Author Topic: Under Raise and some Rule 31 questions  (Read 10575 times)

madkiwi9

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 21
Under Raise and some Rule 31 questions
« on: March 06, 2010, 07:27:13 AM »
Hi there

My call on this was very simple. However, one of our local poker professionals in a Q&A session in one of the local magazines had a very different view

The flop is open and only 3 players left in the hand
Player A  - Checks
Player B  - Raises to 250
Player C  - All in for 490

Player A -- Wants to Re-raise, allowing that Player Cs' bet was an under raise. Should Player A be allowed to Re-raise?

Again, would love feedback on this

Thanks a mil!

« Last Edit: March 30, 2010, 11:40:23 AM by MikeB »
Russell Miller
Southern Cross Poker

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2010, 10:57:01 AM »
Players C's all-in bet for 490 is action only, however player B has made an action which re-opens the betting to player A so yes he has all actions open to him again.

Regards
Stuart
Stuart Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

DCJ001

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2010, 11:02:35 AM »
Player A can definitely check raise.

Player B made a bet. Player C's all in was not a full raise. Player A's check raise is fine because Player B made a bet which reopened the action to Player A.

If Player A had bet 250, and if Player B had called, and if Player C had gone all in for 490, Player's A and B would have the options of calling or folding, but not raising.

TDA rule # 31 states:
  
A raise must be at least the size of the previous raise.  If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she will be required to make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in bet of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2010, 07:58:29 PM by DCJ001 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2010, 11:55:45 AM »
There are many discussions regarding raises. There was a posting earlier this month that made me realize that rule #31 will have to be addressed at the next meeting. The last sentence; in no-limit and pot-limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. I did forward this to the administration department and it will be addressed. The example that was submitted on March 6, 2010 was a perfect example for explanation. The game is no-limit.
                              Player A checks
                              Player B bets $250
                              Player C goes all-in for $490 (less than the required amount to be considered a raise)
The way the rule is written, because player A has acted prior to the bet and all-in raise, he would not be allowed to raise. That is incorrect. Player A will have the right to raise.

In addition a note of importance, if player A were to call the all-in wager, player B would not be allowed to raise. In other words the all-in bet of less than 100% of the original bet does not reopen the betting to the original bettor.
Hope this will clear up any confusion.
Nick C
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 07:36:32 AM by Nick C »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2010, 12:16:37 PM »
Sorry Nick, but I believe you are incorrect on this one.  Please read the posts by Stuamurr and DCJ001 carefully.  Player C's action is just that, it is not a raise.  What reopens the action to player A after he checked is the raise by player B.  If player B had not raised, but just called then the only options available to both of them would be to fold or call the all-in action of player C for that round of betting.  Players A and B are free to do whatever on any subsequent rounds for a side pot.

I really don't see a problem with rule 31 as it is written.

As a direct answer to Madkiwi, Player A can certainly re-raise, but based on player B's raise NOT based on Player C's action.

Hope this helps!

DCJ001

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2010, 01:44:22 PM »

The flop is open and only 3 players left in the hand
Player A  - Checks
Player B  - Raises to 250
Player C  - All in for 490

Sorry Nick, but I believe you are incorrect on this one.  Please read the posts by Stuamurr and DCJ001 carefully.  Player C's action is just that, it is not a raise.  What reopens the action to player A after he checked is the raise by player B.  If player B had not raised, but just called then the only options available to both of them would be to fold or call the all-in action of player C for that round of betting.  Players A and B are free to do whatever on any subsequent rounds for a side pot.

I really don't see a problem with rule 31 as it is written.

As a direct answer to Madkiwi, Player A can certainly re-raise, but based on player B's raise NOT based on Player C's action.

Hope this helps!

What needs clarification in the two posts that I have quoted is that Player B did not raise. After the flop, the first person to put chips into the pot "bets," not "raises." It's important to keep this simple principle in mind.

Often, when I watch poker tournaments in the UK, after the first player "bets" after the flop, dealers and commentators announce that the next player to act "reraises," which is not possible because there has not yet been a "raise."

Preflop, the action can go "call, raise, reraise" or "raise, reraise," etc. Postflop the action can go "bet, raise, reraise."

I sometimes hear players and commentators in the US make these mistakes. This type of mistake can be contagious because people sometimes repeat what they hear because may people do not think about the words that they speak.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2010, 02:18:04 PM by DCJ001 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2010, 03:09:09 PM »
To Chet DJ001

 I am not trying to disagree with anyone on this ruling. Chet you are making reference to the wrong player, please read my explanation carefully. You may e-mail me at    nickscasinopoker@comf5.com if you would like.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 07:37:49 AM by Nick C »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2010, 03:14:07 PM »
The example that you gave is for no-limit. The answer is player C should be able to raise because the all-in wager was not a complete raise (100% is what I would prefer).  Player C could fold, call the $700 or raise to a total of $800 or more. The important part of rule #31 that is not mentioned; When the all-in player (B) makes the action only raise of $300 for a total bet of $700, it will not reopen the betting to player A (the initial bettor) unless player C completes the raise. I hope I am making this a little clearer. Bottom line, this rule will be addressed at the next meeting per Jan Fisher.

Chet this is from a different post, but similar
Nick C

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2010, 04:36:30 PM »
I am going to blame my confusion in terms on the fact that I had not yet had any coffee.  Player B's action is a BET, not a RAISE as I stated. 

Nick:  I am getting more confused as this thread goes on.  If I remember correctly, A checked, B Bet and C went all-in for less than a full raise.  I think we may be talking about two different situations.

Finally, you posted part of your email address, but you left out the part of your address that follows "...@helloworld".  Is it .com, .net or .?????

I agree the rule could be clarified.

What I would like to see is an addendum to the Rules created at the next Summit, that would house/hold/provide examples for the rules that may have different interpretations.  I don't think we need examples for each and every rule, but in some cases examples would be helpful, I think.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2010, 10:59:42 PM »
There are many discussions regarding raises. There was a posting earlier this month that made me realize that rule #31 will have to be addressed at the next meeting. The last sentence; in no-limit and pot-limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. I did forward this to the administration department and it will be addressed. The example that was submitted on March 6, 2010 was a perfect example for explanation. The game is no-limit.
                              Player A checks.... Player B bets $250
                              Player C goes all-in for $490 (less than the required amount to be considered a raise)
The way the rule is written, because player A has acted prior to the bet and all-in raise, he would not be allowed to raise. That is incorrect. Player A will have the right to raise.
Actually, in this situation, Player C's bet of $490 is apparently over the minimum bet for this round, that minimum bet being $250 or less (Player B's bet). Either way you look at it, either Player B's bet of $250 OR Player C's total bet of $490 both are by themselves at least minimum bets and enough to re-open the action to A. Since Player A hasn't acted on Player B's full bet of $250, he has a right to act on it, regardless of whether Player C's raise of $240 to 490 total is a full minimum raise.... am I missing something ? Once Player B makes a minimum bet the action is re-opened for A, it doesn't matter IMO what Player C does at that point.... The only situation where Rule 31 would apply here is if Player B checks and Player C is all-in for something less than whatever the minimum for this round is, but that's not the case (unless I'm missing something at 1am cst which is always possible :) I agree that Player B cannot raise here if Player A just smooth calls Player C, because C's all-in wager of another 240 doesn't constitute a full raise to B.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2010, 11:09:40 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2010, 11:51:51 PM »
To Chet and Mike B

 I guess I'm not expressing the situation properly and please, correct me if I'm wrong. Before I try again; the last line in rule #31 is what I question; an all-in wager of less than a full raise (which the $490 wager of player C qualifies as because it would have to be a raise to $500) would not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. When you consider that player A did act first by checking. Why should he not be allowed to raise player B's initial wager of $250?

Mike I really like it when you enter our conversation. Chet, I'm sorry I omitted part of the address....nickscasinopoker@comf5.com...

The confusion that I see is because the ruling should read (IMO): A wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the original bettor.

I think I have a better example;  The game is no-limit player A checks player B bets $100 player C calls, player D calls player E goes all-in for $120...now back to player A. What are his options? he can fold, he can call, or HE CAN RAISE, because he is raising player B and not the all-in player (E). If this example does not contradict rule #31 please explain.  Player A (who started the action with a check, still defined as having acted) has every right to raise in that position. To continue, if player A were to fold or call the $120 all-in wager then player B ( the original bettor) can only call. Chet you are right, we don't need any more examples. I do need someone to tell everyone that I am correct. Jan, where are you?

Thanks for your response
Nick C
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 07:40:35 AM by Nick C »

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2010, 07:58:12 AM »
Nick,

I see your point regarding the under raise rule, the wording under your interpretation is misleading.  You are correct that the wording needs to be 'cleaned' up a little but even your example: "A wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the original bettor" would be flawed as if with blinds at 50/100 A and B check and then C moves in for 75 the betting is not re-opened to them.

Definitely something that needs to go under scrutiny.  I think everyone is happy with the situations and when betting is open and when it is not, but I do see your point that this rule does require clarity.

Regards
Stuart
Stuart Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2010, 09:04:22 AM »
Stuart

  I know where we need to go, but it isn't that easy to word it properly. At least that is how I feel. Maybe the word "raise" could be replaced with Under sized bet. I'm almost afraid to write anymore. I just don't want any TDA members to get more confused.

Thanks

Nick C


Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2010, 09:54:00 AM »
Nick

Just had a read up on RROP and interestingly he does not cover the subject of action being re-opened to players for no-limit:

6. Any wager not all-in must be at least the size of the previous bet or raise in that round.

7. In limit play, an all-in wager of less than half a bet does not reopen the betting for any player who has already acted and is in the pot for all previous bets. A player who has not yet acted (or had the betting reopened to him by another player's action), facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may fold, call, or complete the wager. An all-in wager of a half a bet or more is treated as a full bet, and a player may fold, call, or make a full raise. (An example of a full raise on a $20 betting round is raising a $15 all-in bet to $35.) Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to individually qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.

I was thinking of something like this that would better clarify the rule but try to still keep it uncluttered:

31.   Raises 
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round.  If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting round to a player who has already acted where no other action has occured.

Let me know what you think

stuart
Stuart Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2010, 01:32:45 PM »
Stuart

  I am very familiar with the half the bet rule (50%) but, I can assure you, we will only muddy the waters even more. That rule works great for fixed bet or structured games; $5 an$10 or $10 and $20. One thing I do like about the rule is the way they reference the percentage (%). My example might be something like this; In no-limit and pot-limit; only a raise of 100% of the initial bet will reopen the betting to the initial bettor. Any all-in player that initiates a bet of less than the minimum required amount will be declared all-in, and a side pot may ensue.  Any player that checked prior to an all-in players bet of less than 100% of the minimal required amount can call or fold unless a complete bet is made by an intervening player, this will allow a check-raise.

 You are welcome to continue this conversation by correspondence via the internet I really don't want to put any thing out there until we have something solid.
I do enjoy these interesting situations and how we all manage to see valid, yet different interpretations of the same rule.

If interested......nickscasinopoker@comf5.com..........
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 07:44:30 AM by Nick C »