PokerTDA

POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: BROOKS on February 28, 2018, 10:28:43 PM

Title: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BROOKS on February 28, 2018, 10:28:43 PM
Been having some disagreements and would like to hear what you guys say in this situation:
A bets 400
B all in 500
C all in 650
D all in 850
E calls 850
Now we all know that A can raise, because he is facing a Full raise. Needs to be facing at least 400 more and it's 450 more.
If A wants to raise, what's the minimum he can raise to?
400 more or 450 more?
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: GreggPath on March 01, 2018, 06:59:49 AM
Been having some disagreements and would like to hear what you guys say in this situation:
A bets 400
B all in 500
C all in 650
D all in 850
E calls 850
Now we all know that A can raise, because he is facing a Full raise. Needs to be facing at least 400 more and it's 450 more.
If A wants to raise, what's the minimum he can raise to?
400 more or 450 more?

He is facing a cumulative raise of 450 so he can raise to 1300 (450 more) or more.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Max D on March 01, 2018, 02:06:18 PM
Agreeing with Greg,  minimum raise is 850-400=450, for a total of 850+450=1,300 or more.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BROOKS on March 01, 2018, 06:44:53 PM
Thank you guys! I knew I was right lol
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BROOKS on March 02, 2018, 12:09:06 AM
Ok Sorry, I'm still having some disagreements

So what's your take on this:

A bets 300
B all in 400
C min raises to 700
If A wants to raise, what is the minimum amount he can raise to?

There are 2 groups of people that have differing opinions. For simplicity's sake well call them Boys and Girls

Boys say 400 more and argue that A is facing a raise of 400 more when it gets to him. He has a 300 bet, and its now 700 to call

Girls say 300 more and argue that the last legal raise amount was 300
If there were a player D, he would have to raise by at least 300. So why would it be different for A?


Girls argue that it is a raise of 100 and a raise of 300 after. Not one raise of 400
Girls say "how much more" it is to A is irrelevant
Reasoning is an example like this
A bets 200
B all in 600
C all in 950
D raise to 2000
The last legal raise amount was 1050 by D
So A must raise by at least 1050
But it is actually 1800 more for A to call. So he is facing 1800 more, but he doesn't have to raise by 1800, just 1050 - the last legal raise

I've gone through all of the examples in the TDA and the Addendum and this issue is not addressed.
Can only find a few examples about multiple short all ins adding up to equal a full raise to reopen the betting
Nothing about a short all in and then a valid raise and what that means for the original bettor

Who's right? Girls or Boys?

On a side note regarding original post
A bets 400
B all in 500
C all in 650
D all in 850
E calls 850
We determined that A must raise by at least 450
At what point do we stop adding up all the short all ins to determine A's min raise?
What if it continued...
F all in 1000
G all in 1200
H calls 1200
Whats the min amount A can raise now? There was never a legal raise amount of 400. So do we add up all the short all ins, and A must raise by 800?
At any point, if players E thru H weren't all in, they would be required to raise by at least 400. Why would it be different for A?
Do all those short all ins end up counting as one big raise - since there was no "legal" raise?
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BillM16 on March 02, 2018, 08:43:08 AM
I agree with the girls. 

There are two TDA rules that apply:

46: Raise Amounts
A: A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round.

47: Re-Opening the Bet
In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager (or multiple short all-ins) totaling less than a full bet or raise does not reopen betting for players who have already acted and are not facing at least a full bet or raise when the action returns to them.


Regarding the OP:

Player A can fold, call, or raise. The minimum raise amount is 400.  Player A can min-raise to a total bet of 1250.

IMPORTANT NOTE:  Multiple short all-ins ARE NOT used to determine the minimum raise amount.  They ARE used to determine whether or not the betting is reopened. 

As the Illustrations show, the current bet amount total is often quite different than the full-raise amount (i.e., the largest amount bet or raised in the current betting round).  A full raise is made by wagering an amount that is equal to the sum of the total current bet and the existing full-raise amount. 

As shown, multiple short all-ins potentially result in reopening the betting to a player who has previously acted, but they do not alter the amount of a full-raise to the previous player.

Only a subsequent raise greater than the previous player's bet or raise would increase the full-raise amount to that player.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BROOKS on March 02, 2018, 04:18:03 PM
Thanks Bill.
Girls vs boys didn't seem that difficult for me. I was on team girls
The issue were having now is what is the min raise when there hasn't been a "legal" Raise?

A bets 400
B all in 700
C all in 1050
D calls 1050

Yes its clear the betting has been reopened for A - he is facing a Full raise.
The confusion is about minimum raises after multiple short all ins (and there hasn't been a legal raise yet?) 
If D had wanted to raise on top of the 1050, would he just be required to make a legal raise of 400 more, since no legal raise has happened yet?
Or do we say D needs to raise 650 more because it's 650 more than A's bet?
Same thing for A, if D calls, does A have to raise by 650, or just make a legal raise of 400

Another one
A 400
B all in 500
C all in 700
D raises by 500 to 1200
A needs to raise by at least 500 because that was the last legal raise right?
A doesn't have to raise by 800 (difference between D and A)
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 02, 2018, 05:18:48 PM
Hello Brooks,

 Your first example I say you are correct with the raise amount of 650.

 Your next example, I believe is incorrect. I believe that the min raise to A is 800 more. The confusion comes from looking at D raising 500 when he's not. The two preceding bets were not enough (400) so the min raise would be based on the largest bet, or raise which was 400.So...D did not raise 500 as you stated, he raised 800. That's the way I see it. I've been wrong before ;D so wait for another confirmation or two.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 02, 2018, 07:35:52 PM
Bill,
 I don't understand that in the second example you are calling Player C's 1200 only a 500 raise? Can someone explain?
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BillM16 on March 02, 2018, 08:45:34 PM
Bill,
 I don't understand that in the second example you are calling Player C's 1200 only a 500 raise? Can someone explain?

Nick,

In Brook's second example above, player C called and player D raised 500.  I'm not sure why you are confused.  ???
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BROOKS on March 03, 2018, 05:19:56 AM
A 400
B all in 500
C all in 700
D raises to 1200 (a raise of 500?)


Does the next player need to raise by at least 500, or by at least 800?

Well this is exactly the predicament

Nick thinks it was a raise of 800 and Bill thinks its a raise of 500

I wanna know whats right?!?!?


What if combined, the 2 short all ins equaled a full raise?

A bets 400
B all in 650
C all in 850
D
combined, these 2 all ins have made a full raise
Does that mean that D needs to raise by at least 450, or since no "legal" raise has happened yet,  D needs to raise by at least 400 - the last legal bet?
Whatever we decide D's options are, they should be the same for A if D calls.
We said wayyyy back in the beginning of this thread, that if D calls, then A would have to raise by 450.
So if that is the case, then why would it be any different for D?

There has to be an answer somewhere?!?!

TDA only talks about multiple short all ins in regards to the betting being reopened. There is no mention of what the next min raise should be
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 03, 2018, 09:47:25 AM
Bill,

 You are incorrect. In your example:
NLHE 100-200, Post Flop to minimize confusion:

Ann: Bets 200
Bob: Calls 200
Chris: All-In for 100
Deb: All-In for 100
Evan: All-In for 100
Fawn: All-In for 100
Gus: All-In for 100
Ivan: All-In for 100

Ann is now facing a bet of 1000. How do you see Ann facing a 1000 bet? She has no option at all because she has already bet and there was no raise. I've disputed the way the rule is written in the TDA for this very reason. You do not add up short bets in no limit. The only multiple short all-ins will effect a bet amount is in a pot limit game when the trail is increased with each wager.
I did not read any further. We need to clear this up one issue at a time.

Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BillM16 on March 03, 2018, 09:50:37 AM
Nick,

Thanks, I don't know how I got off on the wrong track, but I sure did.  I've deleted my errant posts.

Here is the corrected scenario.

Ann bets 200.
Bob calls 200.
Chris goes all-in for 100 more - 300.
Deb goes all-in for 100 more - 400.
Evan goes all-in for 100 more - 500.
Fawn goes all-in for 100 more - 600.
Gus goes all-in for 100 more - 700.
Ivan goes ll-in for 100 more - 800.

The bet is 800 to Ann, 600 over her initial 200 opening bet. That is tantamount to a full raise to Ann, even though none of the players actually made an individual full raise.  So, betting is reopened to Ann.

Two simple rules for short all-in raises.
#1 They do not increase the legal size of the full bet or raise.
#2 They do increase the amount of the bet that one might face.

Two simple rules for raises.
#1 The legal size of a full raise is never altered by a short all-in.
#2 The legal size of a full raise can only be altered to a larger size by an individual making a full raise that is a larger size.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 03, 2018, 10:22:15 AM
Bill,

 Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to go over everything. I'll get back to you later if you'd like. For now, I want to point out what I see as a mistake. You said that it was 800 to Ann.  Actually, it's 600 to Ann...correct?
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BillM16 on March 04, 2018, 08:15:25 AM
A 400
B all in 500
C all in 700
D raises to 1200 (a raise of 500?)


Does the next player need to raise by at least 500, or by at least 800?

Well this is exactly the predicament

Nick thinks it was a raise of 800 and Bill thinks its a raise of 500

I wanna know whats right?!?!?

Brooks,

Here is how I analyze your scenario:

Player A:     Made an opening bet for 400. 
                  This establishes the legal size of a full raise as 400.

Player B:     Made an all-in wager for 500.
                  This raise of 100 is short of the full raise amount.  Short raises are only allowed when a player is all-in.
                  There is now 900 in the pot.

Player C:    Made an all-in wager for 700.
                 This raise of 200 is short of the full raise amount.  The short raise is allowed as the player is all-in.
                 There is now 1100 in the pot.

Player D:    Makes the 1200 bet.  That is a full raise of 500. 
                 The 500 raise is larger than the previous legal raise of 400, so now 500 is the legal full raise.
                 There is now 1600 in the pot.

Player A:    Is facing a bet of 1200. 
                 The largest bet or raise at the time that Player A had last acted was 400.
                 Player A is facing a bet that is a full raise over their last bet.  Therefore, betting is reopened.
                 Player A can fold. 
                 Or, player A can call the 1200 by adding another 800 to the previous 400 bet. 
                 Or, player A can raise by calling the 1200 and raising at least 500 more. 
                 A minimum full raise bet would be 1700, which is 1300 more that the original 400 bet.

What if combined, the 2 short all ins equaled a full raise?

A bets 400
B all in 650
C all in 850
D
combined, these 2 all ins have made a full raise
Does that mean that D needs to raise by at least 450, or since no "legal" raise has happened yet,  D needs to raise by at least 400 - the last legal bet?

Whatever we decide D's options are, they should be the same for A if D calls.

Brooks,

Here is how I analyze your scenario:

Player A:     Made an opening bet for 400. 
                  This establishes the legal size of a full raise as 400.

Player B:     Made an all-in wager for 650.
                  This raise of 250 is short of the full raise amount.  Short raises are only allowed when a player is all-in.
                  There is now 650 in the pot.

Player C:    Made an all-in wager for 850.
                 This raise of 200 is short of the full raise amount.  The short raise is allowed as the player is all-in.
                 There is now 850 in the pot.

Player D:   Hasn't acted previously and can fold, call, or raise.
                To make a call is 850.
                To make a raise is a minimum of 1250.  The 850 calling amount, plus a full raise of 400.

Player A:   If player D folded, player A would be facing a bet of 850.
                If player D min-raise to 1250, player A would be facing a bet of 1250.
                If player D could have raise to a larger amount, like 1500.
                If player A is facing a bet of 850 or 1250, betting is reopened and the legal raise amount is still 400. (see analysis above)
                If player A is facing a bet of 1500, then Player D also changed the legal full raise amount to 650. Etc.,
[/quote]

We said wayyyy back in the beginning of this thread, that if D calls, then A would have to raise by 450.
So if that is the case, then why would it be any different for D?

That was incorrect, player A would need to raise only 400 - not 450.
There has to be an answer somewhere?!?!

The answer is above.

TDA only talks about multiple short all ins in regards to the betting being reopened. There is no mention of what the next min raise should be

This is because they are two separate issues.  Short raises (only possible when all-in) do not affect the size of a legal minimum full raise.  See my other posts.  Short all-ins might only effect the reopening a betting.

Some may wonder why TDA Rule #48 Re-Opening the Bet, allows for short all-in wagers to accumulate into a total bet that is tantamount to a full raise.  But yet, the short all-in wagers do not accumulate with the previous bet or raise in a way that increases the minimum raise amount.  I think this make perfect sense, but yet I see others have trouble separating this two issues.  Here is my simple reasoning.

Player A: Opens for 200.
Player B: Calls 200.
Player C: Raises 200 to 400.
Player D: Raises 200 to 600.
Player E:

What is the minimum raise amount to Player E?  Why of course, it is still 200.  The raises by C and D increase the total bet but not affect the legal raise amount.  This is common knowledge and nobody disputes it.  So, why then is the following disputed?

Player A: Opens for 200.
Player B: Calls 200.
Player C: All-in for 350. A short raise of 150.
Player D: All-in for 500. Another short raise of 150.
Player E:

What is the minimum amount that E can raise?  Clearly, it is not 500, nor 350, nor 300.  It is still 200.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 04, 2018, 08:33:49 AM
Bill, I believe you are incorrect. It would be nice to hear from others...perhaps Mike can sort this out. It's too important to go back and forth when it's obvious many are unclear on the rules. A short all-in does not constitute a raise...so the examples are all wrong.

 I will use one of your examples to explain my reasoning. Player A bets 400  when Player B goes all-in for 500 it is not a raise and it does not reopen the betting to  Player A if others call the 500.

 I'll debate further but I.m sure you don't want to keep hearing from me. I know you feel strongly about your opinions so I'll wait for others to join in. I will also try to find past debates that we've had on this very subject going back years!
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 04, 2018, 10:46:03 AM
There are more but for now, I think these are pretty interesting:



http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=497.0

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=623.0

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=351.0

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=556.0






Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BillM16 on March 04, 2018, 01:16:18 PM
Bill, ....

 I will use one of your examples to explain my reasoning. Player A bets 400  when Player B goes all-in for 500 it is not a raise and it does not reopen the betting to  Player A if others call the 500.

Nick, I didn’t say that.  Your example has player A facing a bet of 500 which of course is not a full raise on the 400 bet. 
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BillM16 on March 04, 2018, 01:46:15 PM
Bill, I believe you are incorrect. ..... A short all-in does not constitute a raise...so the examples are all wrong.

Nick,
In no situation did I say that a single short all-in constitutes a raise!

A short all-in can be a short raise or perhaps a short call but never a full raise or a full call. Least we would not be describing the all-in as “short.”

The TDA does not define terms.  But, RRoP v11 offers this:

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.
.


So, a single short all-in raise increases the amount of the previous wager but does not reopen the bet according to TDA rules.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 04, 2018, 01:48:50 PM
Bill,

 Maybe we should start over. You erased a post that was critical to those trying to follow. Send me a couple scenario's you'd like to explore and let's see if we can sort this out. It looks like we're on our own!
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BROOKS on March 04, 2018, 02:07:03 PM
A bet 400
B all in 500
C all in 700
D raises to 1200


I agree with you nick when saying that the next player, whether it be E or A, must raise by at least 500
The last legal bet/raise increment was 500 by D

But in this example I'm leaning the other way:

A bet 400
B all in 650
C all in 850


Most people say that if D calls 850, A must raise by at least 450. We all understand that A can raise because the amount he is facing is at least full raise.
So I'm thinking that when 2 short all ins combined create a "legal full raise", that now becomes the next raise increment.
If it counts as a "full raise" in order to reopen the betting for A, then it should count as a "full raise" to the next player (D for example)
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BillM16 on March 04, 2018, 02:18:26 PM
One last time:

Reopening the bet to a player who has previously acted has NOTHING to do with increasing the minimum full raise amount.

I have given the best examples and reasons that I can offer at this point.
Good luck gentlemen.

P.s. Player A can raise 400 if there were any players that were calling and not already all-in.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BROOKS on March 04, 2018, 02:40:08 PM
Bill
I appreciate your involvement in this conversation and I understand what you're saying. But where does it say this? 

Two simple rules for short all-in raises.
#1 They do not increase the legal size of the full bet or raise.
#2 They do increase the amount of the bet that one might face.

Two simple rules for raises.
#1 The legal size of a full raise is never altered by a short all-in.
#2 The legal size of a full raise can only be altered to a larger size by an individual making a full raise that is a larger size.



The closest verbiage I can find in the TDA relating to these scenerios is in the addendum:

Example 1. Series of short all-in wagers that add up to a full raise and thus re-open betting:
NLHE, Blinds 50-100. Post-flop, A opens betting for the 100 minimum.
B goes all in for a total of 125. C calls the 125,
D goes all in for 200 total and E calls 200.
Action returns to A who is facing a total raise of 100. Since 100 is a full raise, the betting is re-opened for A who can fold, call, or raise here. Note that neither B’s increment of 25 or D’s increment of 75 is by itself a full raise, 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”.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 04, 2018, 02:55:28 PM
Bill,

 This is the problem we are having: You wrote:
 A bet 400
 B all in 500
 C all in 700
 D raises to 1200

I agree with you nick when saying that the next player, whether it be E or A, must raise by at least 500 (This is incorrect the raise amount to A or E would be at least 800 more)
The last legal bet/raise increment was 500 by D You are counting short all-in's as raises and they are not. Until the single bet from any player, all-in or not reaches a total of 800 the betting will not be reopened to Player A...so until D raised to 1200 A would not have had an option to raise.

If I'm wrong on this, I doubt I'll ever understand the TDA raise rules...I'm done for now.

Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BROOKS on March 04, 2018, 03:33:58 PM
Nick I wrote that ^

And I was agreeing with your reply to me.

you said that next raise needed to be at least 500
-in your long reply to my 2 scenerios

And now you're saying the opposite?

Brooks,

Here is how I analyze your scenario:

Player A:     Made an opening bet for 400. 
                  This establishes the legal size of a full raise as 400.

Player B:     Made an all-in wager for 500.
                  This raise of 100 is short of the full raise amount.  Short raises are only allowed when a player is all-in.
                  There is now 900 in the pot.

Player C:    Made an all-in wager for 700.
                 This raise of 200 is short of the full raise amount.  The short raise is allowed as the player is all-in.
                 There is now 1100 in the pot.

Player D:    Makes the 1200 bet.  That is a full raise of 500. 
                 The 500 raise is larger than the previous legal raise of 400, so now 500 is the legal full raise.
                 There is now 1600 in the pot.

Player A:    Is facing a bet of 1200. 
                 The largest bet or raise at the time that Player A had last acted was 400.
                 Player A is facing a bet that is a full raise over their last bet.  Therefore, betting is reopened.
                 Player A can fold. 
                 Or, player A can call the 1200 by adding another 800 to the previous 400 bet. 
             Or, player A can raise by calling the 1200 and raising at least 500 more.
                 A minimum full raise bet would be 1700, which is 1300 more that the original 400 bet.



And now you're saying this?
 
 This is the problem we are having: You wrote:
 A bet 400
 B all in 500
 C all in 700
 D raises to 1200

I agree with you nick when saying that the next player, whether it be E or A, must raise by at least 500 (This is incorrect the raise amount to A or E would be at least 800 more)


If E raises, he needs to raise by at least 500 to 1700
Same thing for A. If he wants to raise he needs to raise by any least 500
500 was the last legal raise amount.
I don't know why you think E needs to raise by 800?
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BillM16 on March 04, 2018, 03:52:20 PM
Gentlemen,

This was discussed in the following thread with over 62 replies that have been read nearly 8,000 times.
I feel no need to add anything more here:

Click here: Player all-in for less than a min-raise. Bet re-opening & min re-raise questions. (http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1287.0)

Mike B gave response several times in that thread before locking the topic.  Please read Mikes final BOTTOM LINE on the matter.

Click here: BOTTOM LINE (http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1287.msg11270#msg11270)

Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 04, 2018, 04:46:52 PM
Brooks,

 I'm sorry but I never said a raise was 500. I think you got my post mixed up with someone else.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 04, 2018, 06:55:12 PM
Bill,

 This is getting comical. We've been in disagreement over this rule for years! Looking at the old post you suggested...even Mike B gave up on me. I noticed a few mistakes on that thread by myself and others but there's not much sense in rehashing any of it. I will say that I was surprised to see a post from one of my most respected fellow TDA members and somehow I must have skipped over that reply because his explanation made more sense than anyone, Here it is:

By GreggPath
TDA Member & Veteran Poster
***
Posts: 86

Re: Player all-in for less than a min-raise. Bet re-opening & min re-raise questions
« Reply #60 on: June 20, 2016, 08:42:11 AM »
I have read through this whole thread and I'm pretty sure I understand the rule in question. Would it be simpler to explain it this way:

A player may only raise when the action is on that player for the first time in the betting round OR the action they are facing is a bet equal to or greater than the chips they have already bet in the current betting round [might need to be worded differently to make it clear that "action they are facing" is referring to additional chips on top of what they have already put in]. i.e. if a player has already put 10 chips in earlier in the same betting round and the bet they are facing is 20 or more, they may call, raise, or fold. If the bet they are facing is 19 or less, they may call or fold.

Just my two cents. I believe I understand the rule anyways, but for those who are confused by it, this might be helpful. I always tell players who don't understand the rule to ignore everything that has happened and just look at the bet the player is facing. If a call means at least doubling what they already have bet, they can raise. If it's less than double, they can only call/fold.

PS This is my first post. Wow! brilliant!  I hope to become involved in these discussions. I'm not in the business. I run my own home tournaments but have never worked for an actual poker room/casino. I am, however, very interested in the rules and procedures of running poker games/tournaments.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 04, 2018, 09:28:11 PM
Tell me if this is correct:

 
 A bet 400
 B all in 500  short all-in not a raise
 C all in 700  short all-in not a raise
 D raises to 1200  this is a raise...a raise of 800

This is because of Players B and C's bets are irrelevant. Makes no difference to reopening to A (post flop) unless a single player  makes a total wager of at least 800!

 A bets 400
 B all-in for 700
 C all-in for 200
 D all-in for 750
 E calls 750
 F all-in for 850
Player's B, C, D and E have no bearing whatsoever on Player A being able to raise...the only wager that reopens the betting to A is F's 450 raise! It has nothing to do with a group of all-ins being added together. The min raise to A would be a total of 1300.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: GreggPath on March 05, 2018, 08:58:16 AM
First of all, Nick, I appreciate the kind words you said about me... I don't even remember posting that, but it sounds like me!

So I want to chime in, but there have been so many examples given and notes on top of that that I've decided to restart the discussion as I see it with a couple new examples (which are probably similar if not the same as other examples given, but I work better with a clean slate).

Example #1

Postflop
Andy bets 100
Betty goes all in for 50 more, a total of 150
Carl goes all in for 50 more, a total of 200
Diane calls 200
Action returns to Andy

In this example, I don't believe there is any disagreement. Andy is facing a total bet of 200 which reopens the betting to him. He can chose to FOLD, CALL (put in 100 more chips), or reraise (put in a minimum of 200 more chips).

Example #2

Postflop
Andy bets 1000
Betty goes all in for 800 more, a total of 1800
Carl goes all in for 700 more, a total of 2500
Evan calls
Action returns to Andy

So in this example, betting is obviously reopened to Andy since he is facing raises that total 1000 or more. The big question in this thread is what the minimum raise Andy can make? Is it 1000 (the original min-raise since there was no single legal raise), 1500 (the total raise Andy is facing), or 700 (the last short-raise made). Rule 47 states, "A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round." According to that rule, Andy can raise 800 (the rule does not say FULL raise). The example given for Rule 47, however, does use the phrase "last legal increment". It does not specify what exactly that means... I can see it taken two different ways... 1) Betty and Carl both made legal increment raises since their short all-in is a legal action in which case Andy can raise 700 or 2) Betty and Carl's raises are not legal increments since they are not full raises. Unfortunately, Rule 48 (Reopening the Bet) does not get into HOW MUCH Andy can raise, only that he can. Since things aren't specific enough, I would fall back to the actual language of Rule 47 and say that Andy can raise 800 or more (which is the "largest prior bet or raise").

I'm going to take an aspirin.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BillM16 on March 05, 2018, 09:48:58 AM
Gregg

Andy’s bet of 1000 is the largest prior BET in your second example.

Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 05, 2018, 10:12:16 AM
Greggpath,

 Thanks for your examples, they should prove very helpful. Before I give my take on this subject (I know, I know) please hear me out. I know how the TDA raise rules work. My complaint has always been the way the rules are written. We must find a way to eliminate the confusion...and I'm not the only one that is confused. There are upwards of 30,000 posts on the subject of TDA raise rules on this forum.
First of all, Nick, I appreciate the kind words you said about me... I don't even remember posting that, but it sounds like me!

So I want to chime in, but there have been so many examples given and notes on top of that that I've decided to restart the discussion as I see it with a couple new examples (which are probably similar if not the same as other examples given, but I work better with a clean slate).

Example #1

Postflop
Andy bets 100
Betty goes all in for 50 more, a total of 150
Carl goes all in for 50 more, a total of 200
Diane calls 200
Action returns to Andy

In this example, I don't believe there is any disagreement. Andy is facing a total bet of 200 which reopens the betting to him. He can chose to FOLD, CALL (put in 100 more chips), or reraise (put in a minimum of 200 more chips).

Example #2

Postflop
Andy bets 1000
Betty goes all in for 800 more, a total of 1800
Carl goes all in for 700 more, a total of 2500
Evan calls
Action returns to Andy

So in this example, betting is obviously reopened to Andy since he is facing raises that total 1000 or more. The big question in this thread is what the minimum raise Andy can make? Is it 1000 (the original min-raise since there was no single legal raise), 1500 (the total raise Andy is facing), or 700 (the last short-raise made). Rule 47 states, "A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round." According to that rule, Andy can raise 800 (the rule does not say FULL raise). The example given for Rule 47, however, does use the phrase "last legal increment". It does not specify what exactly that means... I can see it taken two different ways... 1) Betty and Carl both made legal increment raises since their short all-in is a legal action in which case Andy can raise 700 or 2) Betty and Carl's raises are not legal increments since they are not full raises. Unfortunately, it (Reopening the Bet) does not get into HOW MUCH Andy can raise, only that he can. Since things aren't specific enouRule 4gh, I would fall back to the actual language of Rule 47 and say that Andy can raise 800 or more (which is the "largest prior bet or raise").

I'm going to take an aspirin.


 Okay, we don't agree on Andy's min raise of 800 more...I believe it should be 1500 more...However, that is because of the way the rules are written. This has always been my argument. If we look at your first example   

Example #1

Postflop
Andy bets 100
Betty goes all in for 50 more, a total of 150 This bet means nothing because it is a short all-in
Carl goes all in for 50 more, a total of 200 We are referring to Carl's all-in as 50 more when we should be focusing on a full raise of Andy's bet!
Diane calls 200   She elected to call but (as long as Andy could stand a raise) she could have raised a minimum of 100 more to a total of 300...I hope you're with me.
Action returns to Andy All options are open to Andy...he may call 200, fold or raise...this is where the rules need some work. If we eliminate Betty we will see that Carl's all-in was enough to reopen the betting to Andy...Betty's short all-in is irrelevant. The only significance Diane's call makes is the fact that she is the only other player (besides Andy) with chips!
       
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: GreggPath on March 05, 2018, 12:50:35 PM
Thanks for your examples, they should prove very helpful. Before I get to my take on this subject (I know, I know) please hear me out. I know how the TDA raise rules work. My complaint has always been the way the rules are written. We must find a way to eliminate the confusion...and I'm not the only one that is confused. There are upwards of 30,000 posts on the subject of TDA raise rules on this forum.

Yes, I agree that the rules aren't sufficient to answer all our questions on this situation. The rules only state when betting is re-opened, not the raise minimum for the original bettor.


Okay, we don't agree on Andy's min raise of 800 more...I believe it should be 1500 more...However, that is because of the way the rules are written. This has always been my argument. If we look at your first example   

Example #1

Postflop
Andy bets 100
Betty goes all in for 50 more, a total of 150 This bet means nothing because it is a short all-in
Carl goes all in for 50 more, a total of 200 We are referring to Carl's all-in as 50 more when we should be focusing on a full raise of Andy's bet!
Diane calls 200   She elected to call but (as long as Andy could stand a raise) she could have raised a minimum of 100 more to a total of 300...I hope you're with me.
Action returns to Andy All options are open to Andy...he may call 200, fold or raise...this is where the rules need some work. If we eliminate Betty we will see that Carl's all-in was enough to reopen the betting to Andy...Betty's short all-in is irrelevant. The only significance Diane's call makes is the fact that she is the only other player (besides Andy) with chips! 

Andy’s bet of 1000 is the largest prior BET in your second example.

Bill makes a good point... Andy's bet is the largest prior bet so his raise option should be for 1000. Does this cover all situations? I think it might. Do I agree with the rule as written? Maybe. Let's look at an Example #3:

Postflop
Andy bets 1000
Betty goes all in for 800 more, a total of 1800
Carl goes all in for 700 more, a total of 2500
Denise raises 1500 more, a total of 4000
Evan calls
Action returns to Andy

Andy is now facing a re-opened bet situation. The largest previous bet or raise was Denise's 1500 raise. So, Andy can call by putting in 3000 more, fold, or raise by putting a minimum of 4500 (to make the total bet 5500).

So here is the dilemma in my mind... Example #4:

Postflop
Andy bets 1000
Betty goes all in for 800 more, a total of 1800
Carl goes all in for 700 more, a total of 2500
Evan calls
Action returns to Andy

Carl put in a total of 1500 on top of Andy's bet (Betty's 800 plus Carl's 700). If we eliminate Betty from the situation, and Carl still goes all in for 1500, then Andy has to raise a minimum of 1500. I don't like that the option to Andy changes only because Carl's all-in was short only due to Betty's all-in. What is the reasoning behind this? I believe that Andy should have to raise 1500 with or without Betty in the picture.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BillM16 on March 05, 2018, 03:50:27 PM
What if Betty and Carl both min-raised? How does that change your answer?
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: MikeB on March 05, 2018, 05:29:36 PM
Interesting thread, there are so many examples it's best to start with a generality, and keep in mind we're talking about 2 different things: the amount needed to re-open the bet to a player who's already acted, and the amount that is the minimum raise.

Post-flop Player A opens for 400. The minimum total raise to re-open for him is 800. It doesn't matter how you get there, as long as the bet when it returns to him is at least 800, he can raise.

NOW, what is the min-raise to him? It's the largest single bet or raise of the round*. If there's a series of "short all-in wagers" that total at least 800 and no single all-in wager exceeds 400 over the previous player to act (which it wouldn't, because otherwise it wouldn't be a short all-in), then the min-raise is still 400 to Player A.

As for a "legal raise" or "full raise", this is important symantics. In conventional poker rules FOR NO LIMIT POKER, a short all-in wager by definition is not a "raise", but is an "all-in wager". A raise by definition must be at least full minimum. Also in No-Limit each bet, raise, or all-in wager is considered a complete action not subject to completion of addition by subsequent players.

This applies to a long series of short all-ins provided in one post... doesn't matter how long the list is, if no single action exceeds the preceding action by more than a full minimum raise then the min raise amount is not changed. The irony I've always seen is this: Post flop the BB opens for 400... it's folded or called around to the SB who makes it 1250. The min raise to the BB is then 850 more. However, if there's a series of 400 calls AND/OR short all-ins that total 1250, the min raise to the BB is still 400, because no single action was greater than 400 over the preceding action. Hope this helps and thanks for the interesting discussion, definitely deserves some clarification at Summit 2019.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 05, 2018, 05:41:03 PM
Greggpath: This is what you wrote:

So here is the dilemma in my mind... Example #4:

Postflop
Andy bets 1000
Betty goes all in for 800 more, a total of 1800 Are you adding Betty's 800 and Carl's 700 together?
Carl goes all in for 700 more, a total of 2500 Betty has 1800 and goes all-in...Carl has 2500 and goes all-in...Are you changing their all-in amounts?
Evan calls
Action returns to Andy

I see where some of my confusion comes from: When Betty goes all-in for 1800 (let's forget that it's 800 more)...the fact is, it's a short all-in that should not even be defined as a raise...at least it shouldn't be. When you eliminated Betty, why did you change Carl's all-in amount? I thought we were getting somewhere but it looks like I'm back to square one...
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 05, 2018, 05:46:27 PM
Uh-oh...Mike's here. Mike, please don't pull the plug on us just yet. I've been trying to get this right since 2011. Help! ;D I'm going to walk my dog...I'll be back!
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 05, 2018, 08:14:46 PM
Mike, This is what you wrote...my questions or suggestions will be hi-lighted in red.

Interesting thread, there are so many examples it's best to start with a generality, and keep in mind we're talking about 2 different things: the amount needed to re-open the bet to a player who's already acted, and the amount that is the minimum raise.

Post-flop Player A opens for 400. The minimum total raise to re-open for him is 800. It doesn't matter how you get there, as long as the bet when it returns to him is at least 800, he can raise. Please explain how any number of short all-ins gets there without a single player putting in at least 800?

NOW, what is the min-raise to him? It's the largest single bet or raise of the round*. If there's a series of "short all-in wagers" that total at least 800 and no single all-in wager exceeds 400 over the previous player Since when is a short all-in over the previous player considered relevant? to act (which it wouldn't, because otherwise, it wouldn't be a short all-in), then the min-raise is still 400 to Player A. Are you saying: Adam opens post flop 400, Bonnie goes all-in for 600, Carl goes all-in for 200, Diane calls 600. Eddy goes all-in for 700, and Freddie can fold, call 700 or raise to at least 1100 correct? Only a raise from Freddie could reopen the betting to Adam correct? You notice that I put lesser amounts of al-ins in front of higher amounts...just trying to make a point.

As for a "legal raise" or "full raise", this is important semantics. In conventional poker rules FOR NO LIMIT POKER, a short all-in wager by definition is not a "raise", but is an "all-in wager". A raise by definition must be at least full minimum. Also in No-Limit each bet, raise, or all-in wager is considered a complete action not subject to completion of addition by subsequent players.  a complete action not subject to completion of addition by subsequent players. Not sure I understand this part.


This applies to a long series of short all-ins provided in one post... doesn't matter how long the list is, if no single action exceeds the preceding action by more than a full minimum raise then the min raise amount is not changed. The irony I've always seen is this: Post flop the BB opens for 400... it's folded or called around to the SB who makes it 1250. The min raise to the BB is then 850 more. However, if there's a series of 400 calls AND/OR short all-ins that total 1250, the min raise to the BB is still 400, because no single action was greater than 400 over the preceding action. Yes, but if you hit 1250 a single player had to have 1250 and put it in. I see what the problem is...you're counting a bunch of short all-ins that should never be counted unless they double the original bettor!!!! Holy crap, I've been right all along!Hope this helps and thanks for the interesting discussion, definitely deserves some clarification at Summit 2019. Thanks, Mike I understand why I've been confused for the past 7 years.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: GreggPath on March 06, 2018, 06:16:14 AM
Greggpath: This is what you wrote:

So here is the dilemma in my mind... Example #4:

Postflop
Andy bets 1000
Betty goes all in for 800 more, a total of 1800 Are you adding Betty's 800 and Carl's 700 together?
Carl goes all in for 700 more, a total of 2500 Betty has 1800 and goes all-in...Carl has 2500 and goes all-in...Are you changing their all-in amounts?
Evan calls
Action returns to Andy

I see where some of my confusion comes from: When Betty goes all-in for 1800 (let's forget that it's 800 more)...the fact is, it's a short all-in that should not even be defined as a raise...at least it shouldn't be. When you eliminated Betty, why did you change Carl's all-in amount? I thought we were getting somewhere but it looks like I'm back to square one...

I'm a little confused by your questions.. maybe it'd help if I included each player's chip stack at the beginning of the betting round:
Andy: 10,000
Betty 1,800
Carl: 2,500
Evan: 10,000
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: MikeB on March 06, 2018, 06:17:22 AM

Post-flop Player A opens for 400. The minimum total raise to re-open for him is 800. It doesn't matter how you get there, as long as the bet when it returns to him is at least 800, he can raise. Please explain how any number of short all-ins gets there without a single player putting in at least 800?


Didn't say that no single player ever puts in 800. Just said that however it happens... whether one player makes it 800 or it creeps up to 800 by multiple short all-ins, it still re-opens the bet to Player A

Player A: opens for 400
Player B: all-in for 300
Player C: all-in for 600
Player D: smooth calls the 600
Player E: all-in for 700
Player F: all-in for 800
Player G: smooth calls the 800
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: GreggPath on March 06, 2018, 06:40:58 AM
So, here is where I stand on the issue now...

1. Short all-ins are never added together to figure out how much a player can raise. They are only added together to determine if betting is re-opened.
2. A player who has already acted and has the betting re-opened can raise by a minimum of the largest single bet made in the current round.

I think this sums up the rules we are talking about as they're written in the rulebook. I do understand the rule, but I don't completely agree with it. I think my biggest complaint is that I think if someone's short all-in is only short because of a previous short all-in, but would be a valid raise on the original bettor's bet, then the original bettor's minimum raise should be treated as the first short all-in doesn't exist.

i.e.

Postflop
Andy (chip stack 10,000) bets 1,000
Betty (chip stack 1,700) raises all-in for 700 more (bet at 1,700 now)
Carl (chip stack 2,200) raises all in for 500 more (bet at 2,200 now)
Doug calls 2,200
Action returns to Andy

I believe that Andy's minimum raise should be for 1,200 more. I understand the rule says it is needs to be 1,000 more but because Carl's all-in was, by itself, at least a full raise on Andy, I think that should change things.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: BillM16 on March 06, 2018, 07:22:44 AM
I think my biggest complaint is that I think if someone's short all-in is only short because of a previous short all-in, but would be a valid raise on the original bettor's bet, then the original bettor's minimum raise should be treated as the first short all-in doesn't exist.

i.e.

Postflop
Andy (chip stack 10,000) bets 1,000
Betty (chip stack 1,700) raises all-in for 700 more (bet at 1,700 now)
Carl (chip stack 2,200) raises all in for 500 more (bet at 2,200 now)
Doug calls 2,200
Action returns to Andy

I believe that Andy's minimum raise should be for 1,200 more. I understand the rule says it is needs to be 1,000 more but because Carl's all-in was, by itself, at least a full raise on Andy, I think that should change things.

Gregg,
This also occurs without a "previous short all-in raise".  It can happen with one or many previous min-raise(s) too.  For example, if Betty's stack was 2,000 and she shoves.  Carl's all-in would still be short of a full raise and Andy would still be able to raise 1000 (not 1200).

Also, if Betty had 2000 and shoved, while Carl had 3000 and shoved, if Doug calls 3000 (and still has chips), then Andy can raise 1000.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 06, 2018, 09:32:06 AM
Greggpath,

You wrote:
Postflop
Andy (chip stack 10,000) bets 1,000
Betty (chip stack 1,700) raises all-in for 700 more (bet at 1,700 now)
Carl (chip stack 2,200) raises all in for 500 more (bet at 2,200 now) YES!!! This is what I've been preaching for 7 years, Carl raised Andy...not Betty. It's so simple.
Doug calls 2,200
Action returns to Andy

I believe that Andy's minimum raise should be for 1,200 more. I understand the rule says it is needs to be 1,000 more but because Carl's all-in was, by itself, at least a full raise on Andy, I think that should change things. We need to follow our other rules that state: A raise must be at least the size of the largest bet or raise you are facing...& A short all-in is not a raise!
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: GreggPath on March 06, 2018, 10:52:18 AM
Postflop
Andy (chip stack 10,000) bets 1,000
Betty (chip stack 1,700) raises all-in for 700 more (bet at 1,700 now)
Carl (chip stack 2,200) raises all in for 500 more (bet at 2,200 now) YES!!! This is what I've been preaching for 7 years, Carl raised Andy...not Betty. It's so simple.
Doug calls 2,200
Action returns to Andy

Exactly. His all-in is short only because Betty had a "shorter" all-in. If Betty is not in the hand to begin with, Carl's all-in is not short. I think that should be taken into consideration when determining Andy's minimum raise amount.

I believe that Andy's minimum raise should be for 1,200 more. I understand the rule says it is needs to be 1,000 more but because Carl's all-in was, by itself, at least a full raise on Andy, I think that should change things. We need to follow our other rules that state: A raise must be at least the size of the largest bet or raise you are facing...& A short all-in is not a raise!

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. It sounds like you're agreeing with the rule. The size of the largest single bet/raise is Andy's 1000. I contend that Carl's all-in should be considered the largest bet/raise. Yes, his all-in is short, but not from Andy's point-of-view. I guess I just disagree in general with the "largest previous bet" rule as it is written.
Title: Re: Multiple short all ins
Post by: Nick C on March 06, 2018, 11:46:24 AM
Largest previous bet (with no raise) or the largest previous raise. I do agree with you completely.