Author Topic: Multiple short all ins  (Read 596 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3142
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2018, 08:33:49 AM »
Bill, I believe you are incorrect. It would be nice to hear from others...perhaps Mike can sort this out. It's too important to go back and forth when it's obvious many are unclear on the rules. A short all-in does not constitute a raise...so the examples are all wrong.

 I will use one of your examples to explain my reasoning. Player A bets 400  when Player B goes all-in for 500 it is not a raise and it does not reopen the betting to  Player A if others call the 500.

 I'll debate further but I.m sure you don't want to keep hearing from me. I know you feel strongly about your opinions so I'll wait for others to join in. I will also try to find past debates that we've had on this very subject going back years!

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3142
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 10:57:40 AM by Nick C »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2018, 01:16:18 PM »
Bill, ....

 I will use one of your examples to explain my reasoning. Player A bets 400  when Player B goes all-in for 500 it is not a raise and it does not reopen the betting to  Player A if others call the 500.

Nick, I didnít say that.  Your example has player A facing a bet of 500 which of course is not a full raise on the 400 bet. 

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2018, 01:46:15 PM »
Bill, I believe you are incorrect. ..... A short all-in does not constitute a raise...so the examples are all wrong.

Nick,
In no situation did I say that a single short all-in constitutes a raise!

A short all-in can be a short raise or perhaps a short call but never a full raise or a full call. Least we would not be describing the all-in as “short.”

The TDA does not define terms.  But, RRoP v11 offers this:

Raise:
To increase the amount of a previous wager. This increase must meet certain specifications, depending on the game, to reopen the betting and count toward a limit on the number of raises allowed.
.


So, a single short all-in raise increases the amount of the previous wager but does not reopen the bet according to TDA rules.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 01:51:09 PM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3142
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2018, 01:48:50 PM »
Bill,

 Maybe we should start over. You erased a post that was critical to those trying to follow. Send me a couple scenario's you'd like to explore and let's see if we can sort this out. It looks like we're on our own!
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 01:50:23 PM by Nick C »

BROOKS

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2018, 02:07:03 PM »
A bet 400
B all in 500
C all in 700
D raises to 1200


I agree with you nick when saying that the next player, whether it be E or A, must raise by at least 500
The last legal bet/raise increment was 500 by D

But in this example I'm leaning the other way:

A bet 400
B all in 650
C all in 850


Most people say that if D calls 850, A must raise by at least 450. We all understand that A can raise because the amount he is facing is at least full raise.
So I'm thinking that when 2 short all ins combined create a "legal full raise", that now becomes the next raise increment.
If it counts as a "full raise" in order to reopen the betting for A, then it should count as a "full raise" to the next player (D for example)

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2018, 02:18:26 PM »
One last time:

Reopening the bet to a player who has previously acted has NOTHING to do with increasing the minimum full raise amount.

I have given the best examples and reasons that I can offer at this point.
Good luck gentlemen.

P.s. Player A can raise 400 if there were any players that were calling and not already all-in.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 02:22:35 PM by BillM16 »

BROOKS

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2018, 02:40:08 PM »
Bill
I appreciate your involvement in this conversation and I understand what you're saying. But where does it say this? 

Two simple rules for short all-in raises.
#1 They do not increase the legal size of the full bet or raise.
#2 They do increase the amount of the bet that one might face.

Two simple rules for raises.
#1 The legal size of a full raise is never altered by a short all-in.
#2 The legal size of a full raise can only be altered to a larger size by an individual making a full raise that is a larger size.



The closest verbiage I can find in the TDA relating to these scenerios is in the addendum:

Example 1. Series of short all-in wagers that add up to a full raise and thus re-open betting:
NLHE, Blinds 50-100. Post-flop, A opens betting for the 100 minimum.
B goes all in for a total of 125. C calls the 125,
D goes all in for 200 total and E calls 200.
Action returns to A who is facing a total raise of 100. Since 100 is a full raise, the betting is re-opened for A who can fold, call, or raise here. Note that neither Bís increment of 25 or Dís increment of 75 is by itself a full raise, but when added together they total a full raise  and thus re-open the betting to ďa player who is facing at least a full raise when the action returnsĒ.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3142
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2018, 02:55:28 PM »
Bill,

 This is the problem we are having: You wrote:
 A bet 400
 B all in 500
 C all in 700
 D raises to 1200

I agree with you nick when saying that the next player, whether it be E or A, must raise by at least 500 (This is incorrect the raise amount to A or E would be at least 800 more)
The last legal bet/raise increment was 500 by D You are counting short all-in's as raises and they are not. Until the single bet from any player, all-in or not reaches a total of 800 the betting will not be reopened to Player A...so until D raised to 1200 A would not have had an option to raise.

If I'm wrong on this, I doubt I'll ever understand the TDA raise rules...I'm done for now.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 03:02:02 PM by Nick C »

BROOKS

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2018, 03:33:58 PM »
Nick I wrote that ^

And I was agreeing with your reply to me.

you said that next raise needed to be at least 500
-in your long reply to my 2 scenerios

And now you're saying the opposite?

Brooks,

Here is how I analyze your scenario:

Player A:     Made an opening bet for 400. 
                  This establishes the legal size of a full raise as 400.

Player B:     Made an all-in wager for 500.
                  This raise of 100 is short of the full raise amount.  Short raises are only allowed when a player is all-in.
                  There is now 900 in the pot.

Player C:    Made an all-in wager for 700.
                 This raise of 200 is short of the full raise amount.  The short raise is allowed as the player is all-in.
                 There is now 1100 in the pot.

Player D:    Makes the 1200 bet.  That is a full raise of 500. 
                 The 500 raise is larger than the previous legal raise of 400, so now 500 is the legal full raise.
                 There is now 1600 in the pot.

Player A:    Is facing a bet of 1200. 
                 The largest bet or raise at the time that Player A had last acted was 400.
                 Player A is facing a bet that is a full raise over their last bet.  Therefore, betting is reopened.
                 Player A can fold. 
                 Or, player A can call the 1200 by adding another 800 to the previous 400 bet. 
             Or, player A can raise by calling the 1200 and raising at least 500 more.
                 A minimum full raise bet would be 1700, which is 1300 more that the original 400 bet.



And now you're saying this?
 
 This is the problem we are having: You wrote:
 A bet 400
 B all in 500
 C all in 700
 D raises to 1200

I agree with you nick when saying that the next player, whether it be E or A, must raise by at least 500 (This is incorrect the raise amount to A or E would be at least 800 more)


If E raises, he needs to raise by at least 500 to 1700
Same thing for A. If he wants to raise he needs to raise by any least 500
500 was the last legal raise amount.
I don't know why you think E needs to raise by 800?

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2018, 03:52:20 PM »
Gentlemen,

This was discussed in the following thread with over 62 replies that have been read nearly 8,000 times.
I feel no need to add anything more here:

Click here: Player all-in for less than a min-raise. Bet re-opening & min re-raise questions.

Mike B gave response several times in that thread before locking the topic.  Please read Mikes final BOTTOM LINE on the matter.

Click here: BOTTOM LINE

« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 04:00:41 PM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3142
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2018, 04:46:52 PM »
Brooks,

 I'm sorry but I never said a raise was 500. I think you got my post mixed up with someone else.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3142
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2018, 06:55:12 PM »
Bill,

 This is getting comical. We've been in disagreement over this rule for years! Looking at the old post you suggested...even Mike B gave up on me. I noticed a few mistakes on that thread by myself and others but there's not much sense in rehashing any of it. I will say that I was surprised to see a post from one of my most respected fellow TDA members and somehow I must have skipped over that reply because his explanation made more sense than anyone, Here it is:

By GreggPath
TDA Member & Veteran Poster
***
Posts: 86

Re: Player all-in for less than a min-raise. Bet re-opening & min re-raise questions
ę Reply #60 on: June 20, 2016, 08:42:11 AM Ľ
I have read through this whole thread and I'm pretty sure I understand the rule in question. Would it be simpler to explain it this way:

A player may only raise when the action is on that player for the first time in the betting round OR the action they are facing is a bet equal to or greater than the chips they have already bet in the current betting round [might need to be worded differently to make it clear that "action they are facing" is referring to additional chips on top of what they have already put in]. i.e. if a player has already put 10 chips in earlier in the same betting round and the bet they are facing is 20 or more, they may call, raise, or fold. If the bet they are facing is 19 or less, they may call or fold.

Just my two cents. I believe I understand the rule anyways, but for those who are confused by it, this might be helpful. I always tell players who don't understand the rule to ignore everything that has happened and just look at the bet the player is facing. If a call means at least doubling what they already have bet, they can raise. If it's less than double, they can only call/fold.

PS This is my first post. Wow! brilliant!  I hope to become involved in these discussions. I'm not in the business. I run my own home tournaments but have never worked for an actual poker room/casino. I am, however, very interested in the rules and procedures of running poker games/tournaments.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3142
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2018, 09:28:11 PM »
Tell me if this is correct:

 
 A bet 400
 B all in 500  short all-in not a raise
 C all in 700  short all-in not a raise
 D raises to 1200 this is a raise...a raise of 800

This is because of Players B and C's bets are irrelevant. Makes no difference to reopening to A (post flop) unless a single player makes a total wager of at least 800!

 A bets 400
 B all-in for 700
 C all-in for 200
 D all-in for 750
 E calls 750
 F all-in for 850
Player's B, C, D and E have no bearing whatsoever on Player A being able to raise...the only wager that reopens the betting to A is F's 450 raise! It has nothing to do with a group of all-ins being added together. The min raise to A would be a total of 1300.

GreggPath

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2018, 08:58:16 AM »
First of all, Nick, I appreciate the kind words you said about me... I don't even remember posting that, but it sounds like me!

So I want to chime in, but there have been so many examples given and notes on top of that that I've decided to restart the discussion as I see it with a couple new examples (which are probably similar if not the same as other examples given, but I work better with a clean slate).

Example #1

Postflop
Andy bets 100
Betty goes all in for 50 more, a total of 150
Carl goes all in for 50 more, a total of 200
Diane calls 200
Action returns to Andy

In this example, I don't believe there is any disagreement. Andy is facing a total bet of 200 which reopens the betting to him. He can chose to FOLD, CALL (put in 100 more chips), or reraise (put in a minimum of 200 more chips).

Example #2

Postflop
Andy bets 1000
Betty goes all in for 800 more, a total of 1800
Carl goes all in for 700 more, a total of 2500
Evan calls
Action returns to Andy

So in this example, betting is obviously reopened to Andy since he is facing raises that total 1000 or more. The big question in this thread is what the minimum raise Andy can make? Is it 1000 (the original min-raise since there was no single legal raise), 1500 (the total raise Andy is facing), or 700 (the last short-raise made). Rule 47 states, "A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round." According to that rule, Andy can raise 800 (the rule does not say FULL raise). The example given for Rule 47, however, does use the phrase "last legal increment". It does not specify what exactly that means... I can see it taken two different ways... 1) Betty and Carl both made legal increment raises since their short all-in is a legal action in which case Andy can raise 700 or 2) Betty and Carl's raises are not legal increments since they are not full raises. Unfortunately, Rule 48 (Reopening the Bet) does not get into HOW MUCH Andy can raise, only that he can. Since things aren't specific enough, I would fall back to the actual language of Rule 47 and say that Andy can raise 800 or more (which is the "largest prior bet or raise").

I'm going to take an aspirin.