Author Topic: Player all-in for less than a min-raise. Bet re-opening & min re-raise questions  (Read 6536 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
BTW: For several years the most frequently asked questions about TDA Rules pertained to the exact topics of this thread: 1) What is the min raise to a player and 2) When is betting closed (and opened) for a player who has already acted.

These questions were so frequent that a special sticky thread was created at the top of this forum category:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=823.0

Min-raises and re-opening the bets are also the subject of numerous examples in the TDA Rules Illustration Addendum found at the back of all longform versions of the rules:

http://www.pokertda.com/poker-tda-rules/

The Illustration Addendum was adopted at the 2013 Summit and has gone a long way towards answering these important fundamental questions with real-world examples.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Dave ,

 I appreciate the time you took to better explain the situation.

Mike,

 Thanks for answering my question about the all-in slightly larger than a prior all-in. Correct me if I'm wrong but, on your statement that follows: Player A calls 10K BB, Player B goes all-in for 14K, Player C (with a total of 18K in chips) pushes out 14K, Player D goes all-in for 16K, Player A calls the 16K.... Player B is already all-in for 14K, at this point Player C can only smooth call the 16K, he can't push all-in for 18K because he's already acted and he's not facing at least a full min-raise to him (which in this case would be 24K.
Wouldn't the min raise be 26K...and not 24K?

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Great question. At the time C last acted he bet 14k total. So the minimum total raise amount to reopen the bet for him is 24k. Since he's not facing a bet of at least 24k he can only call the 16k or fold.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 12:04:46 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Everybody:

 I'm ready to cast my vote for all poker limits to use the simple rules that govern limit games! I'd even include a limit to the number of raises. When was the last time you saw more than 3 raises on a single betting round? It's so much easier to understand, and if you're fortunate enough to understand how the current no limit raise rules work, would you please send me a simplified explanation so I can explain it to my students... :D

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054

I'm ready to cast my vote for all poker limits to use the simple rules that govern limit games! I'd even include a limit to the number of raises.
Then it wouldn't be a no-limit game.

if you're fortunate enough to understand how the current no limit raise rules work, would you please send me a simplified explanation so I can explain it to my students... :D
No problem, here are the explanations:

1: See Rule 43 "Raise Amounts" and Rule 44 "Re-Opening the Bet" here: http://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/

2: See "Illustration Addendum" on Rules 43 and 44 on pages 14-16 here: http://www.pokertda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Poker-TDA-Rules-2015-Version-1.0-full-longform-PDF-1.pdf  The Addendum provides no less than 11 real-world illustrations in detail.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Mike,
 Thanks for your response. The first answer you gave: "Then it wouldn't be a no limit game." To that I say" "When was the last time you saw more than three raises on a single betting round in no limit?"

 I easily followed all of the examples in TDA #43 and #44 (although I've disputed the part about a player that has already acted).

 In the Addendum #44 Reopening the bet makes little sense to me. A combination of short all-in bets are not added together, there must still be a 100% raise amount to re-open betting, correct? Blinds 5 & 10 UTG all-in for 14...next player all-in for 19....next player all-in for 11...would a player going all-in for 20 reopen the betting? Or must it be 29?

Looking back, this might be what Luke was looking for.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2016, 05:56:24 PM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054

In the Addendum #44 Reopening the bet makes little sense to me. A combination of short all-in bets are not added together, there must still be a 100% raise amount to re-open betting, correct? Blinds 5 & 10 UTG all-in for 14...next player all-in for 19....next player all-in for 11...would a player going all-in for 20 reopen the betting? Or must it be 29?


Nick, you keep saying "I don't understand" but is it possible you haven't studied the rule? Thousands of people have and understand it, so I'm guessing you just need to study it a bit more and create sample situations so you can figure out whether betting is re-opened or not.

The bottom line is, that each player who has already acted must face at least a full raise to him in order for his raise option to re-open. You don't have to think beyond that. Whether I'm facing a full raise to me because one player made a full raise or whether a series of short all-in wagers totals a full raise, doesn't matter. BOTH of these situations open the betting to me:

NLHE, 5-10 blinds, I'm UTG and I call the 10... (so I've already acted)... the button raises by 10 to make it 20 total, when it comes back to me I'm facing at least a full minimum raise to me of 10 more, so I can raise without limit, my raising option is re-opened.

NLHE, 5-10 blinds, I'm UTG and I call the 10... (so I've already acted)... seat 5 pushes all-in for 11 total, seat 6 pushes all-in for 14 total, seat 7 pushes all-in for 18 total, and the button pushes out his last 20 for 20 total.... when it comes back to me I'm facing at least a full minimum raise to me of 10 more, so I can raise without limit, my raising option is re-opened. NOTE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION: No single player in this series made a full minimum raise, but the total of the short all-ins reaches a full raise (10 more to me) so my option to raise is re-opened. If the button had pushed all-in for 19, then it would not be a full raise to me, and I could only call.

Hope this helps, you just have to study the rule and I'm very sure you'll understand the idea.

« Last Edit: June 08, 2016, 08:27:53 AM by MikeB »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344

In the Addendum #44 Reopening the bet makes little sense to me. A combination of short all-in bets are not added together, there must still be a 100% raise amount to re-open betting, correct? Blinds 5 & 10 UTG all-in for 14...next player all-in for 19....next player all-in for 11...would a player going all-in for 20 reopen the betting? Or must it be 29?


NLHE, 5-10 blinds, I'm UTG and I call the 10... (so I've already acted)... seat 5 pushes all-in for 11 total, seat 6 pushes all-in for 14 total, seat 7 pushes all-in for 18 total, and the button pushes out his last 20 for 20 total.... when it comes back to me I'm facing at least a full minimum raise to me of 10 more, so I can raise without limit, my raising option is re-opened.

NOTE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION: No single player in this series made a full minimum raise, but the total of the short all-ins reaches a full raise (10 more to me) so my option to raise is re-opened. If the button had pushed all-in for 19, then it would not be a full raise to me, and I could only call.

Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that it is possible that not every short all-in wager contributes to the amount raised.  As in Nick's example, one of the players was all-in for less than the bet faced.  So, it doesn't contribute to the amount raised - as it wasn't a raise.

Also, when we speak of the amount raised, it has two relative meanings:
1) the amount raised by the player who was facing a bet
2) the amount raised when returning to the player who had previously acted

So, in Mike's example, no single player made a minimum full raise over the bet faced.  Yet, the button did indeed make a full minimum raise to the player who had previously called 10, when the button bet 20.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2016, 02:09:50 PM by BillM16 »

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
It should also be noted that there might be other players in between, that called the small raises. If the UTG does not exercise his option to reraise, that's it. The remaining callers are not facing a full raise, so they can only call or fold.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
 I have been debating this raise rule issue for 5 years. I've heard from numerous TD's and yet not one explanation has convinced me that the current rule is fine the way it is, and needs no change.

 Mike Bishop has responded more than I can count and believe me, for that I am grateful. Without Mike's input there would be no Discussion Forum. He is the only member on the Board of Directors that responds whenever a question is asked.

 The most recent debate will never be resolved until the Raise rule is written in such a way, that it can be understood by all.

 there are numerous discussions that MikeB has listed on an earlier post that are worth another look.

 Mike, you recently suggested that I possibly haven't studied the rule. On the contrary, I have studied, examined, and evaluated it and this is what I see: A raise rule (#44) that contradicts the No limit raise rule #43. The first sentence reads: A: A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round. Yet in no limit, we are told that a short all-in will alter that amount, i.e. On the turn, UTG bets 10, next Player goes all-in for 14...at this point the necessary amount required to raise is 10 more or a total of 24.
 In all of the examples given, an all-in player betting 20 is accepted as a qualifying action that would reopen the betting to the UTG...correct? If all of your examples are correct, we should consider listing an exception to our rule. Whenever there are multiple all-in players on a given betting round, any short all-in that at least doubles the original bet amount is sufficient to reopen the betting to the original bettor, even though it is less than the required amount necessary if there were no all-in.

 The Addendum Rule #44 Re-Opening the Betting Example 1 Series of short all-in wagers that add up to a full raise and thus reopen the betting. This gives the impression that multiple short all-ins are added together until the double the bet is reached...this is false. In order to reopen the betting at least one of the all-in players must have enough to double the biggest bet.

 I believe I understand what the TDA is trying to say. Not only do I question why we should allow a short raise to reopen the betting, but I question how we are supposed to understand this rule when it is written incorrectly.

 If I'm correct, it is NOT a series of short all-in's that add up to a full raise.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Hi Nick: After reading your last post above it's obvious you have a few misunderstandings about the TDA rules. Your misunderstandings include:

1: In order to re-open the betting to Player A who has already acted, some single player must make a full minimum raise before the bet returns to Player A. This is not true. What is true is that when the bet returns to Player A, the total of the bet must total at least a full minimum raise. Please stop and fully grasp that before continuing. The examples I'll provide in a moment hopefully will be the simplest possible.

2: The "exception" to the rule that you suggest is already in the rule. No additional language is needed. The rule unambiguously states: "...an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing at least a full raise when the action returns to him". The bottom line is what bet amount you are facing when the action returns to you. Again, please stop and contemplate that. If you are facing what amounts to a full raise above your prior action, then you can re-raise, if you're facing "less than a full raise" then you can only call or fold.

Here is the real-world example that should clarify everything for you in very simple clear terms:

NLHE 5-10, with eight players, SB / BB are in seats 1 and 2.

Seat 3: calls 10. So the bet to seat 8 was 10, and he will have to face at least a full raise when the action returns to him... i.e. the bet will have to be 20 for him to re-raise.

Seat 4: calls 10. Ditto, he will have to face a bet of at least 20 to re-raise.

Seat 5: makes it 40 total. So he has raised by 30, and thus he will have to face a total bet of at least 70 to be able to re-raise. If he faces a bet of 69 or less when action returns to him, he can only call or fold.

Seat 6: calls the 40. Ditto, he will have to face a bet of at least 70 to re-raise.

Seat 7: makes it 100 total. So he has raised by 60. Thus he will have to face a total bet of at least 160 when the action returns to him to be able to re-raise.

Seat 8: calls the 100.
*********************************
At this point, please understand: For every one of these players, it doesn't matter how the bet gets to their "trigger" value to re-open for them. Whether A) a single player makes the full minimum raise for that player OR B) there is a series of short all-in wagers that reach that total minimum. It does not matter. Just as the rule states, if they are facing a full minimum raise (for them), they can raise, otherwise they can only call or fold. You're the only person who has trouble with that concept, so just study it, you will get it. Nobody can put this concept in your repertoire but you. We can give example after example, you just have to contemplate it. But be assured, it's in the rule and in the addendum illustrations.

*********************************
Now, back to our example.

Seat 1 and 2 (SB and BB). Betting is open because they have not yet acted on their options.

For Seats 3 to 6, betting is open because they are all facing at least 100 total. That's more than the 20 total needed for seats 3 and 4, and more than the 70 total needed to re-open seats 5 and 6.

For Seats 7 and 8: Betting is not yet open, because no single player (or no series of short all-ins) has yet reached 160, the minimum amount needed to re-open for them.
*********************************

NOW, the minimum raise amount is currently 60 (Seat 7's raise from 40 to 100). Let's continue the betting:

Seat 1: calls 100. Unless somebody (or a series of short all-ins) makes it 160 total, he's finished re-raising for this round.

Seat 2: calls 100. Ditto.

Seat 3: pushes all-in for 80.

Seat 4: pushes all-in for 120 (this is a short all-in wager because he's only increased the bet by 20 from 100 to 120. He hasn't made a full minimum raise of 60).

Seat 5: Calls the 120 total. For this player the bet must be at least 180 total when it returns to him, otherwise he cannot re-raise.

Seat 6: pushes all-in for 160 (this is a short all-in wager because he's only increased the bet by 40 from 120 to 160. He hasn't made a full minimum raise of 60).

Seat 7: It's 160 to him. NOTICE, no single player made a full minimum raise to this player, but he's still facing a full minimum raise because of the short all-ins. Action is now open for this player and he can re-raise according to Rule 44. Please stop and study this. . Seat 7 calls.

Seat 8: Ditto, calls the 160 total.

***************************************
NOW, at this point:
Seats 1 and 2: all options open because they both face a full minimum raise of 60 (for 160 total), even though that was reached with a series of short all-ins.

Seat 3: all in

Seats 4 and 5: Can only call unless Seat 1 or 2 makes it at least 220 (by a re-raise) or at least 180 by a short all-in

Seat 6: all in

Seat 7 and 8: Can only call unless it's at least 220 when the action returns to them.

*********************************************
To re-visit your post: NickC said:

"The Addendum Rule #44 Re-Opening the Betting Example 1 Series of short all-in wagers that add up to a full raise and thus reopen the betting. This gives the impression that multiple short all-ins are added together until the double the bet is reached...this is false."    Wrong, it's true.

NickC said: "In order to reopen the betting at least one of the all-in players must have enough to double the biggest bet."   Again, wrong. Re-read the rule and you'll find the rule is about the amount the player who has already acted is now facing. It's not about the amount of each short all-in.

Hopefully this gives you enough material to contemplate the rule and arrive at an understanding of it.








MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
I've added this thread to the sticky thread on minimum raise and re-opening the bet questions here: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=823.0

Also started a thread on whether a language edit to Rule 44 is needed, here: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1292.0

Keep in mind this is one of those rules that no matter how you write it, examples are needed in the Illustration Addendum.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2016, 11:14:29 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Mike,

 I thank you for all of the time you have dedicated to my questions about raises for no limit. I don't know how much time it will take, but I'll attempt to digest what you wrote and get back to you. Too much for me to tackle right now.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Mike,

 Still wracking my brain over this one...sorry. Now I understand why, in France, they require a "double" the bet your facing in order to raise! ;D

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Mike,

 I sent you a message a few days ago and I'm guessing that you gave up on me ever understanding the raise rule for no limit. I'll quote what you wrote (in obvious frustration) on your last reply to me:  You're the only person who has trouble with that concept, so just study it, you will get it. Nobody can put this concept in your repertoire but you. We can give example after example, you just have to contemplate it. But be assured, it's in the rule and in the addendum illustrations.

 Now, I've been known to make a wager now and then and I'm prepared to empty my bank account on this one. I'll wager out of the thousands that you claim understand TDA Rule's 43 & 44 there are 10 thousand that don't...and that includes floor persons and tournament directors.

 5 & 10 Blinds...on the turn UTG (seat 3) calls 10 (in order for him to raise he must be facing a raise that totals 20)...next player (seat 4) goes all-in for 14...next player(seat 5) calls 14 (in order for him to raise the bet must be 24 when it returns to him) next player (seat 6) raises to a total of 50 while facing a 14 bet so in order for him to re-raise the bet must be 86 total before he can reopen...is that correct?