PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2011 Summit => Topic started by: JasperToo on December 28, 2010, 11:36:19 AM
-
NickC, MikeB, Stuart and others might appreciate this thread. For the rest of you that want to catch up: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=259.0
After working through the discussing we thought some kind of clarifying rule change would be very helpful since the rules for raising in NL seem to remain confused for a lot of people. Myself included.
I put this proposed change together after coming to the light and figured I would throw it out there for consideration. It might mess with some peoples heads because the change moves, what some may believe is, an essential part of Rule 31 into Rule 30. However, I think that the part I moved (50% part) pertains mostly to HOW to raise and not to how MUCH to raise so that it fits better in 30. Rule 31 is about how MUCH to raise and that's where I put some, hopefully, clarifying stuff.
Please comment, argue, complain, whatever
30. Methods of Raising
In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by (1) placing the full amount in the pot in one motion; or (2) verbally declaring the full amount prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot; or (3) verbally declaring “raise” prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion. If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). It is the player’s responsibility to make his intentions clear.
31. Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. An all-in player’s bet, if more than the previous bet but less than a legal raise, establishes the current bet size but the minimum raise amount remains unchanged. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. The exception is in the case of multiple all-in bets still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting bet size to a player qualifies as a raise.
33. Multiple Chips
.... by the 50% standard in Rule 30.
-
definitely helpful ideas, Jasper, I can see what you're trying to clarify, especially when you write:
"....An all-in player’s bet, if more than the previous bet but less than a legal raise, establishes the current bet size but the minimum raise amount remains unchanged.... multiple all-in bets still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting bet size to a player qualifies as a raise...."
because that's exactly how it works.
-
Jasper and Mike,
I like all that is mentioned for Rule 30. Rule 31 is what bothers me: Consider replacing the wording at the end of the first sentence .....player who has already acted. Would you not consider a player first to act, that checks, and then the action continues with a bet and an all-in with less than the full raise. The way rule 31 is worded because the player acted (by checking), it would not allow him to raise and that is incorrect. He has every right to raise the initial bettor. Therefore I suggest that we consider rewording the last part of that sentence to ...the initial bettor on that round.
Rule #31 A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. An all-in player’s bet, if more than the previous bet but less than a legal raise, establishes the current bet size but the minimum raise amount remains unchanged. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the initial bettor.
I hate to say it but, I'm still having a tough time understanding the part about the multiple all-in.
-
THanks Mike I am glad that it is clear enough to get an "exactly how it works" from you.
NickC: I think your little change is perfect. I would have said that someone that checks is clearly able to raise if there is any bet behind his initial check, BUT obviously it could cause a problem so your fix is a great addition.
Only because I have recently found a clear understanding of this do I wish I knew how to explain it to you better so that you can understand the multiple all-ins. I assume another example might work with detailed step by step discussion but tell me what might work and I'll do it.
-
Jasper,
No-limit Blinds 50/100 on the turn
Player A bets 100
Player B calls 100
Player C goes all-in for 125
Player D goes all-in for 110
Player E goes all-in for 165
What options are open to Player A
#1 call 65 more or
#2 raise because the total from multiple all-ins equals 100 (enough to raise)
If you can answer this question I will understand
-
Jasper,
No-limit Blinds 50/100 on the turn
Player A bets 100
Player B calls 100
Player C goes all-in for 125
Player D goes all-in for 110
Player E goes all-in for 165
What options are open to Player A
#1 call 65 more or
#2 raise because the total from multiple all-ins equals 100 (enough to raise)
If you can answer this question I will understand
All Player A can do is call 65 or fold.
-
I don't like Nick's proposed language regarding "the initial bettor" because it is no more accurate than "a player who has already acted." For example, the rule about action being re-opened clearly applies equally to the initial bettor and anyone who called that initial bettor's action. If anything, the language should be changed to "a player for whom action is closed".
To me, the key word in the rule ("In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.") is "reopen." If that word is properly understood, you could just get rid of "to a player who has already acted" language completely -- i.e., just let the rule state: "In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting."
If action is already "open", the rule has no effect -- it does not "close" the action to a player for whom action is already "open" -- i.e., players who have not acted at all during the betting round or players for whom action has already been reopened by a previous complete bet or raise. The rule only applies if action is currently "closed" to a player, in which case an incomplete raise would not by itself "reopen" the action to that player.
When a betting round begins, betting action is open to all players. Once a player acts, further betting action is closed to that player. However, subsequent action can "reopen" that player's betting action. Subsequent action "reopens" a player's (previously closed) betting action only when any subsequent player makes a full raise* (or if the total wager amount of any player's subsequent action amounts to a full raise* to the player for whom action was previously closed). Accordingly, "an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting." Once betting action is opened/reopened to a player, it may not be closed until that player exercises his or her betting action.
*In this context, with respect to players who checked their action on the betting round, substitute "full bet" for "full raise".
-
I don't like Nick's proposed language regarding "the initial bettor" because it is no more accurate than "a player who has already acted." For example, the rule about action being re-opened clearly applies equally to the initial bettor and anyone who called that initial bettor's action. If anything, the language should be changed to "a player for whom action is closed".
Oddvark, I happen to agree with what you saying. I think that it is quite possible to leave "a player who has already acted" or the initial bettor" of the sentence completely out and it would say the same thing. But my question for you is if "initial bettor is no more accurate than "a player who has already acted" is it any less accurate?
However, the one part that I have to agree with is that it some instances there could be several players that have bet or called that the action is opened to and not JUST the initial bettor. So that bit could be a problem.
-
Oddvark and Jasper Too,
Perhaps if I give an example, it will be more clear. Under the current ruling:
Player A checks (acted by checking)
Player B bets 100
Player C all-in for 125
back to Player A...according to Rule #31..this player can not raise. It should at least be written so it is clear that Player A is raising Player B's initial bet, not the all-in.
The mention of the all-in player raising indicates that a bet had to be made in front of him. If Player A checks and Player B goes all-in for less than a full bet, then Player A can only call, beyond that, all options should be open to Player A.
All of these scenarios take complete focus and concentration. I can't see Rule #31 acceptable, as written.
Oddvark, I am having a tough time understanding what you are saying when referring to a full raise, by an all-in player?
An all-in wager of less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to a player who has already acted, but, the initial bet in front of the all-in player does.
-
Perhaps if I give an example, it will be more clear. Under the current ruling:
Player A checks (acted by checking)
Player B bets 100
Player C all-in for 125
back to Player A...according to Rule #31..this player can not raise.
Wrong. Rule 31 does not say that an incomplete raise "closes" the betting to any player; it says that an incomplete raise "does not reopen" betting. They are not the same thing. When player B bets, the betting is reopened for Player A, while betting is then closed to Player B. Since betting is already open to Player A when the action gets to Player C, it does not need to be "reopened", and nothing in the rules says that Player C's action can "close" any player's options. With respect to Player B, however, since betting action is closed, Player C's incomplete raise does not "reopen" Player B's options. (And to go one step further, although Player C's incomplete raise would not reopen Player B's options, if Player A were to check-raise to 225* or more, Player B's options would then be reopened.)
*Technically, if Player A went all-in for 200, Player B's options would be reopened, but since Player A and Player C would already be all-in, there would be no one for Player B to raise at that point.
Don't focus solely on the "a player who has already acted" language. If you read the Rule 31 as a whole, particularly the word "reopen", I think it pretty accurately states the rule. That being said, it clearly causes confusion, so rewording would be useful.
-
Oddvark,
If everyone had your knowledge of the game, and understood the rules as you do, we wouldn't be having these debates. I would prefer that the rule be reworded so everyone can understand them. I know that the TDA is trying to keep the rules as short as possible, but, I also think that many of the rules need to be "extended" or examples given that would explain specific situations that each rule covers. Chet mentioned on an earlier post that Rule #31 (the main body of the rule, excluding the last sentence) does not pertain to all-in players specifically. That rule applies in all limits and all varieties of poker. If a player makes a bet, and the next player puts in a larger amount (excluding the single chip) the 50% rule is enforced. As far as the last line of Rule #31, it's wrong. Period. The action of the all-in player is insignificant. The all in player has nothing to do with the options open to Player A. Player A can raise because player B bet. When we begin talking about All-in players the rules get confusing. I don't think that we should have to look so deep into a rule to understand it.
Why not a complete section: RULES FOR ALL-IN PLAYERS
Lets put our heads together and come up with something we all understand. There has to be a compromise, or a better way to word that rule.
Oddvark, with all due respect your reason for not agreeing with me also has me confused. You said Quote" Rule 31 does not say that an incomplete raise "closes" the betting to any player; it says that an incomplete raise "does not reopen"betting. They are not the same thing." So you are saying that "not reopening" and "closing" the betting are different?
I'll be back later, right now I can't remember what I had for breakfast.
-
... I also think that many of the rules need to be "extended" or examples given that would explain specific situations that each rule covers.
I agree. It would be great if there were a basic set of "short" rules, with a supplement that had examples to clarify the rule usage in both basic and tricky situations.
Oddvark, with all due respect your reason for not agreeing with me also has me confused. You said Quote" Rule 31 does not say that an incomplete raise "closes" the betting to any player; it says that an incomplete raise "does not reopen"betting. They are not the same thing." So you are saying that "not reopening" and "closing" the betting are different?
Yes, they are different.
-
If I may jump back in here for a bit. It seems to me that Oddvark touched on the problem you may be having with the rule which seems to be the "player who has acted" language. Your concern being about the player who has acted by checking. I looked in the RROP glossary and this is the definition of a check: "to waive the right to initiate betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates the betting" By this definition of a check, a player actually HAS NOT acted by checking (I know that we use checking as significant action in some situations but for the purpose of this rule...). He retains the right to act if there is betting behind him.
For the checker, he has simply waived his right to initiate the betting. The betting is actually still OPEN to him , it just may be that action never gets back to him because if everyone checks behind he has already waived the right to INITIATE betting.. For an initial bettor they CLOSE their action until someone OPENS it by raising. Yes, NOT REOPENING betting and CLOSING betting are quite different since you actually CLOSE your own betting by actually betting! Another player has to REOPEN betting to you by raising you.
Let's take a look at Rule 31 again. I am quoting the rule with my suggested changes here but I think we already agree that the 50% part is not relevant to this discussion.
31. Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. An all-in player’s bet, if more than the previous bet but less than a legal raise, establishes the current bet size but the minimum raise amount remains unchanged. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. The exception is in the case of multiple all-in bets still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting bet size to a player qualifies as a raise.
I think this next illustration demonstrates how the proposed language could help make the action clear(with our definition of a check, of course). it should show how an all in bet establishes the next bet size but leaves the minimum raise amount unchanged.
So let's run through another example of play to illustrate
POST FLOP play (I want to illustrate a guy that checks!) 50/100 blinds
SB - checks
BB- goes all in for 75 (now at this point if it either folded around or there were no other players, SB has two choices, fold or call - no brainer)
1 - calls 75 (player 1 has now established a bet size of 75. if last to act with players all calling, what does this do for the SB? He has all options open to him, he can fold, call the 75 or raise 100 and put 175 into the pot)
2 - raises to 175 (new bet size established, unchanged minimum raise size - SB now can fold call 175 or reraise 100 to 275. The minimum raise is the amount of the BB)
3 - all in for 225 (sb now can fold, call 225 or reraise 100 to 325 because this is an all in for less than a legal raise and therefore the minimum raise is still 100: if SB calls then player 2 would NOT be able to raise because when
it gets back to him the amount to call does not reach a legal raise:)
4- all in for 400 (SB now can fold, call 400 or raise 175 for a total bet of 575. Player 2 would also be able to raise as the multiple all ins behind him have reached a minimum raise for him.)
Now, all that said, I think that the small changes I've proposed (or something similar) would suffice to make it clear most all of the time and keep the main body of the rules concise. But perhaps some kind of appendix of examples or supplement as Oddvark suggested would be a great addition. I DON"T think an actual section in the rules for ALL-IN players is needed as these changes suggested here should actually address most all the issues
Can anyone give me a situation that couldn't be covered by this rule (theoretically, by Rule 31 and an understanding of RROP 14:1-4 but this was meant to clear it up in TDA rulse)?
NickC, does the definition of a check help with the understanding of the rule?
-
Gentlemen,
I will now drop from this discussion. I went through this earlier this year and I wanted to avoid it again. For a while, I thought that I had someone that agreed with me but, that changed. I appreciate all of the time that you have (both) put into this but, it is only getting worse. I don't see Roberts Rules description fixing the problems with Rule #31. A player that checks acted.
Jasper Too, somewhere along the way, you eliminated one of the main reasons for Rule #31 which has nothing to do with the all-in players.
How about this: leave the rule the way it is and then add this; Any player that checked, prior to a full bet, or an all-in raise, shall have all options open to them.
I understand the rule, I was just trying to make it easier for new poker dealers and the floor.
Thanks for the input.
-
Nick you may not end up answering this if you are looking to drop from the discussion but what part of the rule did I eliminate that you feel was the main reason for the rule?
I am confident there was agreement that the 50% reference in Rule 31 is not about HOW MUCH to raise but rather a rule about the mechanics of raising. And that part was simply moved to rule 30 in my suggestion
The part about all in players was is added as part of the original discussion and there was some concensus that it did actually clear things up.
I don't see Roberts Rules description fixing the problems with Rule #31. A player that checks acted.
Well, perhaps, but not in a way that removes his options and a small change to the last part of of that sentence "a player who has already acted" could be changed to "...has already bet" would help.
Sorry things somehow got more complicated. I know that both threads served to get me cleared up on a rule I've been stuck on for awhile.
Sorry we couldn't help.
-
I like Jasper's suggestions for modifying Rule 31, and I think those modifications do help make the rule clearer and easier to understand. I don't see things getting worse.
However, I disagree with Jasper about how a check should be treated. I believe a check is an action and should be treated as the equivalent of a bet of $0. Then, any subsequent bet would be treated as the equivalent of a raise of the $0 bet. What that means is that any bet would still have to be a full bet (i.e., a full raise from $0) in order to reopen the betting to the player who checked.
So in Jasper's earlier example:
POST FLOP play (I want to illustrate a guy that checks!) 50/100 blinds
SB - checks
BB- goes all in for 75 (now at this point if it either folded around or there were no other players, SB has two choices, fold or call - no brainer)
1 - calls 75 (player 1 has now established a bet size of 75. if last to act with players all calling, what does this do for the SB? He has all options open to him, he can fold, call the 75 or raise 100 and put 175 into the pot)
2 - raises to 175 (new bet size established, unchanged minimum raise size - SB now can fold call 175 or reraise 100 to 275. The minimum raise is the amount of the BB)
3 - all in for 225 (sb now can fold, call 225 or reraise 100 to 325 because this is an all in for less than a legal raise and therefore the minimum raise is still 100: if SB calls then player 2 would NOT be able to raise because when
it gets back to him the amount to call does not reach a legal raise:)
4- all in for 400 (SB now can fold, call 400 or raise 175 for a total bet of 575. Player 2 would also be able to raise as the multiple all ins behind him have reached a minimum raise for him.)
I disagree with the comments about the SB's options following player 1's call of the 75 incomplete bet. In my opinion, neither the BB's incomplete bet of 75 nor any subsequent calls of that 75 bet would reopen the betting to the SB. The incomplete bet should be treated as an incomplete raise (from the initial bet of $0), and per Rule 31, that incomplete bet/raise would not reopen the betting to the SB.
-
Right now the important thing is to identify topics that may be in need of rules clarification, or new rules... don't worry too much about the exact language at this point.... if you can't agree 100% on the language right now that's normal, the final language drafting can take weeks even once a rough copy is agreed to by the membership. FWIW, the TDA has always tried to use as few words as possible that will clearly convey the rule.
-
Mike,
It's good to hear your take on this. It is also good to know that we directed attention to, possibly rewording a rule or two.
Jasper Too,
I like most of what you are suggesting but, I have to agree with Oddvark on your example regarding the SB. Can you be more specific on your description?
SB - checks
BB- goes all in for 75 (now at this point if it either folded around or there were no other players, SB has two choices, fold or call - no brainer)
I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR #'s 1, 2, 3 ? The way I understand the question, the SB can only call because the bet is undersized.
1 - calls 75 (player 1 has now established a bet size of 75. if last to act with players all calling, what does this do for the SB? He has all options open to him, he can fold, call the 75 or raise 100 and put 175 into the pot)
2 - raises to 175 (new bet size established, unchanged minimum raise size - SB now can fold call 175 or reraise 100 to 275. The minimum raise is the amount of the BB)
3 - all in for 225 (sb now can fold, call 225 or reraise 100 to 325 because this is an all in for less than a legal raise and therefore the minimum raise is still 100: if SB calls then player 2 would NOT be able to raise because when
it gets back to him the amount to call does not reach a legal raise:)
4- all in for 400 (SB now can fold, call 400 or raise 175 for a total bet of 575. Player 2 would also be able to raise as the multiple all ins behind him have reached a minimum raise for him.)
We have to clarify, and simplify the wording. How can we expect this to be accepted when we don't even understand each other.
I like what Mike says about the TDA always trying to use as few words as possible that will clearly convey the rule. I agree, but I also think that in the case of Rule #31, another sentence, or a few more words, might be all it needs.
-
Jasper Too,
Your rewording of Rule #30 has reference to all-in bets, where the original does not. I would like to see all-in's separated and I'll explain my feelings.
Rule #30 Methods of raising
It is the responsibility of the bettor to make his intentions clear. Therefore, when initiating a bet, calling a bet, or raising, the following methods must be followed. Announce your bet with clarity, or push the correct amount into the betting area in one motion.....( I don't know why no-limit and Pot-limit are singled out).
Rule #31 A raise must be at least the size of the initial full bet, or raise of the current betting round. If a player facing a bet, places the INCORRECT amount into the pot, it shall be adjusted to the proper amount or (based on the 50% rule) what it is closest to.ALSO SEE RULES #32 AND #33.
ONLY AN ALL-IN PLAYER CAN MAKE AN INCOMPLETE BET OR RAISE. therefore, the short all-in bet will not reopen betting in no-limit TO ANY PLAYER THAT BET ON THE CURRENT BETTING ROUND.
*Limit games will recognize an all-in of 50% or more as a legal raise. The raise will be considered in the raise limit for that game.
I have always tried to separate the 50% rule because it is used in limit but many of the rules are mixed up with all-in players and players putting the incorrect amount into the pot.
-
Right now the important thing is to identify topics that may be in need of rules clarification, or new rules... don't worry too much about the exact language at this point..
Thanks Mike, good advise. So what I want to do is list those topics that I see as the main ones that came from these two threads. Then I want to address that example I used cause I have to agree that I didn't get it quite right.
a quote from the OP of the original thread should get us started:
cwmiller999 said "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.""
So the first issue is:
1. "How much is a riase?"
Then the next question is:
2. "How much is a bet?"
Limit and no limit structure clouded the issue immediately which I think is a critical part of the confusion. I don't happen to think the language of the rule makes a differentiation except in the case of an all in player in no limit play. So that brings up the next issue or two.
What do you do with all in bets? And I happen to think that it should be easy to apply the main language to both structures without too much difficulty. But the one part of the discussion that I thought was cleared up early on was the confusion over the 50% rule
so we have
1. "How much is a riase?"
2. "How much is a bet?"
and now:
3. "How do all-in bets effect the action?"
4. "What is the meaning of the 50% part of this rule?"
I think that are the 4 major things that came up in this discussion and that need to be addressed in any changes/additions to the rules.
I have to switch computers and settle in to some work but I am going to elaborate on these points in another post as well as that example I used earlier......be right back
-
I really hate when work gets in the way of poker :P
So let's take a look at each of the issues that I believed where raised in the discussion and that relate to Rules 30, 31 and maybe one or two others. And I am going to take the liberty here to rearrange them because I think they can more easily be addressed in a different order:
1. "How much is a bet?"
2. "How much is a riaise?"
3. "What is the meaning of the 50% part of this rule?"
4. "How do all-in bets effect the action?"
So let's look at the new #1. "How much is a bet?" I think it is easier to answer first. Let's take a look at Rule 31: (original form, without my suggested changes for now)
31. Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.
31 addresses the size of a RAISE and does not explicitly say what a bet is, but suggests that a bet is what ever size is established for the "current betting round". So all of us know that it is established by the blind structure and subsequent raises. And I will presume that we all understand that post flop in limit play the bet size is the size of the BB or x2BB depending on the round and in no limit the minimum bet is just the BB but that an initial bet for post flop rounds can be anything above the minimum and are considered a bet and not a "raise". Is that a fair presumption? Bet sizes can be affected by short all in bets, and I think that is where some of the confusion has come in. I know it did for me. This discussion cleared my head over whether you add the short bet to the total bet and then raise or not (RROP 14:4) but this TDA rule doesn't CLEARLY address that. (it can be argued easily that it does vaguely address it by saying "size of the largest previous bet" ) Thus my suggested change:
"An all-in player’s bet, if more than the previous bet but less than a legal raise, establishes the current bet size but the minimum raise amount remains unchanged." It might be said that this really only addresses a raise in no-limit. And I know that our 4th question accidentally brings up the "completing the bet" thing for limit structures. But I don't think this language would have an effect on that: the minimum raise amount never actually changes in a limit structure after all.
Ok, I think the original rule addresses bet size - it would be the "largest previous bet" in every situation. And my suggestion might add more specificity.....
So now question #2. "How much is a raise?"
That is what Rule 31 is supposed to be all about if its title is "RAISES" and at a minimum, the first sentence of the rule establishes that a raise must be at least the size of the largest previous BET or RAISE. Does that seem to be a clear distinction between the two as being two separate things. In other words is it clear in that sentence that you can have a bet size that is different than the raise size? A raise is a raise and a bet is a bet. A simple example of a series of minimum raises and re-raises should help.
Post flop player A opens for minimum of 100, for player B the bet is 100 to him. He raises to 200. It is now a bet of 200 to player C but what is the "at least" amount he can raise. The rule as it is now could go two ways for people because it says "largest previous bet OR raise". So some could interpret it as player C would have to put in 400. I happen to believe that the minimum raise is still 100 and player C could put in 300 but we can see how it might get misinterpreted. I think the OR in that sentence actually makes the two exclusive from each other. But again, my suggested addition might help clear up the ambiguity rather easily.
I think that that first sentence of Rule 31 actually does the job it is meant to and is clear as long as you have a strong foundational understanding of raising rules which most of us thought we did but I for one was stuck on the short all in not being added to the bet size as some others where. So some clarification there is in order.
-
That last post was silly long but I found myself dissecting the rule more than I intended. I was trying to establish that Rule 31 does say what a raise and a bet are and that for most instances that should be clear enough regardless of the structure. And all in that first sentence. However, there could still be a little room for improvement
Question #3. What is the meaning of the 50% part of this rule.
Now I thought we managed some consensus on this early in the discussion but something NickC said in a very recent post makes me wonder if that's true.
I have always tried to separate the 50% rule because it is used in limit but many of the rules are mixed up with all-in players and players putting the incorrect amount into the pot.
The 50% language in rule 31 is NOT the same as the rule used for limit play. Unless I really misunderstand what the catching point is I believe the 50% rule in limit that keeps getting referred to is where an all-in player in a limit game who puts in 50% or more of the amount for a legal raise gives an option to the next player to COMPLETE the raise and then raise himself. If an-all in player in a limit structure has less than 50% of the legal raise then the next player can complete but not raise. The 50% language in this rule is simply about the MECHANICS of raising if you toss in less than 50% all you can do is call, if more than 50% you must raise the minimum. And that applies to limit, NL, and PL. This is also why I strongly believe that this portion of Rule 31 should be moved to Rule 30.
Question #4. How do all-in bets effect the action?
Rule 31 only has one answer to that question: " In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted." By itself it is straightforward and shouldn't cause a problem. And yet it does. One gentleman already stated a problem with the word "acted" because someone may have checked. And if you are like me I am sure you would have run into a problem with what was a full raise especially with some all-in bets depending on what your used to. Therefore, some extra language is needed to help clearly establish the difference between a raise and bet, the minimum raise for a round and how multiple all in bets would affect a particular player. I think the suggested changes gives us a place to start. Something that shows a difference between a bet size and the minimum raise size. And then we have the problem of a player that checked.
Can't tell you why, but I found myself fairly passionate about this at the moment so that's why your getting all this dribble. Feel free to just skip over it and go on with your day :)
-
I like Jasper's suggestions for modifying Rule 31, and I think those modifications do help make the rule clearer and easier to understand. I don't see things getting worse.
However, I disagree with Jasper about how a check should be treated. I believe a check is an action and should be treated as the equivalent of a bet of $0. Then, any subsequent bet would be treated as the equivalent of a raise of the $0 bet. What that means is that any bet would still have to be a full bet (i.e., a full raise from $0) in order to reopen the betting to the player who checked.
From a practical standpoint I don't see a problem with your suggestion that a check be treated as a bet of $0. Other than the fact that the definition of a check is that a player is waiving his right to initiate betting. And I think it is actually easier to not count the player that checked as "action" per se. Because, really, a player that checks is just passing his opportunity for FIRST ACTION and not his opportunity to act if the pot is opened by someone else. And if it is not action then the part of the rule that says "who has already acted" does not affect the player that checked, just the player that bet.
So in Jasper's earlier example:
POST FLOP play (I want to illustrate a guy that checks!) 50/100 blinds
SB - checks
BB- goes all in for 75 (now at this point if it either folded around or there were no other players, SB has two choices, fold or call - no brainer)
1 - calls 75 (player 1 has now established a bet size of 75. if last to act with players all calling, what does this do for the SB? He has all options open to him, he can fold, call the 75 or raise 100 and put 175 into the pot)
2 - raises to 175 (new bet size established, unchanged minimum raise size - SB now can fold call 175 or reraise 100 to 275. The minimum raise is the amount of the BB)
3 - all in for 225 (sb now can fold, call 225 or reraise 100 to 325 because this is an all in for less than a legal raise and therefore the minimum raise is still 100: if SB calls then player 2 would NOT be able to raise because when
it gets back to him the amount to call does not reach a legal raise:)
4- all in for 400 (SB now can fold, call 400 or raise 175 for a total bet of 575. Player 2 would also be able to raise as the multiple all ins behind him have reached a minimum raise for him.)
I disagree with the comments about the SB's options following player 1's call of the 75 incomplete bet. In my opinion, neither the BB's incomplete bet of 75 nor any subsequent calls of that 75 bet would reopen the betting to the SB. The incomplete bet should be treated as an incomplete raise (from the initial bet of $0), and per Rule 31, that incomplete bet/raise would not reopen the betting to the SB.
I don't know about that one. A reread of RROP 14:2 says this: “...At all other times, when someone goes all-in for less than the minimum bet, a player has the option of just calling the all-in amount. 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 lest 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"
It seems to me that my explanation of the SB's options is correct in regards to the short bet and any subsequent calls because the SB CHECKED and therefore only waived is right to act first but once action is opened, his options are now open to him. So I still maintain that a CHECK is not a bet of $0. A check is not action, IMHO!
-
Jasper Too,
Your rewording of Rule #30 has reference to all-in bets, where the original does not. I would like to see all-in's separated and I'll explain my feelings.
I don't see it NickC, can you point it out?
"30. Methods of Raising
In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by (1) placing the full amount in the pot in one motion; or (2) verbally declaring the full amount prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot; or (3) verbally declaring “raise” prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion. If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). It is the player’s responsibility to make his intentions clear."
It is the responsibility of the bettor to make his intentions clear. Therefore, when initiating a bet, calling a bet, or raising, the following methods must be followed. Announce your bet with clarity, or push the correct amount into the betting area in one motion.....( I don't know why no-limit and Pot-limit are singled out).
Well I guess it is because in limit everyone knows what the raise is supposed to be. The 50% language that is currently in 31 works for either structure to settle short bets of folks that aren't all in. And what you have done here works great but not everybody is going to do that every time so we need a way to handle those occaisions they don't.
-
Jasper Too,
You are correct about your rule #30. I don't see it either. I guess this is turning into more than I thought. There are only three of us that are participating in this discussion and we can't agree.
I've mentioned numerous times what bothers me about rules pertaining to raising, so I'm not going there again. I would like to add a couple comments about Checking in poker:
#1 Checking is waiving the right to bet-TRUE
#2 I guess you could even define it as a (0) bet -TRUE
#3 Checking in any form of poker, IS acting on your hand-TRUE... This is one area that I totally disagree with Oddvark
Checking in poker, might be feared more by opposing players, than a wager. WHY? because they may get Check-raised.
Check-raise is used in every poker room in the country, (that I know of).
I would like to know how others feel about the changes that I suggested for Rule #30.
Rule #30 Methods of raising
It is the responsibility of the bettor to make his intentions clear. Therefore, when initiating a bet, calling a bet, or raising, the following rules apply; Announce your bet with clarity, or push the correct amount into the betting area in one motion.....( I don't know why no-limit and Pot-limit are singled out).
Do we need more? This should be for all poker, not just no-limit.
-
This is from an earlier post from March 2010. There were many suggestions, but I thought this was worth looking at again.
MikeB
Administrator
TDA Member & Veteran Poster
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2010, 10:59:42 pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Nick C on March 25, 2010, 11:55:45 am
There are many discussions regarding raises. There was a posting earlier this month that made me realize that rule #31 will have to be addressed at the next meeting. The last sentence; in no-limit and pot-limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. I did forward this to the administration department and it will be addressed. The example that was submitted on March 6, 2010 was a perfect example for explanation. The game is no-limit.
Player A checks.... Player B bets $250
Player C goes all-in for $490 (less than the required amount to be considered a raise)
The way the rule is written, because player A has acted prior to the bet and all-in raise, he would not be allowed to raise. That is incorrect. Player A will have the right to raise.
Mike B's response;
Actually, in this situation, Player C's bet of $490 is apparently over the minimum bet for this round, that minimum bet being $250 or less (Player B's bet). Either way you look at it, either Player B's bet of $250 OR Player C's total bet of $490 both are by themselves at least minimum bets and enough to re-open the action to A. Since Player A hasn't acted on Player B's full bet of $250, he has a right to act on it, regardless of whether Player C's raise of $240 to 490 total is a full minimum raise.... am I missing something ? Once Player B makes a minimum bet the action is re-opened for A, it doesn't matter IMO what Player C does at that point.... The only situation where Rule 31 would apply here is if Player B checks and Player C is all-in for something less than whatever the minimum for this round is, but that's not the case (unless I'm missing something at 1am cst which is always possible I agree that Player B cannot raise here if Player A just smooth calls Player C, because C's all-in wager of another 240 doesn't constitute a full raise to B.
To Chet and Mike B
I guess I'm not expressing the situation properly and please, correct me if I'm wrong. Before I try again; the last line in rule #31 is what I question; an all-in wager of less than a full raise (which the $490 wager of player C qualifies as because it would have to be a raise to $500) would not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. When you consider that player A did act first by checking. Why should he not be allowed to raise player B's initial wager of $250?
Mike I really like it when you enter our conversation. Chet, I'm sorry I omitted part of the address....nickscasinopoker@comf5.com...
The confusion that I see is because the ruling should read (IMO): A wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the original bettor.
I think I have a better example; The game is no-limit player A checks player B bets $100 player C calls, player D calls player E goes all-in for $120...now back to player A. What are his options? he can fold, he can call, or HE CAN RAISE, because he is raising player B and not the all-in player (E). If this example does not contradict rule #31 please explain. Player A (who started the action with a check, still defined as having acted) has every right to raise in that position. To continue, if player A were to fold or call the $120 all-in wager then player B ( the original bettor) can only call. Chet you are right, we don't need any more examples.
Thanks for your response
Nick C
Stuart Murray's Reply:
Nick,
I see your point regarding the under raise rule, the wording under your interpretation is misleading. You are correct that the wording needs to be 'cleaned' up a little but even your example: "A wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the original bettor" would be flawed as if with blinds at 50/100 A and B check and then C moves in for 75 the betting is not re-opened to them.
Definitely something that needs to go under scrutiny. I think everyone is happy with the situations and when betting is open and when it is not, but I do see your point that this rule does require clarity.
Regards
Stuart
-
30. Methods of Raising
In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by (1) placing the full amount in the pot in one motion; or (2) verbally declaring the full amount prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot; or (3) verbally declaring “raise” prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion. If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). It is the player’s responsibility to make his intentions clear.
I really, really, really, wish this rule was re-worded to state:
30. Methods of Raising
In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by (1) placing the full amount in the pot in one motion; or (2) verbally declaring the full amount prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot; or (3) verbally declaring “raise” prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion. If a player places chips into the pot that amounts to more than 50% of the previous bet or raise, but less than the minimum raise, then they will be required to make the full minimum raise (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). It is the player’s responsibility to make his intentions clear.
Forcing people to raise because they accidentally tossed in 3 $25 chips instead of 2 $25 chips is not in the best interest of the game IMO.
-
31. Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. An all-in player’s bet, if more than the previous bet but less than a legal raise, establishes the current bet size but the minimum raise amount remains unchanged. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. The exception is in the case of multiple all-in bets still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting bet size to a player qualifies as a raise.
I really like incorporating the suggested changes to rule 31. I hope that gets a look at the next TDA meeting.
-
My suggestion to this thread would be that we be consistent in terminology. For example, in Dave's post below are the terms, "Legal Raise" and "Full Raise", are they not one and the same? I cannot think of any situation where a "Legal" Raise would not be a "Full" Raise.
The only reason for having two different terms is if there is a difference.
Hope this helps!!
-
Dave,
Rule #31 has always been on the top of my list for discussion. I like the input but I am still having problems with the new suggestion. I feel as though I'm "beating a dead horse," so to speak when I draw attention to the last line of the current rule. This is one of the suggestions I made;
Rule #31 A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. An all-in player’s bet, if more than the previous bet but less than a legal raise, establishes the current bet size but the minimum raise amount remains unchanged. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the initial bettor.
I hate to say it but, I'm still having a tough time understanding the part about the multiple all-in.
-
If a player places chips into the pot that amounts to more than 50% of the previous bet or raise, but less than the minimum raise, then they will be required to make the full minimum raise
Forcing people to raise because they accidentally tossed in 3 $25 chips instead of 2 $25 chips is not in the best interest of the game IMO.
That is a minor word change that makes it easy for everybody to understand and I like it.
NickC, wish i could help you understand it better but I am not sure a better way to 'splain it. Except that I was thinking about it the other day and realized that the only thing multiple all-ins do is increase the BET amount without there being a LEGAL raise until it gets back to the original bettor who WOULD be facing a legal raise (as it relates to his bet) because at least one of the all-ins was big enough to constitute a legal raise if the all-ins were not involved. Geez, just reading that sentence now, I am not sure I am helping even though I believe it is correct.
-
I have no problem with the multiple chip raise rules, or the 50% rule. My question was about the multiple all-ins. Jasper, on an earlier post, you went from telling me that what I suggested was a perfect fix, and now you are talking about a multiple chip raise? I see a problem with the last sentence in rule 31. If a player checks...they have acted...so how can it be worded that an all in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted? If a player made a wager, this is true. If the player checked and a bet is made (which is implied), and another player goes all in with (any amount), the betting IS OPEN TO THE PLAYER, OR PLAYERS, that checked prior to the initial proper bet. Therefore the wording has to be corrected. I have no clue what you are trying to 'splain to me about 3 $25 chips instead of 2 $25 chips. Now that you mentioned it, that is why I like the suggestion that Thomas McGee made about increasing it to 51%.
If you want to discuss that, I'm ready.
-
My suggestion to this thread would be that we be consistent in terminology. For example, in Dave's post below are the terms, "Legal Raise" and "Full Raise", are they not one and the same? I cannot think of any situation where a "Legal" Raise would not be a "Full" Raise.
The only reason for having two different terms is if there is a difference.
Hope this helps!!
I do this only for you chet :)
A legal raise is not necessarily a full raise, but a full raise is always a legal raise.
So yes there's a difference. :)
-
Thomas:
OK, I must be getting really thick in my old age, would you be so kind as to give me an example of a legal raise that is not a full raise.
Chet
-
Chet is right,
Repeating the written rules that we don't understand is not helpful. We need some good examples of real situations where they will apply. I am still waiting for an explanation of how multiple all-ins reopen betting, or qualify as a raise in no-limit and pot-limit?
-
... I have no clue what you are trying to 'splain to me about 3 $25 chips instead of 2 $25 chips. Now that you mentioned it, that is why I like the suggestion that Thomas McGee made about increasing it to 51%.
If you want to discuss that, I'm ready.
Hi NickC, I think you misunderstood the post previous to yours quoted here. The bit about 3 $25 dollar chips was actually part of the quote from Mcgee that I used in my post to agree with the change of (the now) rule #30 and the "more than 50%" statement.
The part I was trying to "'splain" (and I was not trying to be a smarta&& there at all..) was the all-in players bets and how they effect the action for the raise.
Chet is right,
... I am still waiting for an explanation of how multiple all-ins reopen betting, or qualify as a raise in no-limit and pot-limit?
Let's set up our players: A,B,C,D. Let's say that this is post flop play so we don't have to mess with chips already in the pot. Let's say the blinds are 50/100. This would mean a minimum bet for this round is 100
Player A: Checks
Player B: bets 100
Player C: all-in 125
Player D: all-in 175
Now the action is back to player A. (I will reserve the "check is action" discussion for another time) Player A has the customary choices: fold, call or raise.
Call: How much does he have to put in to call? $175 because that is the largest bet back to him is 175 from the all-in player D
Raise: How much does he have to put in the pot to raise? He has to match the 175 but he only has to raise another 100 because there have been no legal raises (full raises? ok, we'll leave that till later too :) ) so 275 goes in.
Is that correct? Clear? - the minimum raise is only 100 because there has not been a full raise in front of him.
So with those choices (and a hypothetical all-in for player A of some amount) what would the action do for player B?
Call: 175 would be the required call for player A so Player B CANNOT RE-raise as the 175 is not a full raise back to him
Raise: 275 goes in and then the bet back to Player B is obviously a raise to Player B in that player A actually had enough chips to make the minimum raise ABOVE the minimum bet of 175. And that, I think, may be the sticky point for some. It's easy to see here that Player B gets to reraise because player A actually put in a raise.
All-in for 225: Here is what it means when the rule says multiple all-ins reopen betting to a player that has already acted (bet, whatever). An all-in here for 225 is not a "FULL" raise in this scenario. Just as the 175 all-in for player D was not a full raise of the 125 all-in bet of player C which was not a full raise of the minimum 100 bet by player B, Though they were all "raises" of the minimum bet. So they are all-in bets that, in and of themselves, individually, do not constitute a full raise against the previous bet, that last one did AMOUNT to a full raise as far as Player B is concerned and that player can now reraise.
So, Nick, I know that you stated earlier in the thread that you don't see why the all-ins matter and I suppose for the purposes of player B they don't need to be considered because, if they weren't there, player A would have obviously raised player B with his 225 bet. The key to the rule is that the all-in bets DO INCREASE THE MINIMUM BET to subsequent players but DO NOT INCREASE THE MINIMUM RAISE to subsequent players.
Does that help any?
-
Jasper, one little nit-pick on your last example. You need to add a Player E who just calls the 175 (and has more than 225 total chips). Otherwise, in your example, Players A, C, and D would be all-in, so Player B could not re-raise (even when facing a combined full raise amount), because there would be no one left to raise.
-
Okay,
Before I go over this again, I'd like to note; If the 50% raise rule were applied to all poker limits whenever a player goes all-in, it would be so simple that anyone could understand it. Is that why we don't use it? Is it too logical? Is it better for poker to complicate a rule by assuming all players have a basic understanding of the different procedures for each game?
We have three pages of posts on this subject, with comments and suggestions from about a half dozen members. If we are confused, do you think that the other 1200+ might have some issues with these rules? I'm going to repeat myself again:
Perhaps if I give an example, it will be more clear. Under the current ruling:
Player A checks (acted by checking)
Player B bets 100
Player C all-in for 125
Back to Player A...according to Rule #31..this player can not raise. It should at least be written so it is clear that Player A is raising Player B's initial bet, not the all-in.
The mention of the all-in player raising indicates that a bet had to be made in front of him. If Player A checks and Player B goes all-in for less than a full bet, then Player A can only call, beyond that, all options should be open to Player A.
All of these scenarios take complete focus and concentration. I can't see Rule #31 acceptable, as written.
Oddvark, I am having a tough time understanding what you are saying when referring to a full raise, by an all-in player?
An all-in wager of less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to a player who has already acted, but, the initial bet in front of the all-in player does.
-
Jasper, one little nit-pick on your last example. You need to add a Player E who just calls the 175 (and has more than 225 total chips). Otherwise, in your example, Players A, C, and D would be all-in, so Player B could not re-raise (even when facing a combined full raise amount), because there would be no one left to raise.
Actually that makes me laugh a bit. I thought of that but I was trying to keep it as simple as possible. The main goal being to demonstrate the increase of minimum bet without increasing the minimum raise and the all-ins
-
Okay,
Before I go over this again, I'd like to note; If the 50% raise rule were applied to all poker limits whenever a player goes all-in, it would be so simple that anyone could understand it. Is that why we don't use it? Is it too logical? Is it better for poker to complicate a rule by assuming all players have a basic understanding of the different procedures for each game?
to quote from RROP 14:5 " 'Completing the bet' is a limit poker wager type only, and not used at big bet poker". So the short answer to "is that why we don't use it?" is NO. The answer is because it is designed for limit poker and big bet poker is different. and yes we can assume a basic understanding of the different procedures for each game. Stud is crazy different in the way the bring in and deal works so it's not crazy to expect an understanding. They are different games. Limit and no-limit poker are really two different games.
We have three pages of posts on this subject, with comments and suggestions from about a half dozen members. If we are confused, do you think that the other 1200+ might have some issues with these rules? I'm going to repeat myself again:
Well, 4 out of 6 of us aren't confused. but I will concede your point that if there is some confusion it would be better if we find a way to fix it
Perhaps if I give an example, it will be more clear. Under the current ruling:
I am a little hurt that you chose not to address my example above for this discussion ;D I'll get over it
Player A checks (acted by checking)
Player B bets 100
Player C all-in for 125
Back to Player A...according to Rule #31..this player can not raise. It should at least be written so it is clear that Player A is raising Player B's initial bet, not the all-in.
I think I know your answer here but I am going to make you say it before I go off on a rant about it....How does rule #31 prevent Player A from raising???
The mention of the all-in player raising indicates that a bet had to be made in front of him. If Player A checks and Player B goes all-in for less than a full bet, then Player A can only call, beyond that, all options should be open to Player A.
Ok, I can agree on the first sentence, in order for there to be a raise there has to be a bet first... However I do not agree with your second sentence...if player A checks and player B goes all-in for less then why can't player A raise? (as Oddvark will point out we would need intervening players who only call in this scenario to make the discussion pertinent, otherwise he can't raise simply because there is nobody to raise)
All of these scenarios take complete focus and concentration. I can't see Rule #31 acceptable, as written.
Oddvark, I am having a tough time understanding what you are saying when referring to a full raise, by an all-in player?
An all-in wager of less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to a player who has already acted, but, the initial bet in front of the all-in player does. [Sort of
I want to hear your answer to the question I asked above before I go on.
-
Jasper too,
I should have used your example...sorry about that. I will quote what you said on your most recent post:
"Ok, I can agree on the first sentence, in order for there to be a raise there has to be a bet first... However I do not agree with your second sentence...if player A checks and player B goes all-in for less then why can't player A raise?" I NEVER SAID THAT, so maybe that is why you are not agreeing with me. Take another look at my post that you are refering to. Posted at 7:43 am.
Jasper I know that stud is different from hold'em, and no-limit is different from limit but, that does not answer my question of why the raising is not the same when it could simplify everything. I really don't need to hear any more comments like; "Hey, that's just the way it is!" Because the way it is, is "messed up."
When I say the rules are confusing, don't think that I don't know what they are trying to convey, I do. The wording needs to be corrected and I know it is easier said than done.
-
"Ok, I can agree on the first sentence, in order for there to be a raise there has to be a bet first... However I do not agree with your second sentence...if player A checks and player B goes all-in for less then why can't player A raise?" I NEVER SAID THAT, so maybe that is why you are not agreeing with me. Take another look at my post that you are refering to. Posted at 7:43 am.
Well I am going to re-quote the post that I directly responded to....
Perhaps if I give an example, it will be more clear. Under the current ruling:
Player A checks (acted by checking)
Player B bets 100
Player C all-in for 125
Back to Player A...according to Rule #31..this player can not raise. ...... It's right here.. you say "according to Rule #31...this player can not raise.....It should at least be written so it is clear that Player A is raising Player B's initial bet, not the all-in.
And I do understand that the "that's the way it is" answer bugs you, wasn't really doing it on purpose. The point is that they are different games. I believe your point is: Why can't we make the raising rule the same for both(all) to simplify things. I protest that it feels to me like we are working on two different things though and it might continue to stay confusing. But on the other hand I can see how you may think they are directly related. If the 50% thing - specifically: "Completing the bet" were implemented for no-limit as well as limit it would "simplify" things. If that were the case then you wouldn't have to worry about how all-ins effect a previous player.
I think the answer is that it just doesn't work in no-limit. I can't even figure out how it might. I guess I would be interested in seeing how you think it would work.
So let's see if we can keep things organized. I asked a question in the previous post which you didn't answer because you didn't think you made the statement. So if my re-quote above rings true somehow i would love an answer to the question "why can't player A raise here?"
Second, I was trying to demonstrate how multiple all-ins effect the options to a player who has acted (bet, whatever) because you claimed that you still didn't understand it. Should we continue on that one or wait till after the discussion on the 50% thing?
-
Jasper,
You can't quote me and not understand what I'm saying. I've been preaching that the way the rule is written it says that the player can't bet, when we all know that he can. As far as giving an example here it is:
No-limit blinds 100/200, after the flop Player A acts on his hand by Checking
Player B also checks
Player C goes all-in for 300
Player D calls 300
Player E goes all-in for 325 This is where the last sentence of TDA Rule #31 IMO, needs to be reworded. In no limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise (PLAYER E's 325) does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. There are a couple of changes that can make it right; either change an all-in wager of less than a full raise, to less than a FULL BET or, change the last part to a player who has already bet instead of acted.
It's late and I'm packing it in for tonight. Tomorrow, I'll give you some nice examples of how the 50% can work in no-limit...
-
Jasper,
You can't quote me and not understand what I'm saying. I've been preaching that the way the rule is written it says that the player can't bet, when we all know that he can. ...
Oh now, come on NickC, of course I understood what you were saying. I will apologize for trying to make you say it straight out one more time just to segue back to a discussion of "check is action". It was a bit petty and baiting, sorry.
Now that we are there ;D... This is obviously the central rub for you and when you made a suggestion early in the thread I thought it would work well. However, Oddvark actually had a slightly better suggestion that I didn't grab onto until further consideration. Actually, he had two and one was to just leave the sentence in the rule to read "...doesn't reopen the betting". I actually think that is the simplest and I have to say that you actually make that point for us in the quote above where you say "...player can't bet, when we all know that he can". We all know that he can because we all know that while a check may be action it is a special kind of action that doesn't close his options. To demonstrate that again I went to the glossary of RROP and looked up "Action" and "Check":
Action: a fold, call, bet or raise....(it goes on a bit but...) - Check: To waive the right to INITIATE the betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates betting.
So I fully concede that checking is action which is your solid position, however, I argue wholeheartedly that it is a SPECIAL KIND OF ACTION that we are all aware of and so it should be clear. (an argument that you don't exactly disagree with but you like very specific rule language so nobody has room for confusion, am I right?) In fact, I know you sort of agree with me on this as is suggested in this quote of you from another thread...
... There are many procedures that are listed under Conduct, House Policy,and Etiquette that are not defined by a specific rule, yet they are comon knowledge to anyone that plays the game.
...
It seems common knowledge that a player who checks still has his options.
PPLLLEASE don't get me wrong here. I think i understand your position perfectly. You like specific rules for clarity's sake. That's well and good. In this case I just don't think that all but a very few would have trouble with the CURRENT language of that part of rule #31. I do agree, though, that if there is a way to make it clearer that isn't too verbose we should try to find that way. And so, as far as this part of the rule is concerned I would gladly vote for one of these three options:
1. Leave it as it is "..does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. (yes, I know that doesn't make it clearer but I have to include it as I would vote to leave it)
2. drop the already acted part.."...does not reopen the betting." (this was Oddvarks first suggestion and still works for me)
3. add this ..."...does not reopen the betting to a player 'for whom action is closed'" (this seems like it would work best. As he pointed out your suggestion of "initial bettor" leaves out intervening calls from other players)
So what do you think of #3? I think it covers your concerns pretty well and is simple.
-
Jasper,
This is fun. A short all-in wager that is not raised, will not reopen betting to any player that checked before them. A full bet by any player that is raised, less than the full amount, will not substantiate the required amount to reopen betting to the player/s that bet before the all-in. However, any player that checked prior to a full bet for that round may fold, call the all-in, or raise when the action returns to them.
Jasper,
One more try. Last betting round, 5 players; A bets 100, B calls 100, C calls 100, D calls 100, E calls 100...Showdown, they all acted so A shows down first.
Last betting round, 5 players; A checks, B checks, C checks, D checks and E checks....Showdown, they all acted so A shows down first.
I could have made it worse........I could have made it ten handed!
-
Jasper,
This is fun. A short all-in wager that is not raised, will not reopen betting to any player that checked before them.(it was never closed to them, so they have all options) A full bet by any player that is raised, less than the full amount, will not substantiate the required amount to reopen betting to the player/s that bet before the all-in. However, any player that checked prior to a full bet for that round may fold, call the all-in, or raise when the action returns to them.Yes, exactly
Jasper,
One more try. Last betting round, 5 players; A bets 100, B calls 100, C calls 100, D calls 100, E calls 100...Showdown, they all acted so A shows down first.It has nothing to do with all acted, it is rule#11 last aggressive action shows first
Last betting round, 5 players; A checks, B checks, C checks, D checks and E checks....Showdown, they all acted so A shows down first. Still rule 11, if no bet, first player left of the button shows
I could have made it worse........I could have made it ten handed!
I am not sure I understand the purpose or tone of your response in this post. You seem to refuse to have an actual conversation. I have asked specific questions and you have been non-responsive.
Or the short version: What?
-
Jasper,
I'm sorry that you feel the way you do. As far as me being non-responsive, I'd say that is a surprise, for someone that has over 500 replies on this Forum, I really don't think it fits. By the way; I think you fixed #31 All we have to do is add; Except a player that checked. I will quote you in part; "we all know that while a check may be action it is a special kind of action that doesn't close his options.".... They are closed, if no one else bets.
What questions have you asked that you feel I've been non-responsive? I've given you credit for many of your suggestions, If I agreed with what you wrote, I would tell you. I will list your three suggestions along with my answers:
1. Leave it as it is "..does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. (yes, I know that doesn't make it clearer but I have to include it as I would vote to leave it)
2. drop the already acted part.."...does not reopen the betting." (this was Oddvarks first suggestion and still works for me)
3. add this ..."...does not reopen the betting to a player 'for whom action is closed'" (this seems like it would work best. As he pointed out your suggestion of "initial bettor" leaves out intervening calls from other players)
#1 If we thought it was acceptable we wouldn't be having this discussion. #2 Is better, but still confusing. #3 I don't care for...'for whom action is closed?' Jasper, I understand the rules. I am only pointing out the rules that need more explaining than others. When I teach student dealers, I have to be certain that they understand exactly what each rule is saying. You stated that Oddvark pointed out my suggestion of "initial bettor" leaves out intervening calls from other players, so put it in.
My verbage might not be the perfect fix but, like Mike said on an earlier post, this will bring Rule #31 up for further discussion at the next Summit.
-
Since this particular rule is getting so much action ;) I'll post my suggestion
Current
31. Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.
The rewrite of the rewrite
31. Raises
A raise must be at least greater than or equal to the size of the largest previous current bet or raise. of the current betting round. An all-in player’s bet , if that is more than the previous bet, but less than a full legal raise, establishes the current bet. size but However, the minimum raise amount remains unchanged. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of that is less than a full bet or raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted unless that player is facing a full raise to their previous action. The exception as is in the case of Multiple all-in bets still act as a full raise and reopen the betting if to any previous action when the resulting bet size to a player qualifies as a raise to that action.
Reasons for removing certain language:- At least - is a subjective phrase that is conditional and the wording doesn't establish if one can bet any higher amount, where as the phrase Greater Than or Equal To is an absolute statement and has ties to mathematical equations that nearly everyone understands.
- Largest previous - The word current bet in conjunction with current raise supersedes the wording largest previous.
- of the current betting round - Is unnecessary. It certainly wouldn't apply to the previous betting round.
For Chet :) and others. Reasons that you use FULL raise vs LEGAL raise: 1) A FULL raise establishes the minimum amount necessary to reopen the betting, 2) A FULL raise is always a legal raise, 3) The 50% rule uses the language of "must make a FULL raise", 4) A LEGAL raise is not always a full raise.
Why isn't a LEGAL raise always a FULL raise? Because in our scenario, we have Player A bet 100 and Player B bet 125. Is a bet of 125 a FULL raise? NO. Is a bet of 125 a LEGAL raise? YES. It's a legal raise because now the next player must call a minimum of 125. Where as if it was not legal, then Player B could not bet 125, they would only be allowed to bet/call 100. Which we all agree would be absurd.
Also in LIMIT poker, using the 50% rule, using the same scenario, Player A bets 100 and Player B bets 125. Is a bet of 125 a FULL raise? NO. Is it a LEGAL raise? YES AND NO. In this instance the amount to make a FULL raise is less than the minimum raise amount. The next player only has to make it 75 more to "complete" the raise to 200. Where as in NO LIMIT poker, the next player has to raise 100 more and make a FULL raise to 225.
This goes to Nick's argument that why aren't the raise requirements the same for both forms using the 50% rule. When I started poker, if Player A bet 100 and Player B bet all-in for 125, the bet was treated as if it didn't exist and Player C could raise to 200 if they so desired. But the contention became, "what if" Player B was all-in for 195? That's not a full raise either. Should Player C be allowed to raise to 200 and thus reopen the betting for Player A, which would put in between players at a calling disadvantage and allow Player C to gain information for a minimal amount? So we don't do this in NO LIMIT, we make the player raise the FULL bet. The fact is, they're different games. Same structure and format, but different (should I go here) fundamentals.
If those two concepts are too difficult for new players (and staff for that matter) and are confusing, I'm sorry. But that's why we label them LIMIT and NO LIMIT and have specific rule sections for each game form.
-
WHY DO WE HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 5000 CHARACTERS RESTRICTED TO OUR POSTS?!? MIKE HELP!
Here's how it reads without all the strikethrough's.
31. Raises
A raise must be greater than or equal to the size of the previous bet or raise. An all-in player’s bet that is more than the previous bet, but less than a full raise, establishes the current bet. However, the minimum raise amount remains unchanged. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager that is less than a full bet or raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted unless that player is facing a full raise to their previous action. Multiple all-in bets act as a full raise and reopen the betting to any previous action when the resulting bet size qualifies as a raise to that action. LAST SENTENCE REWRITE Multiple all-in bets that amount in total to a full raise to any previous action will reopen the betting to that action.
I hope I didn't leave any typo's!
-
WHY DO WE HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 5000 CHARACTERS RESTRICTED TO OUR POSTS?!? MIKE HELP!
I adjusted this to 7000. Which raises an interesting question... on MY computer, I find that once I've reached the bottom of the visible reply box for typing a reply, the box starts "jumping", and makes additional typing difficult... this is way before 5000 characters are reached... anyone else have this problem? I have it on a variety of forums, not just this one, making me think that it might be MSFT OS related?
-
If you search for "screen jerks when scrolling" on either yahoo or google, you will get a number of replies, most of which suggest the problem is related to out of date drivers for your video card. I have two desktops, both running win 7 home premium and a notebook running win xp and I don't have the problem you are describing.
-
Mike and Chet,
Yes I have that problem, too.
Thomas,
I will quote you......"This goes to Nick's argument that why aren't the raise requirements the same for both forms using the 50% rule. When I started poker, if Player A bet 100 and Player B bet all-in for 125, the bet was treated as if it didn't exist and Player C could raise to 200 if they so desired." .....STOP! THIS IS PERFECT, thank you. As far as your suggestions for rule #31, if I had to choose, I'd leave it the way it is.
I'm lost on the FULL and LEGAL, too.
-
I'm lost on the FULL and LEGAL, too.
:-\
Just know that it's better to say FULL raise vs LEGAL raise. I try to explain again and hopefully not confuse more.
A LEGAL raise can be different occurrences. Again in our scenarios:
1) In all forms LIMIT, POT LIMIT and NO LIMIT Player A bets 100 and Player B is all-in for 125. This is a LEGAL raise. But it's not a FULL raise. All bettors must call 125 which is an amount greater than 100. 125 > 100.
2) In LIMIT ONLY Player A bets 100 and Player B is all-in for 150. This is a LEGAL raise. 150 > 100. But it's not a FULL raise. YET it's treated as such and any player behind who wishes to raise must make a FULL raise to 250. The KEY difference here is, the bet of 150 reopens the betting to Player A.
3) In POT LIMIT and NO LIMIT Player A bets 100 and Player B is all-in for 150. This is a LEGAL raise. But it's not a FULL raise. YET the KEY difference in this form, unlike in #2 above, this does not reopen the betting to Player A. It is a not a FULL raise.
4) In LIMIT multiple all-ins that amount to a LEGAL raise need only be 50% of the bet size. Player A bets 100, Player B is all-in for 125, Player C is all-in for 150. This is a LEGAL raise. But it's not a FULL raise. Again the KEY difference here is, the bet of 150 reopens the betting to Player A.
5) In NO LIMIT multiple all-ins that amount to a LEGAL raise must be a FULL raise. Player A bets 100, Player B is all-in for 125, Player C is all-in for 150. This is a LEGAL raise. But it's not a FULL raise and does not reopen the betting to Player A.
All of the examples are LEGAL raises. But none of them are FULL raises. That is why when discussing POT LIMIT and NO LIMIT and asking the question, "What determines if the betting is reopened to someone that has already acted?", it is better to use the phrases FULL bet / raise, which the current rule already refers to.
Perhaps all rule #31 really needs is some descriptive language that tells the reader what game form the rules pertains to. Because it is describing two different game forms leads the reader to believe that both rules are synonymous. Since some here have said they like it as is, how about just some simple word changes and additions.
31. Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the current bet or raise. A player who puts in a bet that amounts to more than 50% of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager that is less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted, unless the action facing that player amounts to a full raise in the case of multiple all-ins. In limit poker only, an all-in wager that is less than 50% of a full raise also does not reopen the betting.
Personally I think the hitch to these rules is, instead of saying what doesn't reopen the betting we should be more focused on what DOES reopen the betting. That is more easily said: In Pot Limit and No limit only a full raise of the previous bet or raise reopens the betting to a player who has already acted. In Limit a legal raise of 50% or more of the previous bet or raise will reopen the betting to player who has already acted.
Notice that I used LEGAL raise in the limit portion because a legal raise is not always a full raise. ;)
-
Thanks for chiming in wsopmcgee. I really like how you explained the difference of the 50% rule in limit and no-limit and the reason behind it. For me there is a huge difference in no-limit in those situations that would put players at a disadvantage and others at a big advantage just based on the betting structure. That just doesn't happen at limit. At least you didn't say "that's just the way it is"! ;D :-\
You also pretty much said what I was going to say regarding the legal vs full raise.
I like most of what you did with the rewrite of the rewrite but would like to make a few comments just to see where it goes. I think we could get to a 'final draft' before the summer.. ;D ;D ;D :o
Here's how it reads without all the strikethrough's.
31. Raises
A raise must be greater than or equal to the size of the previous bet or raise. An all-in player’s bet that is more than the previous bet, but less than a full raise, establishes the current bet. However, the minimum raise amount remains unchanged. These are ok changes up to here. I really like the replacement of "full" for legal. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager that is less than a full bet or raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted unless that player is facing a full raise to their previous action. I don't think this extra language adds anything useful and doesn't clear up the problem with the "check is action". What of the all-in player that is less than a full bet with intervening callers, doesn't the checking player still get to raise? (I have already mentioned that the check is special but no reason to not try and make it work :D). I think we just need "full raise" and not "full bet" with it. the last bit feels like your trying to add something along the lines of the multiple all ins there.. I don't know... Multiple all-in bets act as a full raise and reopen the betting to any previous action when the resulting bet size qualifies as a raise to that action. LAST SENTENCE REWRITE Multiple all-in bets that amount in total to a full raise to any previous action will reopen the betting to that action. Uhm, yeah, I like the last sentence rewrite better than the first. this part I am not sure about yet.
It's tough making a rule clear and yet keep it concise when it's a complicated topic. But, hey, I think we might get it eventually....
-
How about; None of the damn all-in's mean "squat" unless one qualifys as a full raise! If Player A bets 100 and Player B goes all-in for 120 and player C goes all-in for 110 and Player D goes all-in for 150 and Player E goes all-in for 180 and Player F calls 180, Player A can still only call, correct?
PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE CHANGED MY MISTAKE, AND CORRECTED THE TWO D'S WITH ONE E.
-
Chet,Thomas, Mike, Stuart, Jasper, anybody just wondering why no one answered my last question?
I have another suggestion that might help clear up some of the confusion caused by Legal bet and Full bet. Why not use 100% for no-limit instead? We all understand the 50% raise rule for limit, right? So lets look at the difference:
Limit:
Player A bets 100,
Player B goes all-in for a total of 140 (less than 50%)
Player C may fold, call 140, or complete to 200 (they can not make it 240)
No-limit:
Player A bets 100,
Player B goes all-in for 140
Player C may fold, call or raise a minimum of 100 for a total of 240.
One of the problems, IMO comes from calling the short all-in action, instead of a raise.
No-limit:
Player A bets 100
Player B goes all-in for a total of 190
Player C may fold, call the 190 or raise a minimum of 100 for a total of 290
I know this is a simple explanation, but I'm hoping that it helps others understand.
Back to my question; Does anyone think that 100% is easier to understand? ..As opposed to Full or Legal?
And, I'd still like to hear from someone regarding my last post;
If Player A bets 100 and Player B goes all-in for 120 and player C goes all-in for 110 and Player D goes all-in for 150 and Player E goes all-in for 180 and Player F calls 180, Player A can still only call, correct?
-
WHY DO WE HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 5000 CHARACTERS RESTRICTED TO OUR POSTS?!? MIKE HELP!
I adjusted this to 7000. Which raises an interesting question... on MY computer, I find that once I've reached the bottom of the visible reply box for typing a reply, the box starts "jumping", and makes additional typing difficult... this is way before 5000 characters are reached... anyone else have this problem? I have it on a variety of forums, not just this one, making me think that it might be MSFT OS related?
I'm getting this problem too. Very annoying :'(
-
Nick:
Your game is fouled!! You need to pull that table out of the room and get a new one. I don't know of any room in any location that allows two players to sit in the same position and bet different amounts. Your dealer is an idiot and your floor folks are obviously not with it. How in the world can you allow your game to continue with two Players identified as "Player D"?
Chet
BTW: I don't consider myself to be expert on this topic, so that is why I have been staying out of it. However, assuming this is a legal game, without two Player D's, I would tend to agree that Player A can only call. Let the flames begin! :)
-
Brian, MikeB, etal:
This is ONLY a problem in IE8. It is not a problem in Firefox. To "fix" the problem with text jumping switch IE8 to use Compatibility View. You can access this through "Tools" at the top of the page or by clicking on the "Compatibility View" button. IE8 is supposed to display this button at the end of the URL window in the address bar when a site is not compatible with IE8, but it doesn't always do so.
It looks like a broken sheet of paper with a lightning bolt through the middle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what the Help Page has to say:
Why don't some websites display correctly in Internet Explorer?
Websites designed for earlier versions of Internet Explorer might not display correctly in the current version. Often, you can improve how a website looks in Internet Explorer by using Compatibility View.
When you turn on Compatibility View, the webpage you're viewing—and other webpages within the website's domain—will be displayed as if you were using an earlier version of Internet Explorer.
If Internet Explorer recognizes a webpage that isn't compatible, you'll see the Compatibility View button on the Address bar.
To turn Compatibility View on or off, click the Compatibility View button, or follow these steps:
Click to open Internet Explorer.
Click the Tools button, and then click Compatibility View.
Notes
The website will be displayed in Compatibility View until you turn it off or the website is updated to display correctly in the current version of Internet Explorer.
Website display problems can also be caused by an interrupted Internet connection, heavy traffic, or issues with the computer code used to create the website.
If a website is compatible with the latest version of Internet Explorer, you might not see the Compatibility View button, or the Compatibility View menu item might not be available.
Article ID: MSW700029
-
funny guy chet...
Wasn't ignoring your post Nick, too danged busy for my own good. The answer to your question is that player A can only call. Though I am not sure what your point is. Although, I think you may be touching directly on the point of the multiple all-ins.
The point of that part of rule #31 is to say that while a particular all-in bet may not qualify as a full raise for the current bet amount and round (the bet might be 210 on the 50/100 blind structure against another all-in of 120 and a raise would have to be a bet of 220) but but that 220 does qualify as a raise against the first player that bet 100. What I think you have been trying to say, in part, is that the intervening all-ins don't really mean anything just the last largest wager that is big enough to count as a raise to a particular player.
"multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount to 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". That is straight out of RROP and while I think it is a little long winded it says exactly what we need. And it is sort of similar to what thomas rewrote on the rewrite of my rewrite ??? :o ::)
I will be happy to banter your idea of utilizing the 50% 'complete the bet rule' of limit in no limit but I don't like the idea and I thought Thomas explained the reasoning pretty well. In no-limit the need to control pot size and pot odds is way more important (and it's a different method of control anyway) than in limit and the ability of one player to gain info on a small wager is huge in no-limit.
I would love if thomas came back in here and explained it a different way.
-
First of all, I'd like to thank Chet for his real classy response to my question. A second grader could have figured out what I was trying to say. The mistake was made on two different posts because I just copied and pasted. An answer to some questions about raising would have been nice instead of instructions on how to post without the lines jumping....but thanks for that.
Jasper,
Thanks for resonding once again. "multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount to 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 WANT TO COME IN RIGHT HERE. WHAT IN THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN?) I will continue here with what you said, Jasper; "That is straight out of RROP and while I think it is a little long winded it says exactly what we need." (REALLY???). ...Jasper again. "And it is sort of similar to what thomas rewrote on the rewrite of my rewrite." I DON'T NEED MORE RULES THROWN AT ME, I JUST WANT SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW MULTIPLE ALL-INS THAT ARE TOO SMALL...BECOME BIG ENOUGH)
I'm sorry, if a wager is too small to qualify as a raise, how does it act as a raise and reopen the betting? Does anyone else have a problem with the wording on these rules?
-
Nick: I'm sorry U thought I was being serious. I thought we needed a little levity around here as this place gets a bit stuffy, at least it seems that way to me ;D
-
Chet,
I'm really glad you cleared up your last comments. I would hate to think that we had another wise ass member. I guess we can't complain, one out of twelve hundred isn't bad. Apology accepted.
-
Brian, MikeB, etal:
This is ONLY a problem in IE8. It is not a problem in Firefox. To "fix" the problem with text jumping switch IE8 to use Compatibility View. You can access this through "Tools" at the top of the page or by clicking on the "Compatibility View" button. IE8 is supposed to display this button at the end of the URL window in the address bar when a site is not compatible with IE8, but it doesn't always do so.
It looks like a broken sheet of paper with a lightning bolt through the middle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what the Help Page has to say:
Why don't some websites display correctly in Internet Explorer?
Websites designed for earlier versions of Internet Explorer might not display correctly in the current version. Often, you can improve how a website looks in Internet Explorer by using Compatibility View.
When you turn on Compatibility View, the webpage you're viewing—and other webpages within the website's domain—will be displayed as if you were using an earlier version of Internet Explorer.
If Internet Explorer recognizes a webpage that isn't compatible, you'll see the Compatibility View button on the Address bar.
To turn Compatibility View on or off, click the Compatibility View button, or follow these steps:
Click to open Internet Explorer.
Click the Tools button, and then click Compatibility View.
Notes
The website will be displayed in Compatibility View until you turn it off or the website is updated to display correctly in the current version of Internet Explorer.
Website display problems can also be caused by an interrupted Internet connection, heavy traffic, or issues with the computer code used to create the website.
If a website is compatible with the latest version of Internet Explorer, you might not see the Compatibility View button, or the Compatibility View menu item might not be available.
Article ID: MSW700029
Chet: That sure fixed it. I've been looking for that fix for awhile because that problem has cropped up in alot of situations, most forums. Thanks!
-
Chet I knew you were just being cute.....
[quote author=Nick C link=topic=265.msg2660#msg2660 date=1299874239
...
Jasper,
Thanks for resonding once again. "multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount to 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 WANT TO COME IN RIGHT HERE. WHAT IN THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN?) I will continue here with what you said, Jasper; "That is straight out of RROP and while I think it is a little long winded it says exactly what we need." (REALLY???). ...Well, I thought we were actually trying to write rules that make it so there are fewer misunderstandings and the TD's wouldn't have to make "unsupported" decisions. And I think that that one is in the rule book for a reason. It explains it for me.
Jasper again. "And it is sort of similar to what thomas rewrote on the rewrite of my rewrite." I DON'T NEED MORE RULES THROWN AT ME, I JUST WANT SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW MULTIPLE ALL-INS THAT ARE TOO SMALL...BECOME BIG ENOUGH) Are you saying you just don't understand this particular rule therefore you don't need it thrown at you over and over (or some variation of it) but just need it explained to understand it? Cause we are actually at times talking about making and changing more rules in this forum, right?
I'm sorry, if a wager is too small to qualify as a raise, how does it act as a raise and reopen the betting? Does anyone else have a problem with the wording on these rules? Because it is too small for the CURRENT bet but it is big enough for a previous (initial) bet
[/quote]
I think the reason that the rule is written that way is because if a wager is too small to be a full raise to the CURRENT BET there was probably a misunderstanding or argument in the history of poker where players were saying that if it is not a RAISE OF THE CURRENT BET that the first player should not be able to RERAISE. So an example of what i mean here: Let's stick with the usual structure of 50/100 blinds, post flop play.
Player A: Bets 100
Player B: all-in 125 ok, this is too small a wager to be a full raise, but the current bet is now 125. If it were to go back to Player A now he could not re-raise
Player C: all-in for 175 - pretty much the same, not a full raise of the 125 (and still not a raise of the ORIGINAL bet)
Player D: all-in for 210 - again not a full raise of the CURRENT BET (the 175)
Player E: This guy has a full stack as does Player A, he now argues that if he JUST CALLS the 210 that player A cannot raise because there has not been a FULL raise of the CURRENT BET.
That argument by player E seems a little silly but you see what advantage he believes he has and his justification is that there hasn't been technically a full raise of the CURRENT BET (or perhaps a 'legal' raise). This may be a little like how players believe that you have to double the previous bet in order to raise. So in goes the rule to explain it to people that multiple all-ins DO still count as a raise if the amount is enough to qualify as a raise to a particular player.
I think the fact that this language about multiple all-ins is used in RROP in both the limit raising section and the no-limit section supports my idea. I mean there has to be a reason for it. Mr. Ciaffone thought it important to keep the language of those rules around.
I have not found a player that has tried this argument. Perhaps that is because everybody understands the basic part of the rule; that while the minimum bet is increased by the all-ins that at some point a SINGLE bet is a enough to be a raise to the original player. Perhaps this is what you have been trying to say all along?
-
Jasper,
At least thanks to your explanation I'm starting to get it. Your example D, the all-in for 210 is the only bet that exceeds the initial 100 enough to qualify, but that's not right is it? What you are saying, is that after the all-in of 175 the next player would have had to make it 275 if he had enough. He would not be allowed to make it 210 unless he was all-in, right? So....are you saying that after the initial bet, when a player goes all-in with a short "action" (using your example) the initial 100 plus the all-in total of 125 establishes a new bet amount of 125?
If that is what the rule is saying , then no one said it better than you. If that is correct, I will also say that it is even more ridiculous than I originally thought!
-
Jasper,
At least thanks to your explanation I'm starting to get it. You're welcomeYour example D, the all-in for 210 is the only bet that exceeds the initial 100 enough to qualify, but that's not right is it? Yes, actually that is exactly right.What you are saying, is that after the all-in of 175 the next player would have had to make it 275 if he had enough. He would not be allowed to make it 210 unless he was all-in, right? Again, that is exactly right. if the player has enough chips and wanted to RAISE it would have to be at least 275. Otherwise just acall of 175. So....are you saying that after the initial bet, when a player goes all-in with a short "action" (using your example) the initial 100 plus the all-in total of 125 establishes a new bet amount of 125? I am getting all tingly cause that is three for three. except that you said the initial PLUS the all-in makes it 125. Technically it's just the new all-in of 125 that makes the new bet amount 125.
If that is what the rule is saying , then no one said it better than you. coolIf that is correct, I will also say that it is even more ridiculous than I originally thought!Perhaps, Nick, but I think that is because you seem to have a penchant for the limit structure of betting and raising (all respect here, sir, but that seems how it is) and I think if this explanation is as clear as you indicate above to you then we are on our way to understanding. This is, I think, one of the essential differences in the betting structure between limit and no limit.
I am glad that I was able to start shedding some light on it for you. But why do you think it is ridiculous?
-
Okay, forget the 50% or 100%. Let's concentrate on the source of the problem; the all-in player. The only player that can make a short raise is the all-in. The difference between limit and no-limit is; in no limit, the all in of any amount alters the size of the bet to the next player, even if it is the smallest allowable chip in play. I'm sorry Mr Ciaffone but RRoP needs to take a serious look at this one again.
Bob C himself questioned the ruling. He too was looking for some logical answer.
That's the way I still see it.
Oh, by the way, where in the hell is that calculator so I can figure out what the next minimum raise has to be. Oh yeah, and don't forget to call "time," this is real important!
-
Okay, forget the 50% or 100%. Let's concentrate on the source of the problem; the all-in player. The only player that can make a short raise is the all-in. Yes, that is true The difference between limit and no-limit is; in no limit, the all in of any amount alters the size of the bet to the next player, even if it is the smallest allowable chip in play.Yes, it does alter the bet size to subsequent players. I'm sorry Mr Ciafone but RRoP needs to take a serious look at this one again. I don't understand why it is such a problem...
Bob C himself questioned the ruling. He too was looking for some logical answer. Is there a reference that I could read some of his thoughts.
That's the way I still see it.
Oh, by the way, where in the hell is that calculator so I can figure out what the next minimum raise has to be. Oh yeah, and don't forget to call "time," this is real important! actually the minimum raise is very easy to keep track of. The minimum raise is the size of the minimum bet or the size of the last RAISE.
In case you weren't just being hyperbolic in that post a small example should serve... Same setup we have been using but let's say now everyone has big stacks..
Player A: bets 100
Player B: Raises - minimum raise is 100 so he puts in 200
Player C: Raises - he would have to put in the 200 (the new bet size) and a minimum of 100 more for the raise - 300
Player D: Raises - he puts in 500 - 300 minimum bet and a 200 raise. Establishing the new minimum raise amount
Player A: if he wants to re-raise he would have to put in the 500 plus another 200 (this 200 is the new minimum raise established by player D... so he would put in 700 at a minimum..
Don't need a calculator at all but occasionally I have seen dealers split off the bet from the raise to help keep track of it.
-
Jasper,
I want to thank you for all of the time that you've spent with me. Truly. Your last example was so simple even I understood it, however I always could follow that example. I will quote part of your last reply:actually the minimum raise is very easy to keep track of. The minimum raise is the size of the minimum bet or the size of the last RAISE. I'm lost again. Are you calling a short all-in a raise?
This will be my final example: Player A bets 100, Player B goes all-in for a total of 125, Player C goes all-in for a total of 175 and Player D goes all-in for 150 Player E goes all-in for 200...now Player F calls the 200.
What options are open to Player A?
What would be the minimum raise to Player F, if he wanted to raise instead of call?
The reference you are looking for is on a prior post. I will look for it later and send it to you.
-
Jasper,
I want to thank you for all of the time that you've spent with me. Truly. Your last example was so simple even I understood it, however I always could follow that example. I will quote part of your last reply:actually the minimum raise is very easy to keep track of. The minimum raise is the size of the minimum bet or the size of the last RAISE. I'm lost again. Are you calling a short all-in a raise? Sort of, but this goes to that whole discussion about legal and full raises. It DOES NOT increase the minimum amount needed to RAISE, but it does raise the minimum BET size.
This will be my final example: Player A bets 100, Player B goes all-in for a total of 125, Player C goes all-in for a total of 175 and Player D goes all-in for 150 Player E goes all-in for 200...now Player F calls the 200.
What options are open to Player A?All options are now open to Player A. He was officially raised because that 4th all-in met the required bet size for a FULL RAISE to player A. And since Player F seems to have chips Player A can Raise. A minimum raise here would still be 100 so he would have to put in at least 300(200 current bet + 100 min raise)
What would be the minimum raise to Player F, if he wanted to raise instead of call? the minimun raise is 100 so if he wanted to raise when action got to him he would have to put in 200(the current minimum BET) + the minimum raise of 100 for a total bet of 300. That is just the minimum, of course.
The reference you are looking for is on a prior post. I will look for it later and send it to you. Cool I'll look for it, thanks.
-
Jasper,
This is what I was refering to;
Rule #31 Raising Reply #22 Dec. 28, 2010. This was actually a response to a question that you asked Mike B.
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".
THERE'S MORE IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK.
What I get out of it is, it's been screwed up for so long, it's too late to change. Not putting the all-in players short bet, or short raise into the equation would make this rule a lot easier to understand. There's that answer again; that's the way it is.
Thanks again Jasper
-
I actually did a search when you mentioned it and happened to find that one.. as you said there is more.. specifically this later part...
"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."
When I read that is seems that there is a "point of view" regarding this and it seems that Bob Ciaffone may not support changing it even if it was easy.
I would love MikeB to share more of that conversation if he can.
I think I will have to tease you in future post simply by jumping in the middle of your threads and yelling "cause that's the way it is" :)
-
wow it's hard to read all this topic.
Some questions from a newbie : who is the GLOSSARY ?
that mean : acting ? fold - check - bet - call - raise - all in ? to a player who has already acted a check is a bet to 0$ (nice concept :) and easy to assimilate)
then an acting begin and then he finish ?
that mean betting ? betting - reopen the betting - current betting - A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round ?
same word, diffrent meaning, not in the same time ??? ??? ???
could i make a bet-check during this current betting and if someone make a bet-raise i can make an other bet-all-in, a have an opportunity because an other player make un other bet that reopen the betting for me ?
its a joke ... (bet sound like bête in french = foolish)( but bet also translate could be a word or a verb in french, and this requires a clarification of the terms. :D ) so, please be more specific with words , so it could be use and translate in the whole world and not just in english...
a rule who need explanation is a bad rule. throw them or change them or split them. it's better to have 5 differents rules in a same topic or not, than one who need a huge study and is all along not clear.
i want to propose some words (and that give sense to me - a newbie) and ask you (challenging you?) to explain me again in 3-4-5 simple separated topics, if it's possible ?
phase betting mean player is making a choice between : 1. fold - 2. check OR call - 3 raise - 4 all-in. Only 4 choice because a can't check if anyone before me acted. please don't put the word "bet" in the betting phase !
phase acting mean betting during the time allow to the player to make something with these cards, nothing else or or am I wrong?
it's could have a clear begin and end ?
and a suggestion : keep this damn all-in in a separate topic. IMO making all-in put the player out of the current betting round just beacuse he can't act anymore and have no more effect on this game. If he lose, he can't play the next play, why worry about this amount if it not egal to a raise 100% ? treat only player who can continue to act ! it is not simple ? at the next round, if the "all-in" player as won, he can acting again, if not he leave the game.
could this apply on different modus of poker ?
1.topic : how to do a betting phase - what is the previous bet or that is the FIRST ??? bet ??? (finding a new word (not the word "bet")), i prefere act ?, call?, check?, could we consider a check to a call to 0$ ?, could we said "raise" to the first action ?
2.topic : how to do a raise ? keep out the all-in.
3.topic : difference for betting phase in no-limit, limit, fixed limit, stud, other possiblilites or just specific to one model and a making a model for each ?
4.topic: about all these all-in situation
it's a lot of question , I know ;D, but just one: in fine, what do you want ? Too simple rules but some rules remain incomprehensible for the majority, or a few more lines, but used anywhere or something else ?
Axel
-
Wow Skylight, that is a lot of questions! I will try and answer a few for you but I honestly am having a little trouble with the translation and understanding what exactly you are asking. So forgive me ahead of time if it is not a direct answer.
I am a little confused by your question regarding betting and acting. the word "Action" and "Acting" are synonymous for our purposes. While "betting" is "acting", "acting" may not be betting.
Betting: placing chips in the pot when it is your turn to act (generally, being the first to place chips in the pot since it would be a call or raise if someone else bet in front of you)
Betting Round: Preflop, flop, turn and river. on the flop, turn and river it is possible that nobody actually "bets" but all players "act" (everybody could check)
Check: according to RROP a check means to waive the right to INITIATE betting in a round, but retain the right to act if another player initiates betting. There is disagreement on the forum about it being a bet of $0. I don't like it but I might be the minority
So topic 1. I don't know how you can leave the word "bet" out of any description of a betting phase (betting round??- don't know what phase is translated from)??? because except preflop a the first player to put chips in the pot is "betting" and for the next player that "bet" is the "previous bet". And yes the first bet is really the only bet as the rest are either raises or calls or folds but all subsequent players will "act". the first action on a betting round is always a "bet" except on the preflop round it would be "raise" or "call" because there is a forced bet out already.
topic 2. you raise by placing twice the amount of the previous bet OR RAISE into the pot when it is your turn to act. The simple example is a post flop bet by the first player to act of $50, the next player must put $100 in the pot in order to raise. The third player may re-raise by placing $150 (the initial $50 of the first player, the $50 raise of the second player and another $50, which is double the previous RAISE). No all-ins here to complicate things!!!
Topic 3. The betting phases don't change much for NL vs Limit it is just that the amounts for each bet and raise is fixed in limit. There are a few other differences with the other games becuase of bring ins and the like but generally the process of a betting phase is the same: if not facing a bet you get to check or bet, if facing a bet or raise you get to call raise or fold.
Topic 4. You may have to go back over this thread again but if it is still confusing I will be glad to take another swing at it for you.
Don't know if this all directly answered your questions but I hope it helped.