They should all be separated (limit...no-limit...&...pot limit) because they are all different.
About 4 years ago, while conferring with Chuck Ferry regarding these very raise rules, he agreed with me 100% that there was definitely something wrong with the wording. Mr Ferry was living in Manila at the time of our first correspondence
Mike B, You might find this interesting. I know you are familiar with this author.
----- Original Message -----
From: CRFERRY@aol.com
To: nickscasinopoker@comf5.com
Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2012 6:11:02 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Happy New Year
hi Nick and have a happy 2012
we moved from Manila to a lot smaller island and safer too. they have a nice small poker room here.
good luck on the rules it has been a life long goal of mine to get the rules the same.
chuck
In a message dated 1/1/2012 12:55:46 P.M. China Standard Time, nickscasinopoker@comf5.com writes:
Hello Chuck,
I hope all is well with you and you were not affected by the terrible events in Manila. Let me know what you're doing these days. I'm still fighting to get the rules back to where they belong. I still use your books as reference.
Nick Ciavarella
I have some really interesting conversations with Chuck. I'm sorry to say that I have not been in touch with him in a very long time. I hope he is well.
-
Forgive me if this has been covered. I've been glossing over these discussions.
The rule says: an all-in wager of less than a full raise...it does not say less than a full bet
What this means is, if players check, then a player goes all in for less than one BB, if there are no raises by players who have not acted, the players who checked can only call or fold.
-
As I posted earlier, I believe we should rely largely upon examples in the illustrations section to clarify the numerous aspects of bets, raises, and all-ins that are short of a minimum bet or full raise. That said, if most believe that wording should be changed in the TDA rules, then I encourage you to consider very closely the salient points made in the following RRoP rules:
- All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager.
- A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise.
- Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to 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 find no need to improve upon the language that Mr. Robert Ciaffone has chosen in these rules. These could either be incorporated into the TDA existing rules or added to a new rule that pertains directly to Short All-Ins.
-
Bill,
I do agree that RRoP are more suited for the TDA, even though they are primarily for cash games. I do want to point out the difference:
I'd stop some of my grumbling if we used this. :D
A player who has already acted and is not facing a full size wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise.
I still don't care much for the verbiage about the multiple all-in wagers...but, one step at a time. :)
-
Dave, I see what you are saying about the phrase "less than a full raise" since an all-in bet isn't necessarily an all-in raise. Would changing it to "less than a full raise or bet" work? Otherwise, I think the wording is fine. Definitely would be against getting into specifics (multiple short all-ins) in the rule itself. That's what the addendum is for.
Bottom line is the rule is written perfectly and should not cause any confusion (other than the word "raise") that can't be figured out using the addendum (and I would argue that it shouldn't even be necessary to look at the addendum if you read the rule carefully).
-
Gregg,
How can you say that the current rule is better than the suggested rule from Robert's Rules? You told Dave "I understand what you are saying about the phrase "less than a full raise" yet you are still satisfied without change.
You also said: would changing it to "less than a full raise or bet" work?" The answer is YES
And it would be even better if it were "less than a full bet or raise"
-
Nick,
As my last post said I agree with making no changes to the rule other than the word "raise" in that instance. Also, I just realized I called you Dave in that post. My bad. But yeah, I agree with keeping the rule and just change "raise" to "bet or raise" or "raise or bet".
Gregg
-
Gregg,
It would be a small step in the right direction. Still don't know why not one person addressed my earlier posts #'s15 & 16. :o
-
"full bet" & "full raise" can confuse because different interpretations are possible.
May it helps to find some words like "min. 100% of..." or "amount of chips".
-
Another feature or RRoP is the glossary. It helps us understand the rules that use these terms within the document. Here is a subset that pertains to the conversation in this thread:
--- From RRoP version 11 ---
GLOSSARY
ACTION: A fold, check, call, bet, or raise. For certain situations, doing something formally connected with the game that conveys information about your hand may also be considered as having taken action. Examples would be showing your cards at the end of the hand, or indicating the number of cards you are taking at draw.
ALL-IN: When you have put all of your playable money and chips into the pot during the course of a hand, you are said to be all-in.
BET: (1) The act of making a wager before anyone else on a betting round. (2)The chips used by a player to bet, call, or raise.
CHECK: To waive the right to initiate the betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates the betting.
CHECK-RAISE: To waive the right to bet until a bet has been made by an opponent, and then to increase the bet by at least an equal amount when it is your turn to act.
FOLD: To throw a hand away and relinquish all interest in a pot.
RAISE: To increase the amount of a previous wager. This increase must meet certain specifications, depending on the game, to reopen the betting and count toward a limit on the number of raises allowed.
RERAISE: To raise someone’s raise.
WAGER: (1) To bet or raise. (2) The chips used for betting or raising.
--- End RRoP ---
So, using these terms and meanings, it is easy to see how an all-in can be:
- a wager, either a bet or raise
- a raise that increases the amount of a previous wager
- a raise, that in some cases (not all), meets the specifications required to reopen the betting
RRoP and many others distinguish, very succinctly, these raises as either short or full. Of course, some all-in bets are not raises at all.
-
Stef0111,
I've been lobbying for a 100% rule for a long time. With support from others, maybe we can convince our rulemakers to consider using a percentage...we already use it for limit.
No Limit
It is possible for an all-in player, with less than the required amount (if he were not all-in), to re-open the betting to a player who has already acted. If the all-in amount equals at least 100% of the largest bet or raise on the current betting round.
Or
When facing a short wager (action only) from an all-in player, a full raise must be made in order to re-open the betting. The exception is when an all-in players bet equals at least 100% of the largest bet or largest raise of the current betting round.
BillM,
I was typing when you posted: Note that the All-in is not defined as a raise in the RRoP Glossary. What do you think?
-
I like the idea of using wager to encompass bet and raise (per RRoP definition), but I am afraid that a year from now we would then have the discussion on "are they taking raise, bet?" and would start a new set of discussion on how we should use raise or bet...
-
Max,
That's pretty interesting because that is one of the issues I have with the current rule. The fact that a short all-in wager is much different from a short all-in raise. In order to raise, there must first be a bet! That's what separates our rule from Robert's Rules.
I remember being told that an all-in should not be recognized as a raise, if it is short. It was to be considered "action only." That's another issue that I'd rather not discuss right now. One pain in the butt topic at a time! ;D
-
I have to say that I have not seen a thread like this in a long time, but I think that healthy discussion is great, maybe we can have an agreement by the next Vegas meeting in a year...
-
Note that the All-in is not defined as a raise in the RRoP Glossary.
True, because not all-in's are raises.
SB $10 and BB $20. UTG can be:
- all-in for $40 or more ----> full raise.
- all-in for $21 thru $39 ---> short all-in. This is still a raise according to RRoP and the rest of the world. But it is short of a full raise.
- all-in for $20 -------------> call.
- all-in for $1 thru $19 ----> all-in for less. It is less than a call.
-
Bill,
All-in wagers are not raises unless they are 100% of the largest bet or largest raise the all-in player is facing. I don't agree with your wording on a couple of your examples.
I may have overlooked something but I am unable to see any reference of an all-in wager being a raise unless it is in limit poker where the 50% rule is used.
I once wrote the definition of a raise from Websters Dictionary when we had a similar discussion a few years ago. An increase in any amount would qualify, but not in no limit poker.
-
All-in wagers are not raises unless they are 100% of the largest bet or largest raise the all-in player is facing. I don't agree with your wording on a couple of your examples.
Nick, I fully realize that you disagree with me and Bob Ciaffone. But, we will have to agree to disagree. Mr. Ciaffone doesn't get it wrong very often, as can be seen when one reads the various versions of RRoP over the years. He didn't get it wrong here either. He wouldn't have omitted the exception that you try to make if it existed. Please accept the written evidence from one of the leading authorities.
As RRoP says in regard to the raise (an increase to the previous wager) - This increase must meet certain specifications, depending on the game, to reopen the betting and count toward a limit on the number of raises allowed. This doesn't support your notion that a short all-in is not a raise. To the contrary, it says that the short all-in raise might not make a full raise (in no-limit and pot limit) or a 50% raise (in limit), which is required to reopen the betting. In all cases, if it (the short all-in) is an increase over the previous wager IT IS A RAISE!
-
Bill I don't want to argue with you. A short all-in does not qualify as a raise that would re-open the betting unless it is 100% of the original bet. I think we are in agreement that a slight change in the current rule would be better than what we (the TDA) are currently using. You are correct about Mr Ciaffone, so why not use his rule from Robert's Rules, instead of ours?
We are heading in the right direction, let's see if we can make the rule easier for everyone to understand. Keep coming with your suggestions and I'll quit repeating myself over and over. We keep going like this and Mike will shut this thread down, too!
The rule needs something, let's get something ready for the 2017 Summit. The subject is: clarifying language needed on short all-ins totalling a full raise. We need to change the language. I've made my suggestions, so I'll sit back for a while and see what else some others might come up with.
Thanks for listening.
-
Here is an example of on how the 2017 Illustration might be changed to enhance clarification on the short all-ins issue:
Rule 44: Reopening the Bet
Example 1
This example demonstrates how multiple all-in bets, each to small to be considered a full raise over the most recent bet, can result in a full sized raise over an earlier bet.
Initial Action
NLHE with the blinds at 50-100. The following action occurs post flop:
Alice — opens with a min-bet of 100 and has chips behind
Bob — goes all-in for a total of 125
Charlie — calls the 125 and has chips behind
David — goes all-in for a total of 200
Erin -- calls 200 and has chips behind
Action Returns
When action returns to Alice, she is facing the 200 wager. Since her opening bet was 100, she is now facing a full raise of an additional 100. Therefore, betting is reopened for Alice who can now fold, call, or raise.
Note, Bob’s raise was not a full raise over Alice’s bet. His raise to 125 only increased the current wager by 25. However, David’s raise to 200 is a full raise to Alice, but is not a full raise to either Bob or Charlie. Therefore, betting is reopened to Alice by virtue of David’s short all-in raise, the second such short all-in in this series. Notice, that when we are considering reopening the bet to Alice, there is no requirement for David’s raise to be a considered a full raise to any of the other players in the hand.
The following shows two additional options on how action might continue from this point.
- Continuing the Action with Alice Calling
If Alice chooses to call the 200 by putting another 100 into the pot:
Charlie is now facing the 200 bet which is only a 75 raise over his previous 125 calling wager. Therefore, betting is not reopened to Charlie and he cannot raise. Charlie can either fold or call the 200 by putting another 75 into the pot.
- Continuation with Alice Raising
If Alice raises all-in for an additional 150:
Charlie is now facing a wager of 250, which is a full raise of 125 over his previous wager. Therefore, betting is reopened to Charlie who can fold, call, or raise. If Charlie decides to fold or call, betting would not be reopened to Erin, who then must either fold or call.
Summary
When a player, who has previously acted, is facing a full raise, betting is reopened and they may fold, call, or raise. Multiple all-in wagers, each to small to qualify as a full raise over the preceding bet, can result in a full raise over an earlier bet.
None of the above players made a full raise to the wager they were facing.
- After Alice's 100 bet, the minimum full raise would be an additional 100, for a minimum total bet of 200.
- Bob's all-in raise to 125 is only a 25 raise. It failed to make a full raise of 100 for a total bet of 200.
- Charlie only called the 125. However, had he wanted to raise, it would need to be at least 100 on top of the 125.
- David's all-in raise to 200 was only a raise of 75. Had he made a full 100 raise, the bet would have been at least 225. However, as shown, it does result in a full raise of 100 back to Alice. Bob's 25 raise and David's 75 raise has resulted in the 100 raise to Alice.
- Erin only called the 200. However, had she wanted to raise, it would need to be at least 100 more, for a bet totaling at least 300.
Regards,
B~
-
Looks good, but... (and you KNEW there'd be a 'but'.)
I'd add a line stating that if Charlie calls, Erin's options are only call or fold.
I'd also like to indicate at each step, if a raise is an option what a minimum raise would be. That tends to add to the confusion.
-
Bill,
If I may, this is where we disagree, or where I believe we need clarification. I'll copy your post and highlight my suggestions in red.
Here goes:
Rule 44: Reopening the Bet
Example 1
This example demonstrates how multiple all-in bets, each to small to be considered a full raise over the most recent bet, can result in a full sized raise over an earlier bet.
Initial Action
NLHE with the blinds at 50-100. The following action occurs post flop:
Alice — opens with a min-bet of 100 and has chips behind
Bob — goes all-in for a total of 125
Charlie — calls the 125 and has chips behind (this is where I want you to state the required amount for a full raise if Charlie were to raise)
David — goes all-in for a total of 200 (the one and only player that raised Alice's bet 100%)
Erin -- calls 200 and has chips behind
Action Returns
When action returns to Alice, she is facing the 200 wager. Since her opening bet was 100, she is now facing a full raise of an additional 100. Therefore, betting is reopened for Alice who can now fold, call, or raise. (This is poker 101, but thank you for the explanation.)
Note, Bob’s raise was not a full raise over Alice’s bet. His raise (it's not a raise...it's a short all-in wager) to 125 only increased the current wager by 25. However, David’s raise to 200 is a full raise to Alice, but is not a full raise to either Bob or Charlie. Therefore, betting is reopened to Alice by virtue of David’s short all-in raise, the second such short all-in in this series. Notice, that when we are considering reopening the bet to Alice, there is no requirement for David’s raise to be a considered a full raise to any of the other players in the hand.
The following shows two additional options on how action might continue from this point.
Continuing the Action with Alice Calling
If Alice chooses to call the 200 by putting another 100 into the pot:
Charlie is now facing the 200 bet which is only a 75 raise over his previous 125 calling wager. Therefore, betting is not reopened to Charlie and he cannot raise. Charlie can either fold or call the 200 by putting another 75 into the pot.
Continuation with Alice Raising
If Alice raises all-in for an additional 150:
Charlie is now facing a wager of 250, which is a full raise of 125 over his previous wager. Therefore, betting is reopened to Charlie who can fold, call, or raise.
Summary
When a player, who has previously acted, is facing a full raise, betting is reopened and they may fold, call, or raise. Multiple all-in wagers, each to small to qualify as a full raise over the preceding bet, can result in a full raise over an earlier bet. (this multiple part is meaningless, lets put Bob all-in for 200...his single bet that doubled Alice's opening bet is what re-opens the betting, it has nothing to do with any combination or multiple all-in's from others. Your examples always are explained with an increase in all-in's...all-in for 14...all-in for 16...all-in for 19...if someone does not go all-in for at least 100% the betting is not re-opened. Period!)
In your example above, we have four possible situations that Charlie would face following Bob's all-in of 125.
a) Charlie may fold.
b) Charlie may call 125
c) Charlie may raise if he has enough which is a minimum of 100 more for a total of 225.
d) Charlie may go all-in for less than the required amount of 225. However, if his all-in wager totals 200 to 224, it will still re-open the betting to Alice because it is at least 100% of her opening bet!
That's it...if your still confused, or you think I've miss-stated something, I'd like to hear about it. Confusion stems from calling a short all-in a full raise when it is not. Alice bets 100, Bob all-in for 125, Charlie all-in for 201. Not really the required amount, UNLESS HE IS ALL_IN!!!!!
-
Nick, this will be the last time that I try to explain to you where you are wrong.
The whole point of the rule that RRoP makes and the whole point of this thread is how multiple short all-ins result in a full raise. You fail to comprehend that for two reasons:
1) you refuse to see Bob's increase of 25 as a raise - even though RRoP clearly says any increase is a raise
2) you say David's the one and only player that raised Alice's bet 100%
Obviously, there is nothing more that can be said to help you past your first mistake. Your second mistake is quite simple and you should be able to overcome it. If Bob didn't raise all-in - lets say he folded - then lets say Charlie calls Alice - then David goes all-in for a total of 200. YOU ARE RIGHT! David's bet resulted in a full raise to Alice! Just like it did in my scenario! Nobody is disagreeing with you here. The second mistake that you are having is merely this - The whole point is it ALSO OCCURS with short all-ins. If David's all-in bet happens without Bob's all-in then there isn't multiple short all-ins to talk about. In fact, there isn't even a single SHORT all-in to talk about.
I'm sorry that you cannot grasp these very simple points.
-
Bill,
I'm sorry you don't address the fact that whenever an intervening all-in wager is made, that the proper full raise to the next player with enough chips, wishing to raise must increase the bet by the size of the biggest bet he is facing.
In our simple example:
Alice bets 100, Bob goes all-in for 125, Charlie must raise to 225 minimum, UNLESS HE IS ALL-IN. That's it.
You say I don't understand but was I wrong on any examples?
Sorry, it's not that I don't understand your simple explanation...the fact remains, it's not worded correctly.
I'm getting sick of reading this myself...I'm done!...for now. ;D
-
Looks good, but... (and you KNEW there'd be a 'but'.)
I'd add a line stating that if Charlie calls, Erin's options are only call or fold.
I'd also like to indicate at each step, if a raise is an option what a minimum raise would be. That tends to add to the confusion.
Dave, I've edited the above example to include Erin's options if Charlie calls. I didn't include the changes to the minimum raise amounts along the way, for the very reason you pointed out - it would only add to the confusion. However, I did add this information into the summary. Thanks for the suggestions.
-
Did you edit this final part? I don't remember reading the amounts needed for a raise before.
- After Alice's 100 bet, the minimum full raise would be an additional 100, for a minimum total bet of 200.
- Bob's all-in raise to 125 failed to make a full raise of 200.
- Charlie only called the 125. However, had he wanted to raise, it would need to be at least 100 on top of the 125.
- David's all-in raise to 200 was less than a full raise of 225. However, as shown, it does result in a full raise of 200 back to Alice.
- Erin only called the 200. However, had she wanted to raise, it would need to be at least 200 more, for a bet totaling at least 400.
Erin's raise option has me scratching my head. And it helps me illustrate why I said in my prior post that it can be confusing.
I get how if David had more chips then a min raise would be the 125 call plus the previous bet of 100 for a total of 225.
But what about Erin's raise option? I'm thinking 200 for the call plus 100 which is the previous biggest bet/raise, for a total of 300. Or is it 200 plus the total combined raise of 125 for a total of 325? I totally don't get how it would be 400.
Let's say David had chips enough to make that full raise to 225. Wouldn't Erin's raise option be 225 plus the full 125 raise that David's bet represents, for a total of 350?
-
Sorry Dave, that was an error on my part. Please see the above correction. You were right, the minimum raise hasn't changed since Alice's bet. Thanks again.
-
Sorry for adding to the confusion with my mistake.
Did you edit this final part? I don't remember reading the amounts needed for a raise before.
Yes, I added it per your suggestion.
Erin's raise option has me scratching my head. And it helps me illustrate why I said in
my prior post that it can be confusing.
I get how if David had more chips then a min raise would be the 125 call plus the previous bet of 100 for a total of 225.
But what about Erin's raise option? I'm thinking 200 for the call plus 100 which is the previous biggest bet/raise, for a total of 300.
You are correct. The minimum raise is still 100.
Or is it 200 plus the total combined raise of 125 for a total of 325?
No, the largest bet or raise is still Alice's 100. Bob's raise is only 25 over Alice's initial 100 bet. So Bob's raise doesn't affect the minimum.
I totally don't get how it would be 400.
The 400 was incorrect due to an error on my part.
Let's say David had chips enough to make that full raise to 225. Wouldn't Erin's raise option be 225 plus the full 125 raise that David's bet represents, for a total of 350?
No, in this case Erin's raise option would be 225 plus another 100 for 325. The minimum raise still hasn't changed.
Where Rule 43 says:
A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round.
The confusion might come from the largest prior bet or raise phrase.
It means that a raise in the current betting round must be at least equal to the largest of either:
a) the amount of the initial bet in the round
b) the largest amount raised in any of the previous raises made in the round
It does not mean the largest bet made in the round, unless it happens to be the initial bet. It never means the largest total bet created by a raise.
-
Sorry Dave, that was an error on my part. Please see the above correction. You were right, the minimum raise hasn't changed since Alice's bet. Thanks again.
No problem. Actually, I'm glad there was your error induced confusion. It helps point out how easy it is to screw this up. And glad to see I was correct about my min raise amounts.
For what it's worth, in the pub poker league where I deal, to keep things simple, a min raise is double the call amount regardless of how the call amount got there. But reopening the option still follows TDA rules.