Author Topic: Player all-in for less than a min-raise. Bet re-opening & min re-raise questions  (Read 6542 times)

MikeB

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

 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.

Keep in mind that TDA Rules on min-raising and re-opening the bet are no different than Roberts Rules:

RRoP General Rules
3. In no-limit and pot-limit games, unlimited raising is allowed.
6. Any wager not all-in must be at least the size of the previous bet or raise in that round.
7. ....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.

RRoP No-Limit Rules:
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.
4. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.
5. “Completing the bet” is a limit poker wager type only, and not used at big-bet poker.

SO, when you refer to "TDA Rules", you are also referring to Roberts Rules... there is zero difference.

These are the RULES OF RAISING IN POKER.

You are correct in saying that a fair number of people, especially newbies, have a difficult time at first grasping how these rules work... The TDA historically has received more questions regarding min-raises and re-opening the bet than any other subjects... HENCE the sticky thread on the subject AND the Illustration Addendum in the TDA Rules.

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?

You got it! Like any other sport, you're not going to learn overnight the rules of football or basketball or you-name-it. It does take some effort. Congratulations!
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 02:39:10 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 confirming that I now understand what re-opens the betting in no limit. However, I still don't believe that is what RRoP is saying.

 Same scenario that we've been discussing: Blinds 5 & 10 on the turn...UTG bets 10, next player goes all-in for 14, next player calls...when the action returns to the initial bettor (UTG) he can only call unless another all-in raises to 24 not 20. This is where we have disagreed on all prior discussions. This also fits the raise rules from RRoP.

 Why would we allow a player that has already acted, the second opportunity to go all-in? Or raise a possible single player, that is not all-in?

 Please understand, that I understand what you say the rule means, but I don't agree.

MikeB

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

I thank you for confirming that I now understand what re-opens the betting in no limit. However, I still don't believe that is what RRoP is saying.


It is the RRoP rule... re-read it here:

4. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.  

Clearly, a series of short all-ins will re-open the betting if the accumulated amount equals a full raise back to the player who has already acted. This is the RRoP Rule, it's the TDA Rule... it is really a "universal" rule of betting and raising.

Same scenario that we've been discussing: Blinds 5 & 10 on the turn...UTG bets 10, next player goes all-in for 14, next player calls...when the action returns to the initial bettor (UTG) he can only call unless another all-in raises to 24 not 20. This is where we have disagreed on all prior discussions. This also fits the raise rules from RRoP.


No, your example does not fit the raise rule of RRoP, which I've posted above... the multiple short all-ins just have to cumulatively equal a raise back to the player who's already acted. In your example the UTG opened for 10, so the bet has to be at least 20 when it returns to him in order to re-open betting for him.... not 24.  If a series of short all-ins cumulatively totals 20 the UTG can re-raise.


 Why would we allow a player that has already acted, the second opportunity to go all-in? Or raise a possible single player, that is not all-in?

Well, first because that's the rule, but the reason it's the rule is that the player is now facing a full raise so he can re-raise. Why would we require him to just call an amount that equals a full raise but not allow him to re-raise?

On the other hand we "protect" his live opponents with chips by not allowing him to re-raise if he's facing an amount less than a full raise.

Nick C

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

 Thanks again for your response. If I can go over this with you (one more time), I think we might understand why there is confusion with the raise rules for no limit. I know , you are not confused, but many are.

 RRoP

4. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.   To this I wrote: 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. You said this was incorrect.

 Take our original situation: Blinds 5 & 10 on the turn...UTG bets 10, next player all-in for 20...of course this would reopen the betting when the action returns to the UTG. However, placing this all-in player in a different position where intervening players are also all-in (but for lesser amounts) does not comply with what is defined as a, proper raise. Same situation but after the UTG bets 10, the next player goes all-in for 14, followed by a call and then followed by a 20 all-in. The proper min raise should be 24 but we allow the all-in to re-open the betting because he doubled the original bet. This is what you are saying, correct? If this is correct then my statement highlighted in red is correct.

 How can the betting be re-opened (even in your example) by multiple all-in's if at least one all-in player does not bet 20? This is what is wrong with the rule the way it is currently written.

 In no limit and pot limit, a raise must be at least the size of the largest bet or largest raise amount of the current betting round. If a player initiates a bet of 10 the next minimum raise must be at least 10 more. If the opening bet is followed by a (action only) short all-in. i.e. Bet 10 all-in for 14...the min raise is now elevated to 24. The exception to this rule is: when a player goes all-in with less than the required amount, he may still re-open the betting to the initial legal bettor if his all-in at least doubles that amount.

 Like I said before, I understand what you are saying but I strongly disagree with the verbiage, and I disagree with the idea of a short bet re-opening in this case. I also don't believe this is the intent of Roberts Rules.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
SB $10, BB $20, UTG calls $20.

UTG+1 wagers an additional $4 all-in for $24
UTG+2 wagers an additional $7 all-in for $31

SB folds, BB folds, action returns to UTG.

Nick, with which of the following statements do you agree or disagree?
 
1) UTG+1 did not make a full raise.
2) UTG+2 did not make a full raise.
3) UTG is facing a full raise.

Regards,
B~

« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 09:16:19 AM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Bill,
 I have no idea where you are going with this but #1 No, he did not make a full raise...#2 No, he did not make a full raise, either. Therefore #3 UTG is certainly not facing a full raise, but must call 11 more to compete for the pot.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Nick, that's great.  We agree.  How would your answers change if:

SB $10, BB $20, UTG calls $20.

UTG+1 wagers an additional $14 all-in for $34
UTG+2 wagers an additional $7 all-in for $41

SB folds, BB folds, action returns to UTG.

Do you agree with:

1) UTG+1 did not make a full raise.
2) UTG+2 did not make a full raise.
3) UTG is facing a full raise.

Regards,
B~

Nick C

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

#1 UTG+1 did not make a full raise....
#2 UTG +2 did not make a full raise...
#3 UTG is facing an option to call or fold only because he is facing two all-in players!

Your next point, please.

MikeB

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

RRoP

4. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.  

To this I wrote: 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. You said this was incorrect.

Like I said before, I understand what you are saying but I strongly disagree with the verbiage, and I disagree with the idea of a short bet re-opening in this case. I also don't believe this is the intent of Roberts Rules.

Why try and parse the intent when the language is unmistakable? "Multiple all-in wagers each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise still act as a raise and re-open the betting..." That language is crystal clear and needs no digging to find it's true intent. It means what it says.

BOTTOM LINE: A opens for $10, it has to be 20 or more when it gets back to him to re-raise. It does not matter how the betting gets to 20... don't think beyond that. You are overthinking here.

BOTTOM LINE: A opens for $10, B raises to 30 total. It has to be 20 or more for A to re-raise and 50 or more for B to re-raise when the action returns to them.... don't think beyond that. It doesn't matter how those amounts are reached... either by a single raise or by "multiple all-in wagers each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise"... either way the betting just has to reach those values.

MikeB

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

#1 UTG+1 did not make a full raise....
#2 UTG +2 did not make a full raise...
#3 UTG is facing an option to call or fold only because he is facing two all-in players!

Your next point, please.

Allow me to add another live player to Bill's illustration so the UTG is facing a live player

SB $10, BB $20, UTG calls $20.

UTG+1 wagers an additional $14 all-in for $34
UTG+2 wagers an additional $7 all-in for $41
Button (who has chips) calls the $41

SB folds, BB folds, action returns to UTG.

Do you agree with:

1) UTG+1 did not make a full raise.
2) UTG+2 did not make a full raise.
3) UTG is facing a full raise.

Your answers now that UTG is facing a live player with chips?

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Thanks Mike.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
My answer is: Not facing a full raise (action only) because a full raise would have been 54 if there were no all-in. Yet I understand that according to the TDA rules a raise is allowed by UTG because you allow a short all-in to re-open the betting.

 What you are not comprehending is the fact that in every single example you have given, you insist on saying it makes no difference how the (double the bet) gets there, as long as it happens! And I'm telling you it's impossible without a single individual short all-in reaching that number...impossible! It is not the sum of the all-in's...it must involve a single short raise that would support your raise rule if no other all-in's were involved.

 You keep asking me to think this out...will you please think out what I've written? I'm not trying to be difficult, only understand the rules.

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Nick, look at it from the perspective of the player.

I'm the UTG, and I call $10.

Several players call and/or go all in. When the action returns to me, it's $27 to call.

Do I really care HOW it got to $27?

All I care about is, if it's $20 or more to call, as long as there's someone left who isn't all-in, I have the option to re-raise.



The reason this is so confusing is two-fold:
1: It's very rare to have multiple small all-in raises.
2: The tournament strategy to check it down when someone is all-in.

Therefore, if someone raises when there's an all-in, people freak out.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
My answer is: Not facing a full raise (action only) because a full raise would have been 54 if there were no all-in. Yet I understand that according to the TDA rules a raise is allowed by UTG because you allow a short all-in to re-open the betting.


The UTG is facing a bet of $41 which is a full raise of $21 over his previous called amount of $20.

What you are not comprehending is the fact that in every single example you have given, you insist on saying it makes no difference how the (double the bet) gets there, as long as it happens! And I'm telling you it's impossible without a single individual short all-in reaching that number...impossible!


Nick, you say it is impossible without a single individual short all-in reaching that number.  A single individual short all-in that reaches the number is BY DEFINITION NOT A SHORT ALL-IN as it would be a full raise by itself.

It is not the sum of the all-in's...

It is the sum of the short all-in RAISED AMOUNTS.  In our example, UTG+1 raised by $14 over the $20 call and UTG+2 raised by $7 over the $34 call.  The sum of those multiple short all-in RAISED AMOUNTS ($7 + $14) is $21.  That $21 is a full raise amount to the UTG who called $20 and is now facing the bet of $41.

Regards,
B~

« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 02:39:43 PM by BillM16 »

Nick C

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

 In your last example, did one player go all-in for 41? Yes he did...I rest my case.