PokerTDA

POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: W0lfster on October 19, 2011, 03:09:21 AM

Title: Under raise - underbet
Post by: W0lfster on October 19, 2011, 03:09:21 AM
Hi everyone,

just want to clear things up a bit with regards to underbetting. Here it goes:  No limit hold em  blind $5/10 3 players A B and C. Player A first to act (SB) on the flop checks and player B bets $3 all in when the minimum bet is $10 (BB). Player C calls $3 action now goes back to player A - can he raise/call or fold or just call/fold? I ask this because it is diffrent than an under raise as this scenraio is an underbet or are the rules governing underbets the same?

Thanks :)
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Luca P. on October 19, 2011, 05:15:45 AM
Read rule n. 38: Raises
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.
So we assume a bet or a raise (all-in wager)
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on October 19, 2011, 05:30:04 AM
Wolfster,
 That's a real good question. I would say Player A can only call or fold, he can not raise. I just read Linker_split's answer and I don't think Rule #38 applies. The rule only mentions a raise and not a bet. I understand the similarity and I agree. The idea is to protect other players from being trapped into a situation that would be unfair. In this case, I would consider the short all-in not enough to re-open the betting to the player that already checked.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Luca P. on October 19, 2011, 10:49:05 AM
Wolfster,
 That's a real good question. I would say Player A can only call or fold, he can not raise. I just read Linker_split's answer and I don't think Rule #38 applies. The rule only mentions a raise and not a bet. I understand the similarity and I agree. The idea is to protect other players from being trapped into a situation that would be unfair. In this case, I would consider the short all-in not enough to re-open the betting to the player that already checked.

Nick C,
well yes, rule 38 is about raises, and I was taking it as example on what could be done in this situation.
Still rule 38 is clear in his title (raises) but in the statement it says "an all-in wager" which I interpreted as either raise or bet, that's why I suppose players still in game can only call.
Also, the rule says "to a player who has already acted".What if nobody has already acted?

So let's say that rule 38 could help us ruling this situation, but we can't appeal to it
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on October 19, 2011, 01:31:37 PM
Linker_split and Wofster,
 
 I have always had a problem with the way that rule is written, it used to be TDA rule #31 (now #38). I don't agree with the last line of the rule and I think that is where the confusion comes from. A raise is not the same as a bet...and an all-in that does not meet the requirerments of a full bet will not re-open the betting to a player that has already acted. So in order for a player to raise, a full bet must have been made during that round of betting. If you can follow this, you will understand the problem that I've always had with this rule: Example; Player A checks (acted), Player B goes all-in with a short amount if no other player makes a full bet Player A can fold or call only. The way the rule is written, Player A would not be allowed to raise even if an all-in player made a short raise? the only way a player can raise is if a full bet is made at some time during that round, so why would Player A not be allowed to raise? He acted by checking but, he must be allowed to check-raise, right? I have beat this to death already on earlier posts. If you're interested go back to about a year ago on the Discussion Forum and look for rule #31.
 
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on October 19, 2011, 05:25:51 PM
Well, we have bantered about the semantics of what action is and how it relates to a check, but I believe that when these rules and RROP refers to action they are always referring to a bet or raise.  And in this case it is a straightforward check by player A who has the option of a check raise when the action gets back to him. The fact that the all-in and subsequent call are short is meaningless to that players options.  If there is a player who called and that still has more chips, player A can raise the pot.  Now, player A has to raise it by the minimum bet so in this case he would have to raise it to at least $13.

Rule #38 only concerns itself with raises and therefore does not apply to the scenario that has been presented.  In fact there is no rule that addresses this in TDA so you go back to RROP and Section 14:2 addresses this exactly:  "...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 then the minimum bet, a player who wishes to raise must raise at least the amount of the minimum bet.  For example, if the minimum bet is $100, and a player goes all-in on the flop for $20, a player may fold, call $20, or raise to at least a total of $120."

Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on October 19, 2011, 09:26:23 PM
Jasper,
 We have gone back and forth on this before, all I can tell you is I think you are wrong about Player A (after checking) being able to raise a short all-in. Maybe Mike can help us out with this one.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: DCJ001 on October 20, 2011, 06:53:41 AM
Jasper is right.

Everything in his post makes sense, and he has supported his ruling with the correct section of RROP that specifically applies to this example.

Unfortunately, some people are confusing this with another rule that applies to all ins that are not complete raises.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on October 20, 2011, 09:33:53 AM
DCJ001,

 If Player A checks after the flop and Player B goes all-in for less than the BB, and 3 players call the short bet. Are you telling me that Player A is allowed to raise? Try to answer the question in your own words...yes or no. I am well aware of how you feel about everything I post but just give me a straight answer without your sarcastic remarks.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on October 20, 2011, 10:11:56 AM
Maybe I shouldn't jump in here, but my read of DC's post does not sound sarcastic in this instance.  He is simply agreeing with my reasoning and documentation and stating the fact that is evident it earlier posts: some people are trying to use the wrong rule to arbitrate a short all-in bet (that is not a raise).

I'll step over to the other corner now.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: DCJ001 on October 20, 2011, 10:17:32 AM
DCJ001,

 If Player A checks after the flop and Player B goes all-in for less than the BB, and 3 players call the short bet. Are you telling me that Player A is allowed to raise? Try to answer the question in your own words...yes or no. I am well aware of how you feel about everything I post but just give me a straight answer without your sarcastic remarks.

Yes.

To my knowledge, there is no TDA rule that specifically applies in this case.

If you need help finding it in RROP:

http://cl.ly/3j3u0K043n2m3x1e032z
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on October 20, 2011, 12:04:28 PM
DCJ001,
 I say the answer is no. You can do the research.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on October 20, 2011, 03:04:23 PM
Nick, i would be interested in knowing how you have come to the conclusion that player A cannot raise when action comes back around to him?  What rule, either RROP or TDA, do you rely on to tell you that?
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on October 20, 2011, 03:16:11 PM
Jasper,

Tournament poker- Blinds 200/400 : Player A checks, Player B checks, Player C goes all-in for 100, Player D calls, Player E calls, Player F calls. Action returns to Player A...He can call the all-in or fold, he can not raise.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: DCJ001 on October 20, 2011, 03:19:52 PM
Nick. Did you read the example in RROP that Jasper and I brought to everyone's attention?

Evidently, Nick likes to ignore common sense and the rules with which he disagrees or does not understand.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on October 20, 2011, 03:22:25 PM
Thanks for the example and I understand your position, you've been fairly clear about what you believe.  What I am curious about is how have you come to that conclusion?  What rule do you cite to explain that ruling when a player like me says "wth are you talking about, of course I can check raise here!".  

I can't think of a rule that says anything like that so I would like the opportunity to study it.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on October 20, 2011, 03:35:57 PM
Robert's Rules of Poker Version 11:

3. All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)

I'll repeat it for DCJ001 in case he can't locate it. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may NOT subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on October 20, 2011, 04:20:17 PM
and now we are back to whether or not a check is "action" in the sense that it is used here.  So let's see if RROP can't help us out here.  Let's go to the glossary of RROP and look up the terms 'Action" and "Check":

ACTION: A fold, check, call, bet, or raise.  For certain situations, doing something formally connected withe the game that conveys information about your hand may also be considered as having taken action.  Examples would be showing your cards at the end of the hand, or indicating the number of cards you are taking at draw.

Ok, so a check is action.  A player who checks can be considered to have acted.  But what sort of action is a check?....

CHECK: To waive the right to initiate the betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates the betting.

So this says that while a check may be "action" it is a specific type of action.  One that gives the player the right to "act again" if an opponent initiates the betting.  But let's go a little further because what we are really discussing here is whether player A can actually raise once action comes back to him, or "Check-Raise".....

CHECK-RAISE.  To waive the right to bet until a bet has been made by an opponent, and then to increase the bet by at least an equal amount when it is your turn to act.

Wow, to you see the last bit there where it says you have the right to act again?  And you get to increase the bet by at least an equal amount this time!!!!

How do you reconcile what you read in rule 3 (under RROP sec 14) about a player who is " not facing a full size wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum..." with what is in rule 2 of the same section that says "if a player goes all-in for an amount that is less than the minimum bet, a player who wishes to raise must raise at least the amount  of the minimum bet.  For example, if theminimum 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"??????????

The only apparent difference between player C, who according to rule 2 can raise the short all-in, and player A, whom you claim cannot, is that you say player A has already "acted".  And this is where I believe that the term can have a different meaning here.  I believe that "acted" here refers to a player that has already put a wager in the pot.  I can demonstrate this by using our example again but rather than a short all in we use an all-in that is just above the minimum bet.

So, player A checks, player B bets $10, player C goes all-in for $13, action is now back to player A and I know you will agree that player A can Raise to $23 at least.... But what if player A decides to just call the $13?  THEN PLAYER B WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RAISE BECAUSE HE HAS ALREADY "ACTED" (BY BETTING) AND CANNOT RAISE THE SHORT ALL-IN BECAUSE HE IS NOT FACING A FULL SIZE RAISE!!!!  That is what rule 3 is referring to. NOT TO THE CHECK RAISER of a short all-in initial bet!!!

Do you see how those rules are related?  And how the term "action" is being used differently?

btw - check out rule 4 in section 14 as it gives the example above, essentially.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on October 20, 2011, 05:29:01 PM
Jasper,
 Try not to overthink a situation. The difference between the rules is: #2 is refering to a player that has not yet acted and is facing a short all-in wager, therefore he still retains his right to bet...the key here is; this player did not act prior to the all-in bettor.

 I think the situation explained in RR's is when the all-in bettor is the BB and he did not have the required bring-in (the 100 BB), so in NL the bet can not be completed and a full raise is required. I hope this makes sense.

 The biggest problem that you are having is recognizing a check as action, it is. Consider that the player that checked initially could have bet all of his chips but, he chose not to. That is the difference. Every player, in a no limit game can go all-in on any betting round. If he checks (or passes), he might not have the opportunity to bet unless the action is re-opened to him.

 A check, in turn in poker is the players decision to waive the right to bet..he has acted.

DCJ001, Where are you? Anything to say?

 I just looked at #4. The reason that Player A could raise is because Player B made a FULL RAISE of 100 more. It has nothing to do with the short all-in

 If you can't understand what RR's is saying then I can't help you.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on October 20, 2011, 11:23:52 PM
Jasper,
 Try not to overthink a situation. The difference between the rules is: #2 is refering to a player that has not yet acted and is facing a short all-in wager, therefore he still retains his right to bet...the key here is; this player did not act prior to the all-in bettor.

CHECK: To waive the right to initiate the betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates the betting.

Apparently,a player that checks still retains the right to bet, according to the definition of a check in RROP

....
 I think the situation explained in RR's is when the all-in bettor is the BB and he did not have the required bring-in (the 100 BB), so in NL the bet can not be completed and a full raise is required. I hope this makes sense.

Reread rule 2... the part where it says "At all other times"  .. this statement means that the raising a short all-in is happening OTHER than the bb.  So, no, your interpretation does not make sense.

The biggest problem that you are having is recognizing a check as action, it is. Consider that the player that checked initially could have bet all of his chips but, he chose not to. That is the difference. Every player, in a no limit game can go all-in on any betting round. If he checks (or passes), he might not have the opportunity to bet unless the action is re-opened to him.
 

I have no problem recognizing that a check is action.  it is.  But it is you that seems to want to completely ignore the documentation within the rules that clearly states that it is a special kind of action that allows the player to ACT AGAIN if someone else initiates the betting.  You are right, he may not have the opportunity to bet unless the action (there is that word again) is re-opened to him.  and when it is he can raise.  It is called a check-raise.


CHECK-RAISE.  To waive the right to bet until a bet has been made by an opponent, and then to increase the bet by at least an equal amount when it is your turn to act.

A check, in turn in poker is the players decision to waive the right to bet..he has acted.


CHECK: To waive the right to initiate the betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates the betting.

please notice the part where the player RETAINS the right to act if another player initiates the betting.

I just looked at #4. The reason that Player A could raise is because Player B made a FULL RAISE of 100 more. It has nothing to do with the short all-in

No, it is only true that player A can raise because player B initiated the betting.  But if you look at the example further, you will see that player B CANNOT raise because he has acted by putting chips in the pot and when the action gets back to him, he is not facing a full size wager and therefore cannot raise.  You are right, Player A's right to raise has nothing to do with the short all-in.  That is the whole point, the short all-in has nothing to do with player's A's options.

DCJ001, Where are you? Anything to say?

Yeah, what the heck, DCJ001?

If you can't understand what RR's is saying then I can't help you.

Ok, well,my head is bleeding so I am going off to bed.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on October 21, 2011, 06:42:39 AM
Jasper,
 I didn't create the rule, I'm only trying to explain it. If you have a complaint call Bob.

In one of your examples you want player B to raise himself?!
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on October 21, 2011, 07:41:21 AM
No, Nick, I don't want player B to raise himself.  I said that if he was facing a short bet he could not raise because he had already bet.

I'll email Bob and see what he has to say.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on October 29, 2011, 07:01:20 PM
I thought that we would hear from someone on the BOD on this one. It would be nice. Is there anyone there that can confirm what I've said, or do we just let our members continue to do it the wrong way?

 I have a lot of posts because when someone asks a question or makes a statement, I respond. The Discussion Forum is for the benefit of all members. If you agree or disagree it would be helpful to hear what you have to say. There are too many questions that remain unanswered.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Spence on October 30, 2011, 04:22:52 PM
After all of this I have come to the simple conclusion that the short all-in wager does NOT constitute a bet under which the CHECK or CHECK-RAISE rule would apply. A bet in poker would mean a full regular bet. Be it $100 in your examples or otherwise.
50-100 NLHE, Three handed, On the flop
Player A checks
Player B goes all-in for 20
Player C calls

Player A has checked and retains the right to raise IF a bet was made. An all-in wager of less than 100 would not constitute a proper full bet, does not count for the purposes of reopening betting, and would not create eligibility for Player A to raise.
Nick wins!
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on October 31, 2011, 10:40:31 AM
I can appreciate your logic but the rules are clear about this and actually are very specific - RROP section 14 - No-limit Holdem #2:

"2. The minimum bet sizeis the amount of the minimum bring-in, unless the player is going all-in.  The minimum bring-in is the size of the big blind unless the structure of the game is preset by the house to some other amount (such as double the big bline).  The minumum bet remains the same amount on all betting rounds.  If the big blind does not have sufficient chips to post the required amount, a player who enters the pot on theinitial betting round is still required to enter for at least the minimum bet (unless going all-in for a lesser sum) and a preflop raiser must at least double the size of the big blind.  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 least the amount of the minimum bet.  For example, if the minimum bet is $100, and a player goes all-in on the flop for $20, a player may fold,call$20, or raise to at least a total of $120."

Please note two things.  the rule clearly states that the "minimum bet size is the amount of the minimum bring-in, UNLESS THE PLAYER IS GOING ALL-IN. Which tells me that it is still a BET but the size limit is adjusted because of the all-in condition.  The rule does not seem to suggest that an all-in bet is somehow NOT a bet.  If you can read into that sentence that it is, please explain.

But, in case you do find a way, the rule goes on with a great example of what a players options are regarding that short bet.  Notice the part about midway that starts "At all other times..."  The next sentence specifically deals with our issue: "If a player goes all-in for an amount that is less than the minimum bet, A PLAYER WHO WISHES TO RAISE MUST RAISE AT LEAST THE AMOUNT OF THE MINIMUM BET".  So clearly, you cannot argue that, and I quote you "A bet in poker would mean a full regular bet" because the rule allows a subsequent player the option of either calling or RAISING at least the amount of the minimum bet.

Spence, you were arguing that the all-in does not constitute a bet under the check-raise rule.  But if the rule allows a subsequent player to RAISE a short all-in then why wouldn't the player that checked be allowed to raise?  The player that checked RETAINS THE RIGHT to act if another player opens the pot (which the short all-in BET has done) therefore the checking player can RAISE AT LEAST THE AMOUNT OF THE MINIMUM BET. 

And the rule goes on to give an example of what that raise would look like for a subsequent player ($120) after the short all-in ($20) so.....

Nick loses!
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on October 31, 2011, 12:00:03 PM
Jasper,
 It's not a contest, I didn't loose. Why don't you try to look at the rule and see it the way Bob wants you to. The first situation is on the first betting round only. If an all-in has less than the BB, the next player must at least put in the BB. That has nothing to do with a player that checks in a later round and an all-in bettor does not have the minimum (size of the BB). The only way the player that checked can raise is if another player makes a full bet. Also, after the flop, a player that wants to participate can call a short all-in. The min is no longer required.

 How would you like to be in a game where a player checks, the next player goes all-in for 100 (the min is 1000), you call, and then the guy that checked goes all-in for 10,0000!!!
 The short bet is not enough to re-open the betting to a player that already acted..and yes, that includes a check.

Take some friendly advice and don't try that move at the Bellagio.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on October 31, 2011, 11:39:53 PM
First off Nick, I know it's not a contest.  Just people trying to be funny.  Relax.

Secondly, I spent a great deal of time analyzing the rule and since you will never let go of the whole "check is action" logic then I won't go on except to ask this:  Does the rule make it clear that a player behind the short all-in is allowed to raise?

Thirdly, on my last trip to Vegas, I check raised several players that called a short all-in bet at several casinos, including the Belagio.. because A PLAYER THAT CHECKS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ACT IF PLAYER OPENS THE BETTING.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on November 01, 2011, 04:23:32 AM
Jasper,
 You answered the question. A short bet does not re-open the betting. Yes, a player that checks can raise, but only if another player makes a full bet. I am relaxed. I am a little frustrated because I take pride in being able to break-down a situation and explain it so the students I teach can understand it. There is no point in our continued discussion. I know I'm right, and you think you are, and none of our expert rulemakers want to sort it out.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Spence on November 03, 2011, 10:32:22 PM
I can appreciate your logic but the rules are clear about this and actually are very specific - RROP section 14 - No-limit Holdem #2:

"2. The minimum bet sizeis the amount of the minimum bring-in, unless the player is going all-in.  The minimum bring-in is the size of the big blind unless the structure of the game is preset by the house to some other amount (such as double the big bline).  The minumum bet remains the same amount on all betting rounds.  If the big blind does not have sufficient chips to post the required amount, a player who enters the pot on theinitial betting round is still required to enter for at least the minimum bet (unless going all-in for a lesser sum) and a preflop raiser must at least double the size of the big blind.  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 least the amount of the minimum bet.  For example, if the minimum bet is $100, and a player goes all-in on the flop for $20, a player may fold,call$20, or raise to at least a total of $120."

Please note two things.  the rule clearly states that the "minimum bet size is the amount of the minimum bring-in, UNLESS THE PLAYER IS GOING ALL-IN. Which tells me that it is still a BET but the size limit is adjusted because of the all-in condition.  The rule does not seem to suggest that an all-in bet is somehow NOT a bet.  If you can read into that sentence that it is, please explain.

But, in case you do find a way, the rule goes on with a great example of what a players options are regarding that short bet.  Notice the part about midway that starts "At all other times..."  The next sentence specifically deals with our issue: "If a player goes all-in for an amount that is less than the minimum bet, A PLAYER WHO WISHES TO RAISE MUST RAISE AT LEAST THE AMOUNT OF THE MINIMUM BET".  So clearly, you cannot argue that, and I quote you "A bet in poker would mean a full regular bet" because the rule allows a subsequent player the option of either calling or RAISING at least the amount of the minimum bet.

Spence, you were arguing that the all-in does not constitute a bet under the check-raise rule.  But if the rule allows a subsequent player to RAISE a short all-in then why wouldn't the player that checked be allowed to raise?  The player that checked RETAINS THE RIGHT to act if another player opens the pot (which the short all-in BET has done) therefore the checking player can RAISE AT LEAST THE AMOUNT OF THE MINIMUM BET.  

And the rule goes on to give an example of what that raise would look like for a subsequent player ($120) after the short all-in ($20) so.....

Nick loses!
Rule #2 is very nicely put but Rule # 3 puts that to rest:
"3.All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)"
Rule 2 is only missing the portion about a player who has already acted.
"A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet"
This is exactly the issue we are arguing and it is there plain as day. The player who checked cannot raise.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on November 04, 2011, 08:59:49 AM
Spence, you and Nick are really stuck on that "Check is Action" thing.  i will say it simply.  You are wrong.

I have spent a bunch of time demonstrating that a check is not "action" in the sense the word is used in these rules.  It's a homonym, same sound, same spelling, different meaning.

Please look at the glossary of RROP for "check".  the player ONLY passes on initiating the bet.  If any player opens the betting then the player that checks "reserves the right to act".  So if a check is action, then how does the player that checks reserve the right to "act".??  So, really, with that definition, has the checker actually "acted"??????

Please, guys, what the hell is a check raise if it is not this?  Remember, he is not really raising the all-in player anyway, he would be raising the other players in the hand. 

The short bet would only effect a player that has already put chips in the pot before the short bet.

Are you guys really telling me that you have never seen a player check, have a player go all-in short with a caller or two and then raise big to isolate the all-in player?  I know you have.

And I have to say, I have never been in a house that did not allow this move against a short bet.  (of course, it's probably a relatively rare occurrence)
 
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on November 04, 2011, 12:23:16 PM
Jasper,
 If you check on your turn to bet, you have acted. A short bet after your check will not re-open the betting to you. It's that simple. Don't tell us we're wrong, just continue to disagree. Oh, by the way, did you use the word passes instead of check?
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on November 04, 2011, 04:48:24 PM
No, Nick, I did not notice the word passes instead of check.  Where is the word passes?

I have repeated the definition of Check right out of RROP about three times in this thread so if you can't see how a player retains his right to act when he checks then we do disagree and that will have to be it.  I do disagree with you and your still wrong  :D ;D ;)
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Spence on November 04, 2011, 05:00:03 PM
And I have to say, I have never been in a house that did not allow this move against a short bet.  (of course, it's probably a relatively rare occurrence)
 
Oddly to the contrary I have only played in houses that forbade this
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on November 04, 2011, 06:15:54 PM
Jasper,
 This is your reply:


Please look at the glossary of RROP for "check".  the player ONLY passes on initiating the bet.  If any player opens the betting then the player that checks "reserves the right to act".  So if a check is action, then how does the player that checks reserve the right to "act".??  So, really, with that definition, has the checker actually "acted"

Do you see where it says, "If any player opens the betting"...a short all-in does not open the betting. Repeat that to yourself about 10 times and then maybe it will sink in :)
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: RobinK on November 17, 2011, 11:55:09 AM
 HI all,

 It looks like a never ending debate and frankly it is quite amusing to read :)
 
 I fully agree with JASPER on this one. Well said and written Jasper.

 Regards    RK

P.S. Have you ever tried, how this all works in online-poker?
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on November 17, 2011, 10:03:34 PM
Robin K,
 On the turn, it is your turn to act the blinds are 100/200, you check. The next player goes all-in for 150, two players call. The action returns to you...you can fold or call, you can not raise. Are you telling me that you think this is wrong?
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on November 18, 2011, 12:46:36 PM
i Know you addressed RobinK but....

Yes, I believe it is wrong.

I am fairly sure that you will agree that player C or D have the right to raise by placing 350 chips in the pot, am I right?

if that is true, AND by checking a player only gives up the option to INITIATE betting but RESERVES the right to ACT then why should he not be allowed to raise when it is his turn.  It is a check raise, that is all.  Now if he INITIATED the bet and a player goes all in short then when it comes back to him he can not raise at that point.

Would you say that is correct RobinK?
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: RobinK on November 22, 2011, 03:07:42 PM
 Hi Nick,

 As I said before, I agree with Jasper and therefore, yes I think your statement is wrong. I do not consider check as an "aggressive action", but simply as a players option to pass the action to the next active player. Therefore, I would allow the player to raise, when the action comes back to him and he is facing a bet, even if the bet is less then minimum bet, because its an all-in.

 I have personally never seen or witnessed similar scenario. I think, someone who has not enough chips to make at least the minimum bet after flop, would never "just" call pre-flop and the only time the player would be in this situation is after checking his option as a BB. However players are unpredictable and it still can happen, but I do not think you will have to deal with this situation more then once a year, if ever. In case you are the TD or Floorman and you can justify your decision, as it is in the best interest of the game or simply it is correct according to you, just go for it.

Regards 

RK
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on November 22, 2011, 03:51:40 PM
For Robin and Jasper,

 One more try.

No limit, blinds 100/200, after the turn; Player A checks, Player B goes all-in for 10, Players C and D call the 10...back to Player A...He CAN NOT raise! If anyone doesn't agree, perhaps a friendly wager can add to the discussion.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: RobinK on November 22, 2011, 04:49:28 PM
Do you see where it says, "If any player opens the betting"...a short all-in does not open the betting. Repeat that to yourself about 10 times and then maybe it will sink in

Let me get this straight. So, for you a short all-in does not open the betting? By this you are saying that :

action on TURN, blinds 100/200

Player A - checks
Player B - goes all-in for 30 (according to you, this does not open the betting because it is not at least the minimum bet.)
Player C - can he CHECK/BET? (since the betting is not opened yet, he should be allowed to CHECK,BET), if so how much is the minimum he must BET?
              or can he only CALL or RAISE or FOLD?

 Try to answer this one for me Nick, please.
               
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on November 22, 2011, 07:26:02 PM
RobinK,

 In your example Player C can not check because he is facing action from the all-in player. Therefore he may fold, call or add the full wager onto the all-in action. If Player C takes that action, then Player A may raise. If Player C just calls the all-in, then A can not re-open the betting with a raise.

 I'd rather not argue over this. I'm only trying to correct your misunderstanding of this raise rule.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: K-Lo on November 24, 2011, 01:30:36 PM
I'm going to chime in here and put in my vote.  I think Nick C is absolutely correct and have always interpreted the Rule this way for as long as I can remember.

My reading of RROP is the same as Nick's and I have always thought it was clear on its face.  I can appreciate that people have tried to compare and contrast language (e.g. what "opens" the betting, what is an "action", etc.) from different rules of the set to try to make a contrary case, but let's face it, RROP wasn't written or vetted by a lawyer.  Perhaps we need a lawyer to correct the "inconsistencies", if they do exist. ;-)  In any event, I doubt that the author originally put much thought about whether "act", "action" or all other similar terms should share similar properties across all rules.

For example, I don't think that "reserving the right to act" necessarily means "reserving the right to raise" or "reserving the right to act with all actions available to the players as if he had not checked", for example.  I would contend that the "reserving the right to act" language, for that particular rule, was simply meant to mean that by checking, you are not folding.  It is a description to the layperson of what is meant by "check".  The player will still have options to do something when it comes around to that player's turn again... but there's nothing to say about what options those are, and certainly it does not explicitly say "all betting and raising options".  For that you have to rely on other rules.   

I feel it really is a stretch to try to interpret the rule in such a way that player A can still raise a short-all in after checking, but in any event, I think it is at least within the spirit of the rule that such an "angle" (being allowed to check-raise a short all-in after checking) should not be permitted. So perhaps we should focus on what the rule should be if it isn't actually 100% clear to everyone what it is supposed to say. 

I believe that by "checking" rather than "betting" when both options are available to you, you are forfeiting your right to raise a less-than-a-full bet, in the same way that by "calling" instead of "raising" when both options are available to you, you are forfeiting your right to raise a less-than-a-full raise.  I don't see why the checker should have more options than the caller, when the relative differences between the opponent's wager and the checker/caller are of a comparable order of magnitude relative to the minimum bet size for that round.

In my view, when you check, you are essentially saying "I Bet Zero".  You can decide to call me by "Calling Zero" (check), or you can "Raise" my bet of Zero.  If you raise my bet of Zero, then you are obliged to make the minimum raise (which is betting at least the BB).  If, however, you cannot make the minimum raise over Zero because you are short, you can go all-in for less, and the "Bet Zero" player will not be able to raise if no one else has raised by the time action gets back to him (applying the "normal" rule).  If you think of a check as "Bet Zero" (which I believe has historical basis although of course it's difficult to prove that now), then it is clear that the initial checker should not be able to raise a short all-in, by applying the other rules as you know them.  Maybe this is "old school" thinking, but I think it is right.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on November 24, 2011, 03:57:05 PM
K-Lo,
 Well said. It's nice to know that out of 1500+ members there are a few that agree. Thanks for your response.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Spence on November 24, 2011, 07:20:50 PM
K-lo, Very nice. I like the jargon of "I bet zero" as well. That would confirm what you are saying about reserving action as well. Your "zero" bet would remove the ability to raise yourself. Well said.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on November 24, 2011, 10:39:48 PM
We have heard the zero bet argument before.  I appreciate the view.

But.....  saying that a check is "I bet zero" is reading something into the rules that simply isn't there.  I can actually get behind the argument that a check is action and somebody that has acted can't raise a short all-in even though I don't happen to agree.  That argument fits much better with what is written in RROP.

I just think that the definition of CHECK in RROP speaks clearly.  In fact it says just the opposite: "to waive the right to INITIATE the betting, ..."   so if the player waives the right to initiate betting then how can he be betting zero?

Nope this rule set was not written by lawyers but by a guy that tried to put order to a whole lot of poker rules into one common set of rules.  So the fact that we don't agree on this particular reading of the rule should be no surprise. 

Take a look at RROP Betting & Raising #7.  it says that an all in wager of less than half a bet does not open the betting to a player who has previously acted AND is all in for all previous bets.   Granted, this particular rule says it is specific to limit play but I think it sort of demonstrates the concept I have been trying to argue.  That is: the rule about not reopening the betting would only apply to a player that has already put chips in the pot BEFORE the short bet. 


...I feel it really is a stretch to try to interpret the rule in such a way that player A can still raise a short-all in after checking, but in any event, I think it is at least within the spirit of the rule that such an "angle" (being allowed to check-raise a short all-in after checking) should not be permitted. So perhaps we should focus on what the rule should be if it isn't actually 100% clear to everyone what it is supposed to say. 


K-Lo, could you spend some time telling me why check raising a short all-in - when other players are in the pot - is such an angle shoot and should not be permitted?


I believe that by "checking" rather than "betting" when both options are available to you, you are forfeiting your right to raise a less-than-a-full bet, in the same way that by "calling" instead of "raising" when both options are available to you, you are forfeiting your right to raise a less-than-a-full raise.  I don't see why the checker should have more options than the caller, when the relative differences between the opponent's wager and the checker/caller are of a comparable order of magnitude relative to the minimum bet size for that round.


the relative difference between the opponent's wager and the checker/caller are of little consequence.  The player that follows the short all-in has the option of raising (attempting to isolate the short player, perhaps) but chooses to not take the option.  That player is facing a bet, short as it is, and has all his options open to him.  I think that the definition of check as written says that the ONLY OPTION that the checking player gives up is the right to initiate the betting.   There is no other rule to suggest he has given up any of his other options.

Isn't the relative bet amount the same for a check-raiser when players simply limp in with a minimum bet for the round?  In other words the player that just calls a full bet is doing the same thing that the player who just calls a short-all in.  And I know we all agree that a player is allowed to raise when the action gets back to him in that case.

I await your response to why it is such an angle shoot against a short all-in, perhaps that will have some new info.  I still believe our argument comes down to the wording in the rules that say a player that has acted can't raise a short all-in and whether or not a check constitutes that action. A player that has placed chips in the pot has exercised his right to aggression to which all other players have the opportunity to respond.  If he subsequently faces a shot all-in he can't raise.  I think that is the key difference.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: K-Lo on November 26, 2011, 04:33:25 PM
Happy Thanksgiving!   First, I apologize for using the word “angle”, as that might have suggested that I, personally, feel strongly that the action we are debating should not be allowed.  It is obvious to me from the tone of Jasper’s replies that he feels very strongly in his view, and I am not going to minimize that. Frankly, I don’t really care either way and am happy to enforce either interpretation.  I would just prefer that the rule be clear – one way or the other.  The fact that the rules are NOT clear as they stand, is something I believe there is agreement on.  Second, I apologize for the long post.  I had time off today. ☺

As Jasper noted, the current definition of “check” says the right to initiate the betting is waived, and the right to “act” is retained.  I believe he is arguing that, based on the definition of “action”, all acts including raise must therefore be available.  On the other hand, Rule 3 of Section 14 of RROP that deals specifically with No-Limit raising explicitly states that a player who has already acted and is not facing a full-size wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet.  It is argued that the plain meaning of “acted” includes check, and in any event, the definition of “action” recites check.

Assuming that this correctly summarizes the viewpoints thus far, my point was that I doubt that when Rule 3 was codified, that the author took into account the definition of “action”, reconciled it with the definition of “check”, and then left it up to the readers to deduce that, specifically for Rule 3, a “check” should not count as an action or that the definition of “check” should override all other rules.  I believe it is reasonable to assume that when Rule 3 was drafted, it was inserted as a standalone provision, and I feel that when the Rule is read in isolation, its meaning and intent are plainly clear. 

Of course, we can't prove what was in the author’s mind when drafting the rules, and therein lies the ambiguity.  The reason I brought up the “I bet zero” argument (again apparently, I’m sorry for not having noticed) is that I verily believe that this has historical basis, and it is common when interpreting rules (or at least laws I suppose), to give some consideration to pre-rule history in trying to resolve ambiguity.  But as I conceded, I can’t prove this, so I’m not willing to die by this sword.

That being said, I am very open to being persuaded to accept Jasper’s interpretation.  If it is correct, I think Rule 3 has to be clarified because I am guessing that the “average” player reading that Rule would not immediately appreciate the nuances of “acted” not including a check.   I’m not sure I am convinced yet though.  For example, I’m not sure the analogy with the Limit Hold’em of Rule #7 is persuasive.   

Quote from: JasperToo
Take a look at RROP Betting & Raising #7.  it says that an all in wager of less than half a bet does not open the betting to a player who has previously acted AND is all in for all previous bets.   Granted, this particular rule says it is specific to limit play but I think it sort of demonstrates the concept I have been trying to argue.  That is: the rule about not reopening the betting would only apply to a player that has already put chips in the pot BEFORE the short bet.

I agree that this excerpted part of Rule #7 regarding limit play does suggest that the betting is not reopened where a player has previously acted AND is all in for previous bets.  But it wouldn't necessarily follow that the betting is not reopened only under that specified circumstance, and not under any others.  That reads the word “only” into the Rule where it does not appear. In fact, the next sentence of Rule #7 deals specifically with the situation when a player has not yet acted, and if it is being argued that “check”=”not yet acted”, then it is this part of Rule #7 that is most analogous to our situation.  It states that a player who has not yet acted… facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may fold, call or complete the wager.  But if the all-in wager is more than a half bet, than a player may fold, call, or make a full raise. 

I think it is instructive to note that in the short all-in situation, there is no mention of “full raise” being an option.  The Rule could have been written as: “A player who has not yet acted… facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may fold, call, complete the wager, or make a full raise” – but that last option is clearly missing, despite it being recited explicitly as an option in the other case.  Since there is no such thing as “complete” in NL, I think I would be more persuaded by an argument that Rule #7 would suggest that an analogous NL situation does not allow a full raise, only fold or call, since only those two options in the list make sense in NL.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: K-Lo on November 26, 2011, 04:34:16 PM
Quote from: JasperToo
Isn't the relative bet amount the same for a check-raiser when players simply limp in with a minimum bet for the round?

I apologize if I wasn’t clear.  I was referring to the relative difference between the wager made by the short stack, and the initial wager of the player who is considering raising. E.g.:

Scenario #1:

NL – Blinds 0.50/$1, 3 players see the flop
Player A (UTG) has $1000
Player B (cutoff) has $1.25
Player C (button) has $1000

A bets $1.  B raises all-in to $1.25.  C calls $1.25.


It is clear that A cannot raise, he must call the difference of 25c (or fold).

Scenario #2:

NL – Blinds 0.50/$1, 3 players see the flop
Player A (UTG) has $1000
Player B (cutoff) has $0.25
Player C (button) has $1000

A checks.  B goes all-in for $0.25.   C calls $0.25.  Player goes all in for $1000…?


It seems strange to me that in addition to the options of folding, and calling the same difference of 25c, that A would be permitted to, say, raise all-in here.  In both scenarios, it is only 25c more than A’s previous investment in the pot thus far on that round to call.   Yet, by checking rather than betting $1, A can now raise to any amount between $1.25 and $1000, significantly expanding his range of available options.  By allowing A to check-raise in this case seems to make the differences in options between the two similar scenarios very lopsided.  I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be allowed, I am just pointing out that allowing a check-raise here appears to create a very unbalanced situation.

Quote from: JasperToo
A player that has placed chips in the pot has exercised his right to aggression to which all other players have the opportunity to respond.  If he subsequently faces a shot all-in he can't raise.  I think that is the key difference.

By phrasing the problem in terms of whether a player has placed chips in the pot and therefore “has exercised his right to aggression” is much more persuasive to me than all of the other arguments based on the one-line definition of “Check” in RROP, which may be flawed and which we have analyzed more rigorously than the original author probably ever did.  I can definitely appreciate this perspective, and if accepted, would certainly give more of an advantage to OOP players over their late position opponents in pots where at least one player was very short (<1BB).  This affects the dynamic immensely since, in Scenario #2 above, C can do nothing to prevent A from raising other than folding to a miniscule all-in from B, and therefore A “earns” the button simply by knowing enough to check. 

But here’s a counter-argument: why phrase the problem in terms of exercising a right to aggression rather than surrendering it?  When a player faces no bet, he only has 2 options other than fold:  a passive option “check” and an aggressive option “bet”.  Similarly, when a player faces a bet, he also has 2 options other than fold:  a passive option “call” and an aggressive option “raise”.  There is an inherent and wonderful symmetry here.  Would it not make more sense, for consistency, to rule that whenever a player chooses a passive option, he is relinquishing his right to be aggressive unless another player re-opens the betting?  If it's true for “call”, then why shouldn't it also be for “check” where “call” is not an option? 

It appears that the only reason why there is “debate” is because the one-sentence definition of CHECK currently in RROP is lacking clarity.  I think we need to amend the definition to say “… but to retain the right to act (but not necessarily to raise)” or conversely, “… but to retain the right to act including the option to raise”, which would end the debate.  But if we’re going to disagree, I still think it should be the former.  ☺
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on November 27, 2011, 09:40:17 AM
K-Lo, first of all, happy Thanksgiving to you as well.  Secondly, OMG! OMG! what an absolutely coherent, cogent statement of the argument and rebuttal.  Wow, I try hard to be clear but I know sometimes I ramble.  Thanks for having the day off!!

You have made fairly good arguments regarding your point of view but I will try to reduce it to some of the essentials.  For the record, while I might be fairly passionate about my position on this, I too am happy to let either interpretation of this play stand and wouldn't give a TD any argument.  I am just one of the guys that tries to take the rules at their face and understand them and apply them.  Debating the nuance is half the fun.

Don't apologize for using the word "angle" because I actually think that is at the heart of this particular problem and I will try to show you why later on.

Regarding paragraph 2 & 3 of the first post: you did summarize the viewpoint thus far very well.  However, I am going to have to disagree that RROP Rule 3's meaning and intent is plainly clear because as you previously stated there is no way we can determine what was in Bob's mind when he codified it and I still happen to believe that there is "action" and then there is "ACTION" (with chips, specifically).

As to the "I bet zero" statement.  It is just an idea that has been presented several times in regards to this argument, and again, no need for apology.  I would be interested in the historical basis you mention.  While we all seem to agree that there is some ambiguity as to the meaning of action here I think the definition of "Check" is clear enough to exclude a "BET" of zero simply because it states: the player waives the right to initiate "betting" in a round.  So you can't be betting zero if you can't initiate betting.  No falling on swords here and I may have said this in previous posts but it bears repeating because this idea of a zero bet, if allowed, gives weight to the idea that a player that checked has acted in the same way that a player has acted who placed chips in the pot. 

Thanks for taking the time to discuss the Rule #7 analogy.  I realized it might not be a strong one but after reviewing your answer I actually think it may be a bit better.  :)  You state that the second part of rule 7 deals specifically with a player that has not yet acted and that this would be most analogous to our situation.  I think you may be correct. And I think you make the point well.  But I would like to respond by stating that the second part does give the option to that player of raising the short all-in up to a "complete" bet or "complete and raise" depending on the size of the short all-in.  It's a "raise" in either case, but this is limit so, well, you are limited :) :) And if you go back to Rule #3 under NL it specifically states the way you raise a short all-in in NL.  Of course, my real point of using rule#7 as an example is because I think it demonstrated the concept that "action" for this purpose involved already being in the pot with chips. 

Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on November 27, 2011, 09:47:59 AM
Your second post seems to poke at the heart of the problem for me and why the word angle is apt.  There seems to be a sense among the proponents of not allowing the checker to raise that he is somehow "angling" or taking advantage of the other players by raising this poor short stack bastard to his left.  Let me demonstrate with some of your statements.
You state "By allowing A to check-raise in this case seems to make the differences in options between the two similar scenarios very lopsided".  And then "...allowing a check-raise here appears to create a very unbalanced situation."  Lopsided and unbalanced.  Further, you state "I...would certainly give more of an advantage to OOP players over their late position opponents in pots where at least one player was very short."  you stipulated that you would do that only if you accepted my aggression argument so the inference is that you feel it is "taking advantage".  And this: "in Scenario #2 above, C can do nothing to PREVENT A from raising other than folding to a miniscule all-in from B, therefore A "earns" the button simply by knowing enough to check".  I infer from this that you feel A is somehow angling and that it is unacceptable and somehow unethical.   Let's look at the example you posed:

Scenario #2:

NL – Blinds 0.50/$1, 3 players see the flop
Player A (UTG) has $1000
Player B (cutoff) has $0.25
Player C (button) has $1000

A checks.  B goes all-in for $0.25.   C calls $0.25.  Player goes all in for $1000…?

My question to you here is if the blinds are .50 and $1 what's the difference if player B flats and C calls and A over-bets the pot for $1000?  I just don't see one.  Could be my myopia but I just don't get the difference.  And how does C protect himself from A raising if all he does is flat call?  He runs the same risk of being raised by limping to a full bet as he does to a limping against a short all-in.

Another telling statement regarding the sentiment of an angle shoot or taking advantage is when you pose the counter-argument: "Why phrase the problem in terms of exercising a right to aggression rather than SURRENDERING it?"  Your thoughts on passive/aggressive options are wonderfully symmetrical but the reality is that our central debate is whether or not a check is a "passive" action in the same sense that a "call" is passive.  I don't think it is.  (as a side note, I find it telling that there is a definition of aggressive action in RROP glossary but not a definition of passive action.  Just sayin')

It comes down to a one question for me I guess: What the hell is a check-raise?  I guess you could say that it is the only codified "angle shoot" in the game :)  This is where the poor shmuck in his disadvantaged first position gets to set up his opponents for a killing blow.  He runs the risk of checking his pocket Aces and having nobody open the pot for him to be able to strike.  But if someone is silly enough to open the pot by betting, then he gets to strike.  So why is it so wrong for him to do it when the bettor is a short all-in??  There can't be anything ethically or morally wrong, check-raising is in the rules as a codified angle shoot (ok don't beat me up for overusing that, I like it) so what is the essential difference between check raise of a full bet and a short bet?   None, I say, at it's foundation.  None at all.

Again, I say there is none.  But I have a more important question: Why is it ok for player C in our scenarios to be able to raise that short all-in bet?  NL Rule#3 states that he has that option and spells out how he must go about doing it.  So, clearly there is nothing wrong with raising this short stack, none at all.  There is nothing wrong with raising the short all-in if you are player C only if you are player A and have checked???? 

Do you see anything in the definition of a Check-Raise in the rules that suggest it somehow has limited options?  I don't.  So we get right back to the debate over what "action" checking actually is.  Or perhaps it is more apt to debate what "action" is as it relates to NL Rule#3?  Since it is this rule that seems to be getting people stuck.  I say "action" there must mean aggressive action (having previously placed chips in the pot) - I lightly reference B&R #7 - NL Rule #2 & #4 (and #3 itself) and glossary definitions of check and check-raise and aggressive action to suggest that there is much LESS in the rules to suggest that Player A cannot raise and much MORE in the rules to suggest that he can.

 Thanks again K-lo for your post, frikkin great.  I wonder if I am able to persuade you yet to my way of thinking??   :o ::) ;D

Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Spence on November 27, 2011, 09:55:43 PM
I looked in the R.O.P.E. and didn't find anything fir passive action either. Perhaps Tom could chime in here? Or add something to the ROPE? I think defining passive action is the answer. (Though I am still against raising a short all-in)
http://www.pokertps.com/intro.php (http://www.pokertps.com/intro.php)
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on November 28, 2011, 08:32:53 AM
.
(Though I am still against raising a short all-in)

http://www.pokertps.com/intro.php (http://www.pokertps.com/intro.php)

Why?
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: K-Lo on November 28, 2011, 09:59:01 AM
Thanks, Jasper.  I don't have the day off today, so I'll have to be brief and probably not as coherent.  ;-)   I do understand your points of view, and I do feel that I could be persuaded to accept that Rule 3 at least should be amended in the way that you suggest.

The problem with Rule #3 as it stands now is that it (currently) doesn't say "initiated an action involving chips", it just says "acted".  Would you agree that if we were to take a poll of say 1000 non-TD poker players, and quoted the Rule alone without also showing them the definition of "check", most of them would understand "acted" to include "check" for that particular rule?  If so, then this is a problem.  I would be persuaded by the argument that "acted" for Rule 3 currently includes "check" just because that's how most players reading the rule in isolation would interpret it.  But I can also appreciate the position that possibly everyone could be "wrong" because they really ought to be considering how all the Rules work together, and that Rule 3 should be clarified accordingly.  ;-)  

So I am slowly moving towards the "dark side"... (just kidding).  Perhaps a few more clarifications of your position?

Quote
My question to you here is if the blinds are .50 and $1 what's the difference if player B flats and C calls and A over-bets the pot for $1000?  I just don't see one.  Could be my myopia but I just don't get the difference.  And how does C protect himself from A raising if all he does is flat call?  He runs the same risk of being raised by limping to a full bet as he does to a limping against a short all-in.

When you say B "flats", I'm assuming you mean "bet minimum" since A has checked.  I think the difference here might be that B has enough chips to open the betting.  Do you think that this should make a difference?  It appears that the Rules generally treat wagers that are not enough to open or re-open the betting differently, and limit options available to subsequent players.

Quote
Rule #3 (excerpt):
A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is (1) less than the minimum bet or (2) less than the full size of the last bet or raise.

(1),(2): my emphasis

If "already acted" does not include a check, then wouldn't the phrase "that is less than the minimum bet" be redundant?  I'm trying to think of a situation where there would be a reason to cite two alternatives if "already acted" always involves an action involving chips.  If "already acted" = "already performed an action involving chips", then I think the rest of Rule could have simply read: "... may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise".  If we are to give meaning to the part of the Rule that says "that is less than the minimum bet", wouldn't "already acted" have to include check?  What situations are (1) supposed to address in contrast to the situations (2) are supposed to address?
    
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Spence on November 28, 2011, 07:33:50 PM
.
(Though I am still against raising a short all-in)

http://www.pokertps.com/intro.php (http://www.pokertps.com/intro.php)

Why?
I feel it is against my interpretation of the rules
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on November 29, 2011, 01:13:16 AM

...Would you agree that if we were to take a poll of say 1000 non-TD poker players, and quoted the Rule alone without also showing them the definition of "check", most of them would understand "acted" to include "check" for that particular rule?


Unfortunately for my side I would have to agree that there are far fewer folks that interpret things the way I do in this case.  But we could have a similar lengthy thread on whether or not a bet of chips that is half or more of a raise in NL poker should be considered a raise, yet 1000 non-TD poker players would tell you that even if it is a dollar short of a raise it is just a call.  (actually, I think I have a stronger argument for this and would have less resistance )
Point being, that tradition and misunderstanding play a big roll.  My fun here is taking the rule set at it's face and making it work properly (mmmm,,, well, the why I think it is properly)

While we could perhaps clarify rule #3 somehow, moving everybody to the dark side by an understanding of "action" could work too.

So I am slowly moving towards the "dark side"... (just kidding).  Perhaps a few more clarifications of your position?

Feel the force young K-lo.  Let it overtake you!


When you say B "flats", I'm assuming you mean "bet minimum" since A has checked.  I think the difference here might be that B has enough chips to open the betting.  Do you think that this should make a difference?  It appears that the Rules generally treat wagers that are not enough to open or re-open the betting differently, and limit options available to subsequent players.


Yes, B just bets the minimum and I don't think it should make a difference because we were comparing the relative difference in the check-raiser raising a short all-in by some margin compared to someone who just limped.  Honestly, I wasn't positive what your point really was.  But it seemed to be about there being some overly lopsided advantage for A coming over the top of that all-in player.  I was just comparing the same play against a limper and don't see how it matters.  Perhaps I should ask you why you think it might matter?



(1),(2): my emphasis

If "already acted" does not include a check, then wouldn't the phrase "that is less than the minimum bet" be redundant?  I'm trying to think of a situation where there would be a reason to cite two alternatives if "already acted" always involves an action involving chips.  If "already acted" = "already performed an action involving chips", then I think the rest of Rule could have simply read: "... may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise".  If we are to give meaning to the part of the Rule that says "that is less than the minimum bet", wouldn't "already acted" have to include check?  What situations are (1) supposed to address in contrast to the situations (2) are supposed to address?


No the phrase "that is less then the minimum bet" is not redundant.  By that logic couldn't we simply leave it at "a player that has already acted and is not facing a full size bet may not subsequently raise..."???   If Player A bets $75 and is all in (50/100 blinds) and player B just calls, Player C is now all-in for $90 more $165.  When action comes back to Player B he cannot raise because C's bet is "less than the minimum bet" ($100 - for a raise).  Now if A bets $150 and B goes all-in for $275 his "raise" is more than the minimum but "less than the full size of the last bet"


Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on November 29, 2011, 01:17:35 AM
.
(Though I am still against raising a short all-in)

http://www.pokertps.com/intro.php (http://www.pokertps.com/intro.php)

Why?
I feel it is against my interpretation of the rules

Ok, that's cool.  I was just checking if there was anything else a about it that you thought was a problem.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on November 29, 2011, 01:46:39 AM
K-lo, as a follow up...

I can't help but compare Rule #7 with NL #3 for several of reasons, the first is that Rule #7 is actually specifically referenced in Rule #3.  The parenthetical phrase at the end of rule #3 is a direct reference to the rule.  While rule #7 speaks to the technicalities of raises in limit poker, rule #3 distinguishes the differences in NL.  (mind you, that could include not raising a short all-in but I will not concede that).  The second reason is that in the introductory paragraph of section 14 it says that all the rules of limit play apply except where specified in this section.

So if you spend some time looking at the two side by side I think you may see that rule #3 is merely distinguishing the fact that in order to raise in NL you have to put in the amount of the last bet plus at least the minimum bet or more depending on the circumstance.  The size of the all in does not effect the amount of the minimum raise as it can in limit.

One other note... rule #2 talks about what happens when a player "bets" a short all-in.  "if a player wishes to raise must raise at least the minimum bet"  Wouldn't this be the spot to say something like "except a player that already acted?  Actually, this is exactly the scenario that describes a check and then several flat calls of a short all-in don't you think? 

just spit balling here a bit but I think it fits.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: K-Lo on November 29, 2011, 09:08:52 AM
When you say B "flats", I'm assuming you mean "bet minimum" since A has checked.  I think the difference here might be that B has enough chips to open the betting.  Do you think that this should make a difference?  It appears that the Rules generally treat wagers that are not enough to open or re-open the betting differently, and limit options available to subsequent players.

Yes, B just bets the minimum and I don't think it should make a difference because we were comparing the relative difference in the check-raiser raising a short all-in by some margin compared to someone who just limped.  Honestly, I wasn't positive what your point really was.  But it seemed to be about there being some overly lopsided advantage for A coming over the top of that all-in player.  I was just comparing the same play against a limper and don't see how it matters.  Perhaps I should ask you why you think it might matter?

I thought it might have mattered whether B flats or B is short all-in, since there are other Rules that place restrictions on actions subsequent to B in different situations depending on whether B has enough chips to open/re-open betting.  Therefore, my immediate impression was that B having over or under a minimum bet amount (or a minimum raise amount) could have mattered to the author of the Rules (but I know you don't think it should for this particular case).  

Rule #3 (excerpt):
A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is (1) less than the minimum bet or (2) less than the full size of the last bet or raise.

If "already acted" does not include a check, then wouldn't the phrase "that is less than the minimum bet" be redundant?  ...

No the phrase "that is less then the minimum bet" is not redundant.  By that logic couldn't we simply leave it at "a player that has already acted and is not facing a full size bet may not subsequently raise..."???   If Player A bets $75 and is all in (50/100 blinds) and player B just calls, Player C is now all-in for $90 more $165.  When action comes back to Player B he cannot raise because C's bet is "less than the minimum bet" ($100 - for a raise).  Now if A bets $150 and B goes all-in for $275 his "raise" is more than the minimum but "less than the full size of the last bet"

Hmmm... I'm not sure I like this example of a situation involving alternative (1).  Do you have another one?  Notwithstanding the fact that B can't raise because A and C are both all in anyways  :P (but let's just say there was a further caller D for the sake of argument), I see a clear difference in the Rules between use of the terms "bet" and "raise" (in fact, both terms "bet or raise" are used several times in the same rule).  

Since the rule involving alternative (1) states that "may not raise an all-in BET that is less than the minimum bet", I think the amount of C's all-in 'bet' is the total of $165 not $90, and alternative (1) does not apply.  Alternative (2) may well apply (the all-in bet of $165 is less than the 'full size of the last raise' which needs to be $175).  

I'm still trying to come up with a situation where a player who has already acted is facing an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet, to give meaning to alternative (1), but does not fall under the 'full size of the last raise' scenario of alternative (2).

Quote
I can't help but compare Rule #7 with NL #3 for several of reasons, the first is that Rule #7 is actually specifically referenced in Rule #3.  The parenthetical phrase at the end of rule #3 is a direct reference to the rule.  While rule #7 speaks to the technicalities of raises in limit poker, rule #3 distinguishes the differences in NL.  (mind you, that could include not raising a short all-in but I will not concede that).  The second reason is that in the introductory paragraph of section 14 it says that all the rules of limit play apply except where specified in this section.

I noted earlier that the option to raise in the corresponding scenario identified in Rule #7 was specifically left out of NL #3.  Only "complete" was an option in that scenario.  But "Completing the bet" is not used at big-bet poker (explicitly exempted by NL #5).  So therefore, if 'all rules of limit play apply except as specified', the only options left in the relevant scenario are fold or call.  Now, I understand your point that "completing" is indicative of some raise, and perhaps that has some merit, but reference to section 14 does not help you here.  I think it is very telling that "raise" was explicitly left out of the scenario in Rule #7 that we were discussing.  

Now, on the other hand, if you think that NL #3 should be amended to allow a check raise of a short all-in, not to any amount, but to the minimum bet amount (like a 'complete'), that would certainly be worth considering and makes a lot more sense to me.  I would back that 100%.


Hmmm... The 'dark side' was tempting, briefly, but I think I heard Spence calling after me to "stay away from the light" so now I'm running back that way.  ::)

Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on November 29, 2011, 02:10:52 PM
K-Lo,
 I have quietly sat back and witnessed Jasper Too take you off your original (and correct) assessment of the proper raise rule for no limit hold'em. Your original post was probably the best one that I've seen in about a year. Here's the way it is:

 Limit poker: 100/200 Blinds 50/100 after the flop, Three Players. Player A (SB) checks, Player B goes all-in for 25, Player C's options: a.) fold...b.) call 25 or c.) complete to 100.
Options to Player A: If Player C calls 25, Player A can: a.) fold or b.) call 25...If Player C complete's the bet to 100, Player A can: a.) fold...b.) call 100, or c.) raise to 200.

 Same game: after the flop: Player A checks, Player B goes All-in for 75, Player C's options: a.) fold...b.) call 75..or c.) raise to 175.
If Player C calls 75, the options to Player A are: a.) fold...b. call 75, or c.) raise to 175.
If Player C raises the all-in bet of Player B to 175, the options to Player A are: fold...b.) call...or c.) raise to 275.

In No Limit there is no half the bet rule. Therefore, the only way to re-open the betting to a player who has already acted by checking, is to initiate a bet of a 100% minimum required. In other words; because it is not a structured game, the all-in must equal at least the minimum bet (the size of the Big Blind) or an intervening player must make a full (100%) bet, in order to re-open the betting.

 The player that checked initially could have gone all-in, but opted to check. It is not like he or she, was deprived the oportunity to bet. It is not much different than playing in a game and checking a nut hand, with the hope that another player will bet, so you can raise. When the others check, you have to settle for a no bet round.

 In no limit poker, every player has the opportunity to go all-in on every betting round, so what's the problem?

I'd like to see the half the bet rule used in all forms of poker, because it is so simple. That's probably why it will never happen.

I thought this would be a good time for my milestone post number 1,000!
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: K-Lo on November 29, 2011, 03:55:44 PM
I thought this would be a good time for my milestone post number 1,000!

Congrats!   ;D
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on November 30, 2011, 11:27:32 PM
Congrats NIck!  Nice job.  I am glad your 1000th post was in response to my constant dribble!!! 
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on December 01, 2011, 12:03:38 AM

 Limit poker: 100/200 Blinds 50/100 after the flop, Three Players. Player A (SB) checks, Player B goes all-in for 25, Player C's options: a.) fold...b.) call 25 or c.) complete to 100.
Options to Player A: If Player C calls 25, Player A can: a.) fold or b.) call 25...If Player C complete's the bet to 100, Player A can: a.) fold...b.) call 100, or c.) raise to 200.


Actually, I believe the rule is pretty clear that Player A also has the option to "complete" the bet according to B&R #7. 

I think that rule #7 specifically excludes the check-raiser from the limitation of only being able to call a short all-in (in limit play less than 50%) by the language that says a player that has already acted AND IS IN FOR ALL PREVIOUS BETS.  In other words, if you have already bet and somebody comes in over the top short then the betting is not REOPENED to you.  But for the player that has not yet acted (and of course, this is the sticky point) they can fold, call or "Complete". 

Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on December 01, 2011, 12:53:43 AM
I thought it might have mattered whether B flats or B is short all-in, since there are other Rules that place restrictions on actions subsequent to B in different situations depending on whether B has enough chips to open/re-open betting.  Therefore, my immediate impression was that B having over or under a minimum bet amount (or a minimum raise amount) could have mattered to the author of the Rules (but I know you don't think it should for this particular case). 


as you say I don't think it matters for this particular case because if B as enough to just bet the minimum it seems irrelevant that he would be short a full raise beyond that.  But perhaps I missed something.


 B has enough chips to open/re-open betting.  Therefore, my immediate impression was that B having over or under a minimum bet amount (or a minimum raise amount) could have mattered to the author of the Rules (but I know you don't think it should for this particular case). 

No the phrase "that is less then the minimum bet" is not redundant.  By that logic couldn't we simply leave it at "a player that has already acted and is not facing a full size bet may not subsequently raise..."???   If Player A bets $75 and is all in (50/100 blinds) and player B just calls, Player C is now all-in for $90 more $165.  When action comes back to Player B he cannot raise because C's bet is "less than the minimum bet" ($100 - for a raise).  Now if A bets $150 and B goes all-in for $275 his "raise" is more than the minimum but "less than the full size of the last bet"

Hmmm... I'm not sure I like this example of a situation involving alternative (1).  Do you have another one?  Notwithstanding the fact that B can't raise because A and C are both all in anyways  :P (but let's just say there was a further caller D for the sake of argument), I see a clear difference in the Rules between use of the terms "bet" and "raise" (in fact, both terms "bet or raise" are used several times in the same rule). 

Since the rule involving alternative (1) states that "may not raise an all-in BET that is less than the minimum bet", I think the amount of C's all-in 'bet' is the total of $165 not $90, and alternative (1) does not apply.  Alternative (2) may well apply (the all-in bet of $165 is less than the 'full size of the last raise' which needs to be $175). 


both terms bet or raise are used several times and wager is also used just to confuse things more.. but that may be the key to understanding that player C's all-in raise of $90 is not a full size "wager" or is not a "minimum bet" for that round.  I really think that my example is the exact reason the statement "less than the minimum". And the reason that the parenthetical phrase about half size bets is there relates to the "less than full size of the last bet or raise".  Because the difference between Limit and NL is that a short all-in closes the betting for players that have previously bet even if it is short by a dollar. 

rule #5 is there to enforce the fact that if you are going to raise in big bet poker that it would have to be for at least the minimum bet for that round.  in a 50/100 round someone goes all in for 40 you can't put in 60 to make it an even 100.  You have to put in at least 140.  You don't have an option to "complete" as you do in a structured limit game.

I would just add that a checking player in a limit game has the option to "raise" the pot to the first 'limit' which would subsequently reopen the betting to previous players.  So how would that be any different if the checking player and nl was to "raise" a minimum bet? (which, btw, is what I believe rule #3 is all about, how raising in NL is different compared to limit - minimum bet over and above the the short all-in not 'completing" or a short all in of even a dollar can shut it down).


Hmmm... The 'dark side' was tempting, briefly, but I think I heard Spence calling after me to "stay away from the light" so now I'm running back that way.  ::)


Shut up Spence! :)

After reading our discussion so far I really don't know that we got anywhere one way or the other.  Because if you give in to the interpretation that "acted" would need to be with chips (or that checking is it's own sort of action).  then the reading of rule #3 is easy to see that the checker would be able to raise.  But if that is not accepted at all then an argument for them not being able to raise is difficult to (but not impossible) to debate.

Does Bob Ciaffone still answer his email????
 

Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on December 01, 2011, 02:47:36 AM

 Limit poker: 100/200 Blinds 50/100 after the flop, Three Players. Player A (SB) checks, Player B goes all-in for 25, Player C's options: a.) fold...b.) call 25 or c.) complete to 100.
Options to Player A: If Player C calls 25, Player A can: a.) fold or b.) call 25...If Player C complete's the bet to 100, Player A can: a.) fold...b.) call 100, or c.) raise to 200.


Actually, I believe the rule is pretty clear that Player A also has the option to "complete" the bet according to B&R #7.  

I think that rule #7 specifically excludes the check-raiser from the limitation of only being able to call a short all-in (in limit play less than 50%) by the language that says a player that has already acted AND IS IN FOR ALL PREVIOUS BETS.  In other words, if you have already bet and somebody comes in over the top short then the betting is not REOPENED to you.  But for the player that has not yet acted (and of course, this is the sticky point) they can fold, call or "Complete".

JasperToo,
 What don't you agree with?
 

  


Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on December 01, 2011, 04:06:58 PM
that if player C just calls, Player A has the option of "completing". You said that all he can do is fold or call, that is what I disagree with.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Spence on December 01, 2011, 06:06:56 PM
Does Bob Ciaffone still answer his email????
I emailed him a few months back and he got back to me right away. He has a new email for correspondence
bthecoach@att.net (http://bthecoach@att.net)
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on December 01, 2011, 08:23:20 PM
Jasper,
 You need to be more specific. I gave two different examples. Instead of going back and forth with you, maybe it would be better to fix the meaning of the word acted. How about; when a players turn has come, or a players time to act.

 I've just thought of a different scenario that might open your eyes.
Limit-10 and 20...on the turn, Player A checks, Player B bets 20, Player C goes all-in for 25, options open to Player A:
                    a.) Fold
                    b.) Call 25 or...
                    c.) Raise to a total of 40.

Limit-10 and 20...on the turn, Player A checks, Player B checks, Player C goes all-in for 5, options open to Player's A and B:
                    a.) Fold
                    b.) call 5....
Do you agree that they can not raise? Do you agree that they can not even complete?
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Spence on December 01, 2011, 09:04:23 PM
Jasper,
 You need to be more specific. I gave two different examples. Instead of going back and forth with you, maybe it would be better to fix the meaning of the word acted. How about; when a players turn has come, or a players time to act.

 I've just thought of a different scenario that might open your eyes.
Limit-10 and 20...on the turn, Player A checks, Player B bets 20, Player C goes all-in for 25, options open to Player A:
                    a.) Fold
                    b.) Call 25 or...
                    c.) Raise to a total of 40.

Limit-10 and 20...on the turn, Player A checks, Player B checks, Player C goes all-in for 5, options open to Player's A and B:
                    a.) Fold
                    b.) call 5....
Do you agree that they can not raise? Do you agree that they can not even complete?
Just for clarities sake Nick, in your first example C should read as "complete" to a total of 40. Right?
I know there has been some argument about about different meanings on Bet, Raise, Complete, and all those so I just want to be clear.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on December 01, 2011, 10:09:55 PM
Spence,
 Take a look at my example. I think calling it a complete could be misleading because the player is raising the original bettor. Player A would be raising Player B's 20, not Player C's 25. To me the short all-in is not recognized as a raise.
I dealt poker for many years and never used the word "complete" or considered it a standard for any poker game. I guess on a technical issue you could say the raiser compleded the short all-in but, I was trying to show that the all-in was not a factor as to whether the player could raise, the raise was possible only because of the full bet of Player B. If the all-in's raise were 50% or more of the full raise, that would have constituted a raise (considered in the raise limit) for that round.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: K-Lo on December 01, 2011, 11:16:33 PM
Side track:  Has anyone ever heard of the game people play when they read a fortune from a fortune cookie, and everyone adds the words "in bed" after the message?  And it's supposed to really funny?

OK.. back to this thread. 

Jasper,
 You need to be more specific. I gave two different examples. Instead of going back and forth with you, maybe it would be better to fix the meaning of the word acted. >>> How about; when a players turn has come, or a players time to act. <<<

Ack!  At the risk of putting words in Jasper's mouth, that's PRECISELY where he disagrees.  WE ALL (you, Spence, and I) think that the word "acted" in Rule 7 on limit play and Rule 3 on no-limit play means "when a players turn or his time to act has come and gone".  But Jasper is saying, NO, that's not what "acted" means.  He is essentially saying that the words "using chips" should be added after all instances of the word "acted" in those Rules, so while a player who has already acted USING CHIPS and not facing a sufficient wager may not subsequently raise a short all-in, players who have ACTED WITHOUT USING CHIPS ("check") can still raise.

So, the moral of the story is, we will never be able to convince Jasper that a player can still have "acted" without putting chips into the pot, and so we are at an impasse.  We all tried.  Hard.  The dead horse is beaten.  Dead.   :P

Quote
Limit-10 and 20...on the turn, Player A checks, Player B checks, Player C goes all-in for 5, options open to Player's A and B:
                    a.) Fold
                    b.) call 5....
Do you agree that they can not raise? Do you agree that they can not even complete?  <<<

If I were a betting man, I'd BET that Jasper would NOT agree.  He would say that A or B CAN complete to 20 here.  The Limit Rule says that a player who has "not yet acted", facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may complete the wager.  But Jasper will read this as a player who has not yet acted USING CHIPS, facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may complete the wager.  Therefore both A or B can complete, since neither of them have acted USING CHIPS. 

I know you disagree, as do I. But that's his view.  Am I wrong, Jasper?  ;-)

Alas, I think it's time to just agree to disagree, and move on.  Really, it has been a blast.  In bed.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on December 02, 2011, 09:16:17 AM
K-lo,

 Your posts have been great and I want to thank you for your input. I've heard the "beating a dead horse" many times but I do have a problem letting something of this importance go uncorrected. It would be nice to hear from someone on the BOD.

 Jasper Too, When you check on your turn to bet, you have acted...I'm gonna beat the crap right out of the whole damn herd of horses! Like it, or not!  :)
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on December 02, 2011, 06:22:14 PM
LOL Nick, your making me laugh.  I just wanted to post a quick thanks back to K-lo for his post too.  He seems to pick out the essence quite clearly.  And Nick, right or wrong, your fun too.

I will have another post later to put a really good cap on this subject for you guys but I don't have time now to do it justice...
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Spence on December 02, 2011, 06:59:05 PM
Spence,
 Take a look at my example. I think calling it a complete could be misleading because the player is raising the original bettor. Player A would be raising Player B's 20, not Player C's 25. To me the short all-in is not recognized as a raise.
I dealt poker for many years and never used the word "complete" or considered it a standard for any poker game. I guess on a technical issue you could say the raiser compleded the short all-in but, I was trying to show that the all-in was not a factor as to whether the player could raise, the raise was possible only because of the full bet of Player B. If the all-in's raise were 50% or more of the full raise, that would have constituted a raise (considered in the raise limit) for that round.
You are very correct. I better understand what you're saying now. Complete does not seem appropriate in this instance.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on December 03, 2011, 02:21:52 AM
Gentlemen,
I've come to the conclusion that the rules are written as they are, just so we can debate what they are really trying to say.

The following should be considered for amending TDA Rule #38 Raises…This would replace the last sentence in the existing rule.
How does this sound?... Check -raise is permitted in all games only  after a complete legal bet has been made on that betting round. Any short all-in bet ( action only), will not reopen betting options to any player that has checked, or bet, prior to the all-in wager.

Once a player has acted by checking or betting, they may not re-open the betting on that round unless another player makes a full bet or raise.

The standard amount considered necessary for an all-in bet to qualify as a full bet will be governed by the limit type for that game.

 limit: The all-in must be at least 50% of the required amount for that round.

No limit: Because there is no fixed amount for any betting round, the required amount necessary to re-open a round of betting must be 100% of the bet or raise.

I am going to use this on a different post covering the same subject.

I'll wait for your feedback.

Oh Jasper, by the way...I can't wait to hear from you again.  :)

Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on December 06, 2011, 10:12:47 AM
K-lo brought up an interesting question.  If we asked 1000 players to read the rules (cause most of them haven't) how would they interpret them in this case?  The answer is, of course, all different.

As I have stated before I like debating the semantics of the rules as an academic exercise as well as obtaining a better or proper understanding of the rules.  The one thing that stands out for me in this example as well as a few others is that poker tradition plays a huge role in how the rules are interpreted.  Actually, I am sure that the rules were written around poker tradition so that a brand new player reading the rules might have a different interpretation than the writer intended.  That's just a long way of saying that I could be wrong about my interpretation. :)  Of course I am stubborn enough to be glad when other people see things the way I do!! 

So I did a little extra research and found this article over at the Hendon Mob website (http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director3/can_i_raise).  It does two thing for me, first it shows that I am not alone.  Misery and his company.  Two, it demonstrated that I am "wrong" in my interpretation.  Of course, it raised a few other questions regarding limit poker and added juice to the zero bet argument which I still hate but, what can you do.  Actually, I have found that the Hendon Mob doesn't always seem to give a clear answer on those "Your the TD" articles but it helps with the debate.

Alas, I was still willing do hang on to my beliefs a little while longer (oh the things we cling too!!) but then the clouds over Mt. Olympus opened and a voice came down from on high...

On Thursday, December 01, 2011 7:09:48 AM, "Bob Ciaffone" <bthecoach@att.net> wrote:
A bet of less than legal size (it would have to be all-in to be permissible) is not a wager that can be raised, whether or not there are callers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry [mailto:bthurd@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 2:54 AM
To: thecoach@chartermi.net
Subject: Opinion
Hello,
I was hoping I could get some input on a rule in RROP.
I have been having some long discussions about whether a player that
checks, in NL holdem, can raise a short-all in if there are intervening
callers?
seems to me that they should but many don't think so.
Thanks.
Barry


And the follow up:

You checked, then want to raise. The player behind never acted. He deserves a chance to bet, doesn’t he? We do not call his wager a raise, because technically, the undersize wager is not considered a bet.

I will change the email address on my website; thanks.

From: Barry [mailto:bthurd@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 6:14 PM
To: Bob Ciaffone
Subject: Re: wager rule

I guess I don't understand why that is.&nbsp; Afterall, what is a check-raise if not that, -&nbsp; because it is true that a player behind the short all in would be allowed to raise isn't it?.
However, I bow to your expertise and will accept it as stated.&nbsp; I have to go to the TDA forum and tell them how wrong I am now. :)


And so, there you have it.  I am going to need a cough drop after this but......Nick is right.  I was wrong about this one. 


So does anybody have a shovel?  I have a horse to bury.....
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on December 06, 2011, 11:57:44 AM
Jasper Too,

 Please don't feel so bad. If I had a dollar for every bad call I've made or every rule that I got wrong...well let's just say that I'm glad you understand it now so you can make all the right calls.

 This is just one example of the need to make all of the rules for poker easier for all of us to understand.

Do we have to wait another year and a half to fix TDA rule #38?

Here are some suggestions:

A short all-in does not re-open betting to a player that already checked on their turn to act.
                      OR
A player that checked can not bet on the current round unless a player makes a full bet behind him.
                      OR
How about the one right from Bob Ciaffone:  a bet of less than the legal size (it would have to be from an all-in to be permisible) is not a wager that can be raised, whether or not there are callers.

I know with all the great minds out there, we can probably even improve on these.

Jasper Too,
 I would like to say that, it takes a special person to admit when they are wrong... about anything. You showed a lot of class in the way you handled it. I am excited to think that I now have a fierce, and tenacious member of the TDA in my corner ;D...okay, okay, let's just say that we finally agree on 1 rule for sure. ;D 
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: K-Lo on December 07, 2011, 11:02:27 PM
Jasper - You're so easy to convince...  Doesn't take much other than an e-mail from Bob does it?   LOL    :P

Thanks for following up.  I found it really interesting that his explanation focuses on the properties of the all-in bet itself (a short bet is "action" only, not a legal wager) rather than the properties of the initial check (whether a "bet zero", or whatever).
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on December 08, 2011, 09:22:37 AM
K-lo,
 You think six pages on the subject indicates Jasper Too was easy to convince !!! ??? :)
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: K-Lo on December 08, 2011, 09:25:25 AM
I was being facetious!   :D
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: JasperToo on December 08, 2011, 09:38:41 AM
Jasper - You're so easy to convince...  Doesn't take much other than an e-mail from Bob does it?   LOL    :P

Thanks for following up.  I found it really interesting that his explanation focuses on the properties of the all-in bet itself (a short bet is "action" only, not a legal wager) rather than the properties of the initial check (whether a "bet zero", or whatever).


Yes I did notice that and I am glad that you did also.  That was Matt Savages approach as well and it makes it quite a bit easier to get my head around it.   If I accept that the short bet doesn't "initiate" the betting because it is not a legal wager (technically, because it is not a full bet) then the language of the rule can still make sense. Including the definition of check in that the checker can not initiate his own bet (by raising the short one) because, well, no one else has initiated it.  It's a different viewpoint than Nick was arguing but comes to the same end only now I can see how that can work and satisfy everyone. 

It is a bit odd that his simple answer gave the right perspective (for me at least) for it to all make sense.

I can relax now and find my next chew toy.
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Spence on December 08, 2011, 05:24:21 PM
Conclusions like this don't come along often. Savour the fact that we made some real headway on this one. Go team!
Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Nick C on December 09, 2011, 11:26:31 AM
DCJ001,
 I waited two days to see if you would respond to this post. It doesn't surprise me though. You always have something to say when I don't agree with a rule but you don't have anything to say when I'm right. Even when Bob Ciaffone says I'm right, you don't agree.

   Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2011, 03:19:52 PM »   
________________________________________
"Nick. Did you read the example in RROP that Jasper and I brought to everyone's attention?"

Evidently, Nick likes to ignore common sense and the rules with which he disagrees or does not understand.

DCJ001, Do you understand the rule now?











 

   


Title: Re: Under raise - underbet
Post by: Lado on April 23, 2015, 10:27:20 AM
6 pages?! The Man(NickC) said it once: player A can not raise and he's correct! End of story!