PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: cwmiller9999 on December 09, 2010, 11:47:01 PM
-
There has been some question in my card room as to how to interprate the following first sentence of Rule 31. "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round."
My interpratation is as follows: The first part of the sentence that "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet", applies to a no-limit game and a minimum raise of 2X the previous bet must be made ie: Blinds are 25/50. Player A raises to $125. Player B anounces a raise and the minumum raise he must make is to $250, double the previous bet of $125.
I believe the second part of the sentence after the word "or" "raise of the current betting round" applies to a limit game and the maximum raise would be whatever the limits of that round of betting are.
Others have interprated this rule to mean that the minumum raise on a no-limit game would be as follows: Blinds 25/50. Player A raises to $125. Player B's minimum raise would be to $200. $125 plus $75, the actual amount of the raise above the $50 blind.
If anyone has more insight into this question or comments on how they apply the rule to their tournament I would be most interested to hear.
-
There has been some question in my card room as to how to interprate the following first sentence of Rule 31. "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round."
My interpratation is as follows: The first part of the sentence that "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet", applies to a no-limit game and a minimum raise of 2X the previous bet must be made ie: Blinds are 25/50. Player A raises to $125. Player B anounces a raise and the minumum raise he must make is to $250, double the previous bet of $125.
Hi CW and thanks for an important question! The sentence is there to account for a current total bet that may involve an initial bet plus a series of raises. I'll give you a few examples to illustrate:
EXAMPLE 1: 25/50 NL. PLayer A raises 75 to 125 total. NOTICE that 50 (bet) plus 75 (raise) = 125. The next raise on this betting round must be 'at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise', which in this case is 75. So lets say Player B raises it the minimum (75) to 200 total. Now Player C pushes it up and raises $300 for total of 500. We now have a bet of 50, two raises of 75 and a raise of 300 for total 500. If Player D wants to raise, 'the raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round', which is now 300. So Player D would have to raise at least 300.
EXAMPLE 2: Now, let's just say it's the same 500 to Player D, but we've just had one raise ($450) on this round. So we have the initial blind bet of 50 plus a raise of 450. "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round", since the largest bet or raise in the round is $450, Player D would have to raise at least $450. Hope this helps !
-
Thank you for the clarification. I understand now what is meant by the rule. Incremental raising is the intention of the rule. That is the current procedure we use in our card room for tournament as well as cash games.
-
cwmiller9999, You say that you understand but, your initial interpratation is incorrect. You do not double the total bet up to $250. Limit games have "fixed amounts" on each betting round or "street," so when a player faces a 10 bet in a 10 and 20 game, he may only raise in incriments of 10. There will also be a limit to the number of raises, depending on the game being played.
I think Mike explained it correctly. I have found that my students have an eaisier understanding when I tell them to focus on the amount of the raise, and not on the total amount of the bet and raise. Example (no-limit), Player A bets 7, Player B raises to 35 (28 more). The next MINIMUM raise would bring the total to 63. It is very comon for seasoned dealers to incorrectly require the next raise to be 35 more, totaling 70.
-
Thank you Nick. I do understand that my initial interpratation of the rule was incorrect. And your example helps clarify it even more. I also understand how it applies to limit games which is how I thought it worked.
I welcome your comments as I want to make sure my tournaments follow the TDA rules and that my players get fair and consistant rulings.
-
ditto mikes response!
it is always the raise portion which is mesured. for example with blinds of 100/200, an inital raiser opens for 500 total (a raise of 300) the next person who wishes to raise must make it at least 800 total (200+300+300)
We often hear of players making 3 bets and 4 bets pre-flop on televised events, those 3 bets are 3 x the previous raise portion not 3 x the total bet. eg 2000/4000 open for 10,000 a 3 bet would be 3 x 6000 + 4000 = 22,000 and not 30,000 or 40,000 as often misconstrued to be.
Regards
Stuart
-
Question on this Mike B. If in your example the second reraiser only has 175 and goes all in, what is the bet at that time? Is it still 200 or is it the 175 or some other numer?
-
We often hear of players making 3 bets and 4 bets pre-flop on televised events, those 3 bets are 3 x the previous raise portion not 3 x the total bet. eg 2000/4000 open for 10,000 a 3 bet would be 3 x 6000 + 4000 = 22,000 and not 30,000 or 40,000 as often misconstrued to be.
Regards
Stuart
Stuart.
I believe that you may be misunderstanding the term "three-bet."
A three-bet is not necessarily a raise that is three times the amount of a player's bet. The amount of the raise is irrelevant.
Preflop, a player's raise, may be called a two-bet, a reraise of any amount, may be called a three-bet, an additional reraise may be called a four-bet, etc.
After the flop is dealt, after one player bets, a raise of any amount may be called a two-bet, a reraise of any amount may be called a three-bet, etc.
Calling raises and reraises two-bets, three-bets, etc. is a specific way to keep track of the number of raises and reraises in a hand.
-
I have never even heard of a "three bet" or "four bet" until I saw it earlier this year on another post.
-
hi DJC,
there are two uses of the term three bet etc,
in limit poker it refers to the bet number, so for a round with a limit of 3 raises the third raise would be the three bet etc as you have already demonstrated but that only applies in limit poker otherwise described as a cap (hope I've got that right (Nick can you confirm or correct!!))
In no-limit poker it is as described above, a raise on the previous raise by 3x etc.
regards
Stu
-
hi DJC,
there are two uses of the term three bet etc,
in limit poker it refers to the bet number, so for a round with a limit of 3 raises the third raise would be the three bet etc as you have already demonstrated but that only applies in limit poker otherwise described as a cap (hope I've got that right (Nick can you confirm or correct!!))
In no-limit poker it is as described above, a raise on the previous raise by 3x etc.
regards
Stu
Well, I disagree with both of your explanations.
I encourage you to review the definitions of "three-bet" for limit poker and no limit poker at the URL below:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=poker+three-bet&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
-
Question on this Mike B. If in your example the second reraiser only has 175 and goes all in, what is the bet at that time? Is it still 200 or is it the 175 or some other numer?
Hey Michael. I think you're asking about the following "Example 1":EXAMPLE 1: 25/50 NL. PLayer A raises 75 to 125 total. NOTICE that 50 (bet) plus 75 (raise) = 125. The next raise on this betting round must be 'at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise', which in this case is 75. So lets say Player B raises it the minimum (75) to 200 total." If this isn't the question, let me know.
And I think your question is that PLayer B (the 2nd raiser) has only 175 total in his stack so he goes all-in for 175. In that situation we would have: Bet of 50, Raise of 75 to 125 total, and an "all-in wager" of 175. Notice I don't call the all-in a "raise" but an "all-in wager" because it doesn't establish a new min-raise threshold because it's only an increase of 50 over the previous raise of 75. The min raise is still 75 at this point. SO.... the next player to act can either a: smooth call the 175 total. OR b: raise at least the "largest previous bet or raise" (see TDA Rule 31), which is still 75, to a total of at least 250 (the 175 all-in plus 75 min raise). NOW, these are no-limit raising rules. Notice that in no-limit the next player cannot "complete" the 175 all-in wager and make it 200 total. Completing the bet is not an option in no-limit poker. Thanks for asking for clarification, that's a good illustration.
-
I would like to chime in here cause I remember having an interesting conversation with a local dealer on this very thing. Playing live several of us at the table (3/5 NL) were discussing a particular play and possible outcomes. We were using the 3bet 4 bet lingo to refer to the raise/reraise/rereraise that had occurred. The dealer said that there are no 3 or 4 bets in NL poker and he and I were off on a debate over the rest of his time in the box.
The thing is that the terms started up several years ago on the strategy forums among, mostly, internet players. When they refer to the 2, 3 or 4 bet in a NL game the amount of the raise is irrelevant. It is simply referring to the line of betting: one raise after another. In limit poker, it is essentially the same thing only difference being that the bets are a fixed amount.
I am going to have to disagree with MikeB in his description of the all in wager presented by michaelgtjr. If there is a bet of 50 by player A and player B Raises 75 to 125 then there is an all in totaling 175 it is not a wager but an incomplete raise/all in. So if there is a player yet to act behind this all in player that player has the option of calling the 175 or reraising the original raiser and, I think, the amount of the raise only has to be 75 to a total of 200. He is not technically "completing' a raise by the all in guy but doing the raising himself because the all in guys all in is irrelevant. See RROP section 14. TDA 31 refers to the previous "Legal" bet or raise. Now if there are just the 3 players and action is back to player A after the all in all options are open, raise to total of 200, call the 175, fold. If Player A just calls then player B can ONLY call the 175 or fold, a raise is not open to him because the all in is not a legal raise and player b can't raise himself.
edit: hope that isn't too confusing. let me know and I'll try and make it clearer. All I'm saying MikeB is that the all in amount doesn't effect the next minimum amount that any other player yet to act has to raise.
-
I am going to have to disagree with MikeB in his description of the all in wager presented by michaelgtjr. If there is a bet of 50 by player A and player B Raises 75 to 125 then there is an all in totaling 175 it is not a wager but an incomplete raise/all in. So if there is a player yet to act behind this all in player that player has the option of calling the 175 or reraising the original raiser and, I think, the amount of the raise only has to be 75 to a total of 200. He is not technically "completing' a raise by the all in guy but doing the raising himself because the all in guys all in is irrelevant. See RROP section 14. TDA 31 refers to the previous "Legal" bet or raise. Now if there are just the 3 players and action is back to player A after the all in all options are open, raise to total of 200, call the 175, fold. If Player A just calls then player B can ONLY call the 175 or fold, a raise is not open to him because the all in is not a legal raise and player b can't raise himself.
edit: hope that isn't too confusing. let me know and I'll try and make it clearer. All I'm saying MikeB is that the all in amount doesn't effect the next minimum amount that any other player yet to act has to raise.
RROP Section 14, Paragraph 2 probably comes closest to describing this situation: Quote: "If a player goes all-in for an amount that is less than the minimum bet, a player who wishes to raise must raise at least the amount of the minimum bet. For example, if the minimum bet is $100, and a player goes all-in on the flop for $20, a player may fold, call $20, or raise to at least a total of $120." Also, see this link, paragraph 4. It cites a prior edition of RROP, not sure which one: http://www.pokerzone.com/rules/general/no+limit Quote: "4."Completing the bet" is a limit poker wager type only, not allowed at big-bet poker. For example, if a player bets $100 and the next player goes all-in for $140, a player wishing to raise must make the total bet at least $240 (unless going all-in)" Perhaps this topic should be reviewed at a future Summit, thanks for the comments!
-
mmm... maybe. going to have to think about this one for a bit. :-\
-
Happy Holidays,
I am in agreement with most, whenever we mention Rule#31, that some changes need to be considered. Why is it that everyone understands the procedures for limit games. The 50% rule for all-in player's is logical and it makes sense. As soon as someone, anyone tries to explain no limit we are lost and confused, (myself included). I would like to point out a few areas that cause problems when I try to teach student dealers about raising.
#1 Why do we refer to an all-in players raise as action only? I understand, it is not complete but, by Webster's definition a raise is as follows; RAISE- To increase another player's bet in poker....To bet at a higher level than a preceding bettor. It has no mention of doubling the preceding wager. Why not call it a raise? Especially when the number of raises is irrelevant in no-limit?
#2 What's wrong with using the 50% Raise Rule in no-limit? I know that there are casino's in New York that use the 100% Raise Rule in no-limit and it works out with no problems. No-limit Player A bets 100, Player B goes all-in for 190, the next player can Fold, Call 190 or raise at least 100, totaling 200 (minimum). The all-in bet is not even recognized as a complete raise, so even though it is a substantial increase, it does not reopen the betting to the original bettor.
#3 I would like to see a separation of no-limit and pot-limit when it comes to betting and raising.
#4 I would like to see a complete set of separate rules for All-in players.
There are many great discussions on earlier posts.
I think that we need to look at some of the rooms that don't use the TDA rules. The rules don't work if they are only understood by TD's and floormen.
-
Though about it!
Here's the thing: I ran this by a number of dealers and players and they all came up with the same answer. The !00% rule seems to be what we do out here in California most of the time. However, after carefully reading what MikeB posted and RROP 14:1-4 it seems that it's wrong. The real kicker for me is paragraph 4. I have read and reread that many times and always felt a little confused by it (because of our constant use of the 100% rule clouding my head). But if you read the example in paragraph 2 and quoted by MikeB and then consider parapraph 4 you might come up with a scenario like this; (I don't think the example that RROP gives there is complete enough)
Player A opens for the minimum of 100
Player B goes all in for 125
Player C goes all in for 200 (according to Mike's interpretation this is not a legal raise - it would have to be 225 - However, if it is now A's turn to act again the total wager for multiple all in wagers each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise still act as a raise ...etc)
This means Stuart explanation seems correct and MikeB's as well. Putting it all together means that I am used to doing it the wrong way and I fear that I will not be able to change it much around here.
However, I am not convinced that TDA 31 is actually addressing this part of the raising procedure. I believe it is just saying that anybody with enough chips to make a legal raise is obligated to do so if they toss in more that 50% of that legal raise. It's not really talking about what a legal raise is. So, while I am in agreement that some sort of clarification is in order I am not sure it would be in 31.
-
I've always had a tough time understanding why multiple raises by all-in players are added together and can qualify as a full raise. Jasper Too, I'm only trying to understand the rules so I can explain them. I still see no reason why we can't use a 50% rule, or a complete raise (100%) in no-limit. I know how the Rules are written, I just want to know why? I think we should simplify the raise rules. The 50% rule in limit is simple and effective. The all-in raise rules for no-limit are confusing. There must be a compromise or better explanation. How can I teach a rule, I don't understand?
There have been many posts on this subject and I've flip-flopped myself, not knowing which way was best. My students always preach the KISS rule....Keep It Simple Stupid!
If we can't voice our thoughts on the Discussion Forum, then where?
-
I've always had a tough time understanding why multiple raises by all-in players are added together and can qualify as a full raise. Jasper Too, I'm only trying to understand the rules so I can explain them.I still see no reason why we can't use a 50% rule, or a complete raise (100%) in no-limit. I know how the Rules are written, I just want to know why? I think we should simplify the raise rules. The 50% rule in limit is simple and effective. The all-in raise rules for no-limit are confusing. There must be a compromise or better explanation. How can I teach a rule, I don't understand?
There have been many posts on this subject and I've flip-flopped myself, not knowing which way was best. My students always preach the KISS rule....Keep It Simple Stupid!
If we can't voice our thoughts on the Discussion Forum, then where?
Nick, the highlight parts of your post makes me fear you thought I was somehow questioning you or your motives. If I am wrong about that then great, otherwise I am agreeing with you on the need for clarification was just commenting on where we might put that clarification in the rules. The fact that I have been doing it the 100% way all along conflicts with my new understanding of the rules so I could really use a clarification :o
Anyway I think we agree
-
Jasper Too,
Thanks for your response. I think this is a good time to toss around some new ideas. Hopefully, we can put our heads together and come up with a little fine tuning for Rule #31. Maybe we can list some options and put it to a vote.
-
JasperToo" posted in part:
"However, I am not convinced that TDA 31 is actually addressing this part of the raising procedure. I believe it is just saying that anybody with enough chips to make a legal raise is obligated to do so if they toss in more that 50% of that legal raise. It's not really talking about what a legal raise is. So, while I am in agreement that some sort of clarification is in order I am not sure it would be in 31."
As I recall the discussion of this rule at the last TDA Summit, I think your statement above is 100% correct. This rule is not intended to apply to the 'all-in' player (although in some situations it certainly could). It is intended to apply to situations like this:
Blinds are 300/600. UTG calls, UTG+1 says raise and throws in a single 1000 chip. Applying Rule 31, UTG+1 has to put another 200 into the pot and he cannot raise more than the minimum.
As to a "rule" for the multiple all-in players, I could support same. Perhaps someone can come up with some suggested language and post it in the "Suggestions for new TDA Rules" Topic.
-
Player A opens for the minimum of 100 > Player B goes all in for 125 >
Player C goes all in for 200 (according to Mike's interpretation this is not a legal raise - it would have to be 225 - However, if it is now A's turn to act again the total wager for multiple all in wagers each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise still act as a raise ...etc)
Jasper: Just to keep the discussion rolling with your illustration above, let's first assume that there are a couple other players with deep stacks, player D and E.... SO:
1) Example 1: Player D and E call the 200 all-in wager from Player C. Action is now back to Player A. Note that A started this betting round off with a bet of 100, and it's now back to Player A for a total of 200. That represents a full 100 unit raise to player A. Player A may now call the 100, or raise whatever the max for this game is, or of course fold. While Neither Player B's increase of 25 or Player C's increase of 75 is in itself a sufficient increase to re-open the betting, when COMBINED they are sufficient, so Player A is free to take any action he wants.
2) Example 2: Player D wants to raise. In this case Player D must make at least a min raise (which is $100) and make it a total bet of at least 300 to Player E.
-
Jasper, to get to another issue which may be at the heart of what's causing your frustration with this, there is one "final" issue to these additive all-in bets that makes them quite different from "normal" betting. This issue was actually the subject of one of the slides at the 2009 Rio Summit. Matt Savage had presented this slide based on a question that Bob Ciaffone had posed.
The situation is as follows: Player A bets 100. Player B raises to 200. Player C goes all in for total of 270. Player D goes all in for total of 350.
Now, Ciaffone posed two questions to the membership: 1: does Player D's action re-open the betting to player B? and 2: If so, what is the minimum re-raise that Player B would have to make?
To the first question, there's universal concurrence that the betting is re-opened to B. Simply because B had originally raised for 100 and when the betting comes back to him it's 150 more (350-200 = 150), so the action is clearly re-opened to B. The somewhat stickier question is what is his minimum re-raise? The answer to that is also 150. The main reason? Frankly because "that's the way it is".
The alternative would be to say that the min re-raise is still $100 because neither Player C or Player D increased the betting by more than $100. Consider this: Let's say that Player C had chips and just raised it $100 (to 300 total), and Player D had chips and raised it $100 more (to $400 total), then if A smooth called, it would be 200 to Player B (instead of 150 with the 2 all-ins) and the min-raise for Player B would be.... $100. So we have the anomaly that if all-in's aren't involved and it's $200 to Player B, the min raise is $100, but if all-ins are involved and it's $150 to Player B, the min raise is $150. So this is an added twist to the whole story. I had e-mail correspondence w/ Bob Ciaffone on this illustration after the Summit, and despite the apparent anomaly from one point of view we both agreed that this arrangement is so widely deployed in the poker world that to try to change it would not be worth the confusion, not that he supported changing it. So, "thats the way it is" when we're dealing with additive all-in bets.
-
NickC - it looks like we are all in agreement here that this one needs some kind of clarifying rule. Once I get this square in my head I might draft something myself :)
Chet
As I recall the discussion of this rule at the last TDA Summit, I think your statement above is 100% correct. This rule is not intended to apply to the 'all-in' player (although in some situations it certainly could). It is intended to apply to situations like this:
Blinds are 300/600. UTG calls, UTG+1 says raise and throws in a single 1000 chip. Applying Rule 31, UTG+1 has to put another 200 into the pot and he cannot raise more than the minimum.
As to a "rule" for the multiple all-in players, I could support same. Perhaps someone can come up with some suggested language and post it in the "Suggestions for new TDA Rules" Topic.
Exactly what I think as well.
MikeB.. both your last posts are crystal clear and actually the "anomalous" size of the raise in that multiple all in scenario is simple for me to see now. Actually, I am not so sure that it is a stickier situation because if you were to look at it the way I am used to then you would see that player C didn't make a legal raise so his wouldn't count.. Player D would essentially be raising Player B 150 more. Strangely that part wasn't sticky for me. We have just never added the All-in guys portion of the bet to the total that was required for a raise. As I mentioned my part of the world seems to use the all or nothing rule and finding a way to get things to change would be tough around here. But a TDA rule with a solid example would get the job done. Thanks for the solid examples and for clearing up an RROP rule that has had me bugged for quite sometime.
I know I didn't start this thread but thanks guys!
-
Jasper Too,
I'm with you on this one. When I have to read a rule over, and over, and over again, IMO, it needs work. I don't know why we allow the undersized action of any all-in player to be considered in the equation. I would like to contact Mr Ciaffone and discuss this with him.
Mike, if Player A bets 100 and Player goes all-in for 125 and Player C goes all-in for 175, are you saying that;the short action of 25 more and 75 are to be added together? Opening the raise option to Player A?
I am not looking for debate, or any heated discussion. I am only trying to understand the rules for raising in no limit poker.
Chet suggests that the rule is not for all-in players. Why can't we specify and separate rules for all-in players? Although, the short raises could only be from an all-in player.
-
NickC that was the sticky part for me too, I was not used to including the all in players bet in the total another player had to put in the pot PLUS the minimum raise amount. I would always just discount the all in guy as action and look back at the last legal bet/raise and have the third player do his betting from that. But then I was always stuck on RROP 14:4 not making any sense to me until working through this thread.
So if I may answer for Mike (perhaps with Mike) he is not saying that the 25 and 75 are added together. the 125 is not a legal raise (but now the minimum bet is 125 and a legal raise would have to be 100 for a total of 225) the 175 is not a legal raise over the 125 (as mentioned it would have to be 225 but the minimum bet is now 175 even though the minimum raise remains 100) so the next player would have to put in 275 to make a legal raise. But lets say a player only has 200 and is all in. This again, is not a legal raise against the 175 but the action back to player A is for 200 which DOES REOPEN the betting to him even though there have been no LEGAL raises so far.
That's what I see now as correct raising - with all in players. MikeB does that look right?
Also, guys based on this understanding of things I threw together a quick suggestion for rule changes/additions in that forum, please check it out. (we are moderated so it hasn't shown up yet but I submitted this morning)
-
Jasper Too,
Your suggestions are not listed yet, but I will be looking for them. I have gone over some of the earlier posts and I want to add something to one of Mike's posts:
EXAMPLE 2: Now, let's just say it's the same 500 to Player D, but we've just had one raise ($450) on this round. So we have the initial blind bet of 50 plus a raise of 450. "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round", since the largest bet or raise in the round is $450, Player D would have to raise at least $450. Hope this helps !
The total would then be 950, correct?
Chet also mentioned that he thinks the rule is not meant for all-in players. He is correct. That is interesting, too. In all forms of poker, in order to raise, a raise must be at least the size of the bet, or the size of the (incremental) raise in front of you, (which ever is larger)....so, only an all-in player can make a short bet.
Why can't we separate, or define action to/of all-in players, from other players?
-
Apparently I did something wrong earlier this morning trying to post my rule change suggestions in that forum. It's up there now, please comment.
The total would then be 950, correct?
That's correct, the way I understand it now.
....so, only an all-in player can make a short bet.
Why can't we separate, or define action to/of all-in players, from other players?
Yes, only an all-in player could make a short bet. As to the second part of that quote, what are you thinking about when you say define the action of all-in players? You mean add extra explanation to the rules we are discussing? If so, then I think we could but perhaps with smaller changes (something like I have suggested :) ) that part would be more obvious than it is now. I know as someone that had trouble with this part of the rule now that I see the intent of RROP 14:1-4 the all-in short bets are less troublesome. Doesn't mean it couldn't use even more clarity somehow, of course.
-
So if I may answer for Mike (perhaps with Mike) he is not saying that the 25 and 75 are added together. the 125 is not a legal raise (but now the minimum bet is 125 and a legal raise would have to be 100 for a total of 225) the 175 is not a legal raise over the 125 (as mentioned it would have to be 225 but the minimum bet is now 175 even though the minimum raise remains 100) so the next player would have to put in 275 to make a legal raise. But lets say a player only has 200 and is all in. This again, is not a legal raise against the 175 but the action back to player A is for 200 which DOES REOPEN the betting to him even though there have been no LEGAL raises so far.
That's what I see now as correct raising - with all in players. MikeB does that look right?
Yes, the above is 100% right in answer to Nick's question. The "fast track" way to look at it is that if the action gets back to Player A and it's not at least a full raise for him to call (Since player A opened the betting for 100, then in your illustration it needs to be at least 100 for him to call to re-open), then the action isn't reopened. Since 175 was the last full wager made in Nicks example, then it's only 75 for Player A to call, that's not a full raise so he can only call the 75, action isn't reopened.
-
Jasper Too,
Your suggestions are not listed yet, but I will be looking for them. I have gone over some of the earlier posts and I want to add something to one of Mike's posts:
EXAMPLE 2: Now, let's just say it's the same 500 to Player D, but we've just had one raise ($450) on this round. So we have the initial blind bet of 50 plus a raise of 450. "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round", since the largest bet or raise in the round is $450, Player D would have to raise at least $450. Hope this helps !
The total would then be 950, correct?
Yes. This thread touches on alot of issues and perhaps some sorting-out / clarifying / illustrating should be considered at the next Summit.
-
Thanks Mike. I don't think it needs much, but I agree, it needs a little work.
-
Yes. This thread touches on alot of issues and perhaps some sorting-out / clarifying / illustrating should be considered at the next Summit.
So who is the keeper of the next summit agenda? I looked around for some kind of FAQ about how that all works, maybe I missed it.
Is it something that you pull together from these forums or is there an official way to try and get something on the agenda?
-
Yes. This thread touches on alot of issues and perhaps some sorting-out / clarifying / illustrating should be considered at the next Summit.
So who is the keeper of the next summit agenda? I looked around for some kind of FAQ about how that all works, maybe I missed it.
Is it something that you pull together from these forums or is there an official way to try and get something on the agenda?
The agenda is generally drafted up by the Directors prior to the Summit. It will draw heavily but not exclusively from the threads on this forum, so posting the issues you're most concerned about here and in the "rules suggestion thread" is step one. As for the timing, the next date has not been formally announced ..... It will be announced months ahead so everyone will have plenty of opportunity to make any final suggestions, travel arrangements, etc. etc.
-
In no-limit poker it is as described above, a raise on the previous raise by 3x etc.
regards
Stu
Stu.
Here's an example of a commentator for an EPT main event (No Limit Hold 'em) using the terms "three-bet" and "four-bet."
At the beginning of the video, one player raised preflop to 88,000. Another player reraised "three-bet is to 260,000." At the end of the video clip, the first player "four-bet jams" all in for 1,625,000:
http://goo.gl/UDJHA
-
I just want to bring this important subject back to the table. We had more hits on Rule 31 this month than any other. It has nothing to do with three bets and four bets. Any other opinions for rule #31?
-
We discussed this exact topic in the 2010 WSOP supervisor meeting.
Reading through this topic, here are the nuts and bolts of it. "Completing the Bet" is a limit term. "Full bet" is a big bet term. It is Apples vs Oranges. They are not the same even though they are both fruits.
If in No Limit / Pot Limit a player must raise a "Full Bet/Raise" more than the last bet/raise, than equally the betting is reopened to a previous bettor if the total bet to them is a "Full Bet" or more. If the original bettor wishes to raise, they must raise the "Full Bet/Raise" amount more than it is to them.
I think we're all agreeing on this, just in different ways.
What is often confusing is when we say that an all-in bet is not a 'raise' unless it is a "Full Bet". A short all-in bet may not be a 'raise' ("Full Bet"), but it is still action and that action must still be called or raised. If raised, it must raised by the last "Full Bet/Raise".
Also is sometimes confusing differentiating between a "Full Bet" and a "Full Raise". Instead of saying you have to raise a "Full Bet" it is probably more correct to say you to raise a "Full Raise". Most people think you have to raise or double the bet when you say "Full Bet". But when you clarify and say that you have to double the raise or raise the previous raise, they understand better. "Full Bet" is such a universal I'm sure we can redefine it. That's English for you. Where one phrase can mean 5 different things.
-
This is a very old post but, it touches on a current discussion: Perhaps the word "valid" would be more appropriate than "legal" or "full" or "complete" when defining the required amount for re-opening betting.
-
I don't think "valid" will clear much up. No-limit/limit/Pot limit all have different versions of what a valid bet or raise is.
How about this?
Betting or raising in no-limit.
The lowest possible bet or raise amount is determined by the amount of the big blind. In order to determine the minimum raise, in a betting round, take the largest current bet (or big blind) and add to it the amount of the big blind or largest previous raise amount, whichever is greater. All-in bets or raises that are less than the minimum are treated as if they do not exist as a raise; they do, however, count towards the amount of the current bet. In order for a player to have the action re-opened to them, in a betting round, they must be faced with a minimum raise or greater.
-
I don't think "valid" will clear much up. No-limit/limit/Pot limit all have different versions of what a valid bet or raise is.
How about this?
Betting or raising in no-limit.
The lowest possible bet or raise amount is determined by the amount of the big blind. In order to determine the minimum raise, in a betting round, take the largest current bet (or big blind) and add to it the amount of the big blind or largest previous raise amount, whichever is greater. All-in bets or raises that are less than the minimum are treated as if they do not exist as a raise; they do, however, count towards the amount of the current bet. In order for a player to have the action re-opened to them, in a betting round, they must be faced with a minimum raise or greater.
Tristan: I have to question the last sentence. If a player checks on a betting round, a raise is not required to re-open the betting to him, only a valid bet.
-
Betting or raising in no-limit.
The lowest possible bet or raise amount is determined by the amount of the big blind. In order to determine the minimum raise, in a betting round, take the largest current bet (or big blind) and add to it the amount of the big blind or largest previous raise amount, whichever is greater. All-in bets or raises that are less than the minimum are treated as if they do not exist as a raise; they do, however, count towards the amount of the current bet. In order for a player to have the action re-opened to them, in a betting round, they must be faced with at least a minimum bet or raise.
Good point Nick. Fixed!