Author Topic: Multiple short all ins  (Read 1425 times)

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 417
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2018, 09:48:58 AM »
Gregg

Andy’s bet of 1000 is the largest prior BET in your second example.


Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #31 on: March 05, 2018, 10:12:16 AM »
Greggpath,

 Thanks for your examples, they should prove very helpful. Before I give my take on this subject (I know, I know) please hear me out. I know how the TDA raise rules work. My complaint has always been the way the rules are written. We must find a way to eliminate the confusion...and I'm not the only one that is confused. There are upwards of 30,000 posts on the subject of TDA raise rules on this forum.
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, it (Reopening the Bet) does not get into HOW MUCH Andy can raise, only that he can. Since things aren't specific enouRule 4gh, 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.


 Okay, we don't agree on Andy's min raise of 800 more...I believe it should be 1500 more...However, that is because of the way the rules are written. This has always been my argument. If we look at your first example   

Example #1

Postflop
Andy bets 100
Betty goes all in for 50 more, a total of 150 This bet means nothing because it is a short all-in
Carl goes all in for 50 more, a total of 200 We are referring to Carl's all-in as 50 more when we should be focusing on a full raise of Andy's bet!
Diane calls 200   She elected to call but (as long as Andy could stand a raise) she could have raised a minimum of 100 more to a total of 300...I hope you're with me.
Action returns to Andy All options are open to Andy...he may call 200, fold or raise...this is where the rules need some work. If we eliminate Betty we will see that Carl's all-in was enough to reopen the betting to Andy...Betty's short all-in is irrelevant. The only significance Diane's call makes is the fact that she is the only other player (besides Andy) with chips!
       
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 09:23:29 AM by Nick C »

GreggPath

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #32 on: March 05, 2018, 12:50:35 PM »
Thanks for your examples, they should prove very helpful. Before I get to my take on this subject (I know, I know) please hear me out. I know how the TDA raise rules work. My complaint has always been the way the rules are written. We must find a way to eliminate the confusion...and I'm not the only one that is confused. There are upwards of 30,000 posts on the subject of TDA raise rules on this forum.

Yes, I agree that the rules aren't sufficient to answer all our questions on this situation. The rules only state when betting is re-opened, not the raise minimum for the original bettor.


Okay, we don't agree on Andy's min raise of 800 more...I believe it should be 1500 more...However, that is because of the way the rules are written. This has always been my argument. If we look at your first example   

Example #1

Postflop
Andy bets 100
Betty goes all in for 50 more, a total of 150 This bet means nothing because it is a short all-in
Carl goes all in for 50 more, a total of 200 We are referring to Carl's all-in as 50 more when we should be focusing on a full raise of Andy's bet!
Diane calls 200   She elected to call but (as long as Andy could stand a raise) she could have raised a minimum of 100 more to a total of 300...I hope you're with me.
Action returns to Andy All options are open to Andy...he may call 200, fold or raise...this is where the rules need some work. If we eliminate Betty we will see that Carl's all-in was enough to reopen the betting to Andy...Betty's short all-in is irrelevant. The only significance Diane's call makes is the fact that she is the only other player (besides Andy) with chips! 

Andy’s bet of 1000 is the largest prior BET in your second example.

Bill makes a good point... Andy's bet is the largest prior bet so his raise option should be for 1000. Does this cover all situations? I think it might. Do I agree with the rule as written? Maybe. Let's look at an Example #3:

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
Denise raises 1500 more, a total of 4000
Evan calls
Action returns to Andy

Andy is now facing a re-opened bet situation. The largest previous bet or raise was Denise's 1500 raise. So, Andy can call by putting in 3000 more, fold, or raise by putting a minimum of 4500 (to make the total bet 5500).

So here is the dilemma in my mind... Example #4:

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

Carl put in a total of 1500 on top of Andy's bet (Betty's 800 plus Carl's 700). If we eliminate Betty from the situation, and Carl still goes all in for 1500, then Andy has to raise a minimum of 1500. I don't like that the option to Andy changes only because Carl's all-in was short only due to Betty's all-in. What is the reasoning behind this? I believe that Andy should have to raise 1500 with or without Betty in the picture.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 417
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #33 on: March 05, 2018, 03:50:27 PM »
What if Betty and Carl both min-raised? How does that change your answer?

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #34 on: March 05, 2018, 05:29:36 PM »
Interesting thread, there are so many examples it's best to start with a generality, and keep in mind we're talking about 2 different things: the amount needed to re-open the bet to a player who's already acted, and the amount that is the minimum raise.

Post-flop Player A opens for 400. The minimum total raise to re-open for him is 800. It doesn't matter how you get there, as long as the bet when it returns to him is at least 800, he can raise.

NOW, what is the min-raise to him? It's the largest single bet or raise of the round*. If there's a series of "short all-in wagers" that total at least 800 and no single all-in wager exceeds 400 over the previous player to act (which it wouldn't, because otherwise it wouldn't be a short all-in), then the min-raise is still 400 to Player A.

As for a "legal raise" or "full raise", this is important symantics. In conventional poker rules FOR NO LIMIT POKER, a short all-in wager by definition is not a "raise", but is an "all-in wager". A raise by definition must be at least full minimum. Also in No-Limit each bet, raise, or all-in wager is considered a complete action not subject to completion of addition by subsequent players.

This applies to a long series of short all-ins provided in one post... doesn't matter how long the list is, if no single action exceeds the preceding action by more than a full minimum raise then the min raise amount is not changed. The irony I've always seen is this: Post flop the BB opens for 400... it's folded or called around to the SB who makes it 1250. The min raise to the BB is then 850 more. However, if there's a series of 400 calls AND/OR short all-ins that total 1250, the min raise to the BB is still 400, because no single action was greater than 400 over the preceding action. Hope this helps and thanks for the interesting discussion, definitely deserves some clarification at Summit 2019.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #35 on: March 05, 2018, 05:41:03 PM »
Greggpath: This is what you wrote:

So here is the dilemma in my mind... Example #4:

Postflop
Andy bets 1000
Betty goes all in for 800 more, a total of 1800 Are you adding Betty's 800 and Carl's 700 together?
Carl goes all in for 700 more, a total of 2500 Betty has 1800 and goes all-in...Carl has 2500 and goes all-in...Are you changing their all-in amounts?
Evan calls
Action returns to Andy

I see where some of my confusion comes from: When Betty goes all-in for 1800 (let's forget that it's 800 more)...the fact is, it's a short all-in that should not even be defined as a raise...at least it shouldn't be. When you eliminated Betty, why did you change Carl's all-in amount? I thought we were getting somewhere but it looks like I'm back to square one...
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 05:42:28 PM by Nick C »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #36 on: March 05, 2018, 05:46:27 PM »
Uh-oh...Mike's here. Mike, please don't pull the plug on us just yet. I've been trying to get this right since 2011. Help! ;D I'm going to walk my dog...I'll be back!

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #37 on: March 05, 2018, 08:14:46 PM »
Mike, This is what you wrote...my questions or suggestions will be hi-lighted in red.

Interesting thread, there are so many examples it's best to start with a generality, and keep in mind we're talking about 2 different things: the amount needed to re-open the bet to a player who's already acted, and the amount that is the minimum raise.

Post-flop Player A opens for 400. The minimum total raise to re-open for him is 800. It doesn't matter how you get there, as long as the bet when it returns to him is at least 800, he can raise. Please explain how any number of short all-ins gets there without a single player putting in at least 800?

NOW, what is the min-raise to him? It's the largest single bet or raise of the round*. If there's a series of "short all-in wagers" that total at least 800 and no single all-in wager exceeds 400 over the previous player Since when is a short all-in over the previous player considered relevant? to act (which it wouldn't, because otherwise, it wouldn't be a short all-in), then the min-raise is still 400 to Player A. Are you saying: Adam opens post flop 400, Bonnie goes all-in for 600, Carl goes all-in for 200, Diane calls 600. Eddy goes all-in for 700, and Freddie can fold, call 700 or raise to at least 1100 correct? Only a raise from Freddie could reopen the betting to Adam correct? You notice that I put lesser amounts of al-ins in front of higher amounts...just trying to make a point.

As for a "legal raise" or "full raise", this is important semantics. In conventional poker rules FOR NO LIMIT POKER, a short all-in wager by definition is not a "raise", but is an "all-in wager". A raise by definition must be at least full minimum. Also in No-Limit each bet, raise, or all-in wager is considered a complete action not subject to completion of addition by subsequent players. a complete action not subject to completion of addition by subsequent players. Not sure I understand this part.


This applies to a long series of short all-ins provided in one post... doesn't matter how long the list is, if no single action exceeds the preceding action by more than a full minimum raise then the min raise amount is not changed. The irony I've always seen is this: Post flop the BB opens for 400... it's folded or called around to the SB who makes it 1250. The min raise to the BB is then 850 more. However, if there's a series of 400 calls AND/OR short all-ins that total 1250, the min raise to the BB is still 400, because no single action was greater than 400 over the preceding action. Yes, but if you hit 1250 a single player had to have 1250 and put it in. I see what the problem is...you're counting a bunch of short all-ins that should never be counted unless they double the original bettor!!!! Holy crap, I've been right all along!Hope this helps and thanks for the interesting discussion, definitely deserves some clarification at Summit 2019. Thanks, Mike I understand why I've been confused for the past 7 years.

GreggPath

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #38 on: March 06, 2018, 06:16:14 AM »
Greggpath: This is what you wrote:

So here is the dilemma in my mind... Example #4:

Postflop
Andy bets 1000
Betty goes all in for 800 more, a total of 1800 Are you adding Betty's 800 and Carl's 700 together?
Carl goes all in for 700 more, a total of 2500 Betty has 1800 and goes all-in...Carl has 2500 and goes all-in...Are you changing their all-in amounts?
Evan calls
Action returns to Andy

I see where some of my confusion comes from: When Betty goes all-in for 1800 (let's forget that it's 800 more)...the fact is, it's a short all-in that should not even be defined as a raise...at least it shouldn't be. When you eliminated Betty, why did you change Carl's all-in amount? I thought we were getting somewhere but it looks like I'm back to square one...

I'm a little confused by your questions.. maybe it'd help if I included each player's chip stack at the beginning of the betting round:
Andy: 10,000
Betty 1,800
Carl: 2,500
Evan: 10,000

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2018, 06:17:22 AM »

Post-flop Player A opens for 400. The minimum total raise to re-open for him is 800. It doesn't matter how you get there, as long as the bet when it returns to him is at least 800, he can raise. Please explain how any number of short all-ins gets there without a single player putting in at least 800?


Didn't say that no single player ever puts in 800. Just said that however it happens... whether one player makes it 800 or it creeps up to 800 by multiple short all-ins, it still re-opens the bet to Player A

Player A: opens for 400
Player B: all-in for 300
Player C: all-in for 600
Player D: smooth calls the 600
Player E: all-in for 700
Player F: all-in for 800
Player G: smooth calls the 800

GreggPath

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #40 on: March 06, 2018, 06:40:58 AM »
So, here is where I stand on the issue now...

1. Short all-ins are never added together to figure out how much a player can raise. They are only added together to determine if betting is re-opened.
2. A player who has already acted and has the betting re-opened can raise by a minimum of the largest single bet made in the current round.

I think this sums up the rules we are talking about as they're written in the rulebook. I do understand the rule, but I don't completely agree with it. I think my biggest complaint is that I think if someone's short all-in is only short because of a previous short all-in, but would be a valid raise on the original bettor's bet, then the original bettor's minimum raise should be treated as the first short all-in doesn't exist.

i.e.

Postflop
Andy (chip stack 10,000) bets 1,000
Betty (chip stack 1,700) raises all-in for 700 more (bet at 1,700 now)
Carl (chip stack 2,200) raises all in for 500 more (bet at 2,200 now)
Doug calls 2,200
Action returns to Andy

I believe that Andy's minimum raise should be for 1,200 more. I understand the rule says it is needs to be 1,000 more but because Carl's all-in was, by itself, at least a full raise on Andy, I think that should change things.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 417
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #41 on: March 06, 2018, 07:22:44 AM »
I think my biggest complaint is that I think if someone's short all-in is only short because of a previous short all-in, but would be a valid raise on the original bettor's bet, then the original bettor's minimum raise should be treated as the first short all-in doesn't exist.

i.e.

Postflop
Andy (chip stack 10,000) bets 1,000
Betty (chip stack 1,700) raises all-in for 700 more (bet at 1,700 now)
Carl (chip stack 2,200) raises all in for 500 more (bet at 2,200 now)
Doug calls 2,200
Action returns to Andy

I believe that Andy's minimum raise should be for 1,200 more. I understand the rule says it is needs to be 1,000 more but because Carl's all-in was, by itself, at least a full raise on Andy, I think that should change things.

Gregg,
This also occurs without a "previous short all-in raise".  It can happen with one or many previous min-raise(s) too.  For example, if Betty's stack was 2,000 and she shoves.  Carl's all-in would still be short of a full raise and Andy would still be able to raise 1000 (not 1200).

Also, if Betty had 2000 and shoved, while Carl had 3000 and shoved, if Doug calls 3000 (and still has chips), then Andy can raise 1000.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 08:53:05 AM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #42 on: March 06, 2018, 09:32:06 AM »
Greggpath,

You wrote:
Postflop
Andy (chip stack 10,000) bets 1,000
Betty (chip stack 1,700) raises all-in for 700 more (bet at 1,700 now)
Carl (chip stack 2,200) raises all in for 500 more (bet at 2,200 now) YES!!! This is what I've been preaching for 7 years, Carl raised Andy...not Betty. It's so simple.
Doug calls 2,200
Action returns to Andy

I believe that Andy's minimum raise should be for 1,200 more. I understand the rule says it is needs to be 1,000 more but because Carl's all-in was, by itself, at least a full raise on Andy, I think that should change things. We need to follow our other rules that state: A raise must be at least the size of the largest bet or raise you are facing...& A short all-in is not a raise!

GreggPath

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #43 on: March 06, 2018, 10:52:18 AM »
Postflop
Andy (chip stack 10,000) bets 1,000
Betty (chip stack 1,700) raises all-in for 700 more (bet at 1,700 now)
Carl (chip stack 2,200) raises all in for 500 more (bet at 2,200 now) YES!!! This is what I've been preaching for 7 years, Carl raised Andy...not Betty. It's so simple.
Doug calls 2,200
Action returns to Andy

Exactly. His all-in is short only because Betty had a "shorter" all-in. If Betty is not in the hand to begin with, Carl's all-in is not short. I think that should be taken into consideration when determining Andy's minimum raise amount.

I believe that Andy's minimum raise should be for 1,200 more. I understand the rule says it is needs to be 1,000 more but because Carl's all-in was, by itself, at least a full raise on Andy, I think that should change things. We need to follow our other rules that state: A raise must be at least the size of the largest bet or raise you are facing...& A short all-in is not a raise!

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. It sounds like you're agreeing with the rule. The size of the largest single bet/raise is Andy's 1000. I contend that Carl's all-in should be considered the largest bet/raise. Yes, his all-in is short, but not from Andy's point-of-view. I guess I just disagree in general with the "largest previous bet" rule as it is written.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple short all ins
« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2018, 11:46:24 AM »
Largest previous bet (with no raise) or the largest previous raise. I do agree with you completely.