Author Topic: Rule 31 Raising  (Read 46000 times)

cwmiller9999

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Rule 31 Raising
« on: December 09, 2010, 11:47:01 PM »
There has been some question in my card room as to how to interprate the following first sentence of Rule 31. "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round."

My interpratation is as follows:  The first part of the sentence that "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet", applies to a no-limit game and a minimum raise of 2X the previous bet must be made ie: Blinds are 25/50. Player A raises to $125. Player B anounces a raise and the minumum raise he must make is to $250, double the previous bet of $125.

I believe the second part of the sentence after the word "or" "raise of the current betting round" applies to a limit game and the maximum raise would be whatever the limits of that round of betting are.

Others have interprated this rule to mean that the minumum raise on a no-limit game would be as follows: Blinds 25/50. Player A raises to $125. Player B's minimum raise would be to $200. $125 plus $75, the actual amount of the raise above the $50 blind.

If anyone has more insight into this question or comments on how they apply the rule to their tournament I would be most interested to hear.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2010, 02:09:34 AM »
There has been some question in my card room as to how to interprate the following first sentence of Rule 31. "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round."
My interpratation is as follows:  The first part of the sentence that "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet", applies to a no-limit game and a minimum raise of 2X the previous bet must be made ie: Blinds are 25/50. Player A raises to $125. Player B anounces a raise and the minumum raise he must make is to $250, double the previous bet of $125.
Hi CW and thanks for an important question! The sentence is there to account for a current total bet that may involve an initial bet plus a series of raises. I'll give you a few examples to illustrate:

EXAMPLE 1: 25/50 NL. PLayer A raises 75 to 125 total. NOTICE that 50 (bet) plus 75 (raise) = 125.  The next raise on this betting round must be 'at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise', which in this case is 75. So lets say Player B raises it the minimum (75) to 200 total. Now Player C pushes it up and raises $300 for total of 500. We now have a bet of 50, two raises of 75 and a raise of 300 for total 500. If Player D wants to raise, 'the raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round', which is now 300. So Player D would have to raise at least 300.  

EXAMPLE 2: Now, let's just say it's the same 500 to Player D, but we've just had one raise ($450) on this round. So we have the initial blind bet of 50 plus a raise of 450. "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round", since the largest bet or raise in the round is $450, Player D would have to raise at least $450.   Hope this helps !
« Last Edit: December 10, 2010, 02:23:24 AM by MikeB »

cwmiller9999

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2010, 09:30:22 AM »
Thank you for the clarification. I understand now what is meant by the rule. Incremental raising is the intention of the rule. That is the current procedure we use in our card room for tournament as well as cash games.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2010, 03:04:36 PM »
cwmiller9999, You say that you understand but, your initial interpratation is incorrect. You do not double the total bet up to $250. Limit games have "fixed amounts" on each betting round or "street," so when a player faces a 10 bet in a 10 and 20 game, he may only raise in incriments of 10. There will also be a limit to the number of raises, depending on the game being played.

 I think Mike explained it correctly. I have found that my students have an eaisier understanding when I tell them to focus on the amount of the raise, and not on the total amount of the bet and raise. Example (no-limit), Player A bets 7, Player B raises to 35 (28 more). The next MINIMUM raise would bring the total to 63. It is very comon for seasoned dealers to incorrectly require the next raise to be 35 more, totaling 70.

cwmiller9999

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2010, 08:47:50 PM »
Thank you Nick. I do understand that my initial interpratation of the rule was incorrect. And your example helps clarify it even more. I also understand how it applies to limit games which is how I thought it worked.

I welcome your comments as I want to make sure my tournaments follow the TDA rules and that my players get fair and consistant rulings.

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2010, 05:11:29 PM »
ditto mikes response!

it is always the raise portion which is mesured.  for example with blinds of 100/200, an inital raiser opens for 500 total (a raise of 300) the next person who wishes to raise must make it at least 800 total (200+300+300)

We often hear of players making 3 bets and 4 bets pre-flop on televised events, those 3 bets are 3 x the previous raise portion not 3 x the total bet. eg 2000/4000 open for 10,000 a 3 bet would be 3 x 6000 + 4000 = 22,000 and not 30,000 or 40,000 as often misconstrued to be.

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

michaelgtjr

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2010, 11:26:40 AM »
Question on this Mike B. If in your example the second reraiser only has 175 and goes all in, what is the bet at that time? Is it still 200 or is it the 175 or some other numer?

DCJ001

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2010, 11:55:31 AM »
We often hear of players making 3 bets and 4 bets pre-flop on televised events, those 3 bets are 3 x the previous raise portion not 3 x the total bet. eg 2000/4000 open for 10,000 a 3 bet would be 3 x 6000 + 4000 = 22,000 and not 30,000 or 40,000 as often misconstrued to be.

Regards
Stuart

Stuart.

I believe that you may be misunderstanding the term "three-bet."

A three-bet is not necessarily a raise that is three times the amount of a player's bet. The amount of the raise is irrelevant.

Preflop, a player's raise, may be called a two-bet, a reraise of any amount, may be called a three-bet, an additional reraise may be called a four-bet, etc.

After the flop is dealt, after one player bets, a raise of any amount may be called a two-bet, a reraise of any amount may be called a three-bet, etc.

Calling raises and reraises two-bets, three-bets, etc. is a specific way to keep track of the number of raises and reraises in a hand.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2010, 01:37:27 PM »
I have never even heard of a "three bet" or "four bet" until I saw it earlier this year on another post.

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2010, 10:01:32 AM »
hi DJC,

there are two uses of the term three bet etc,

in limit poker it refers to the bet number, so for a round with a limit of 3 raises the third raise would be the three bet etc as you have already demonstrated but that only applies in limit poker otherwise described as a cap (hope I've got that right (Nick can you confirm or correct!!))

In no-limit poker it is as described above, a raise on the previous raise by 3x etc.

regards
Stu
« Last Edit: December 24, 2010, 10:06:03 AM by Stuart Murray »
Stuart Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

DCJ001

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2010, 10:19:04 AM »
hi DJC,

there are two uses of the term three bet etc,

in limit poker it refers to the bet number, so for a round with a limit of 3 raises the third raise would be the three bet etc as you have already demonstrated but that only applies in limit poker otherwise described as a cap (hope I've got that right (Nick can you confirm or correct!!))

In no-limit poker it is as described above, a raise on the previous raise by 3x etc.

regards
Stu

Well, I disagree with both of your explanations.

I encourage you to review the definitions of "three-bet" for limit poker and no limit poker at the URL below:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=poker+three-bet&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
« Last Edit: December 24, 2010, 06:09:06 PM by DCJ001 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2010, 10:43:37 AM »
Question on this Mike B. If in your example the second reraiser only has 175 and goes all in, what is the bet at that time? Is it still 200 or is it the 175 or some other numer?

Hey Michael. I think you're asking about the following "Example 1":EXAMPLE 1: 25/50 NL. PLayer A raises 75 to 125 total. NOTICE that 50 (bet) plus 75 (raise) = 125.  The next raise on this betting round must be 'at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise', which in this case is 75. So lets say Player B raises it the minimum (75) to 200 total."  If this isn't the question, let me know.

And I think your question is that PLayer B (the 2nd raiser) has only 175 total in his stack so he goes all-in for 175. In that situation we would have: Bet of 50, Raise of 75 to 125 total, and an "all-in wager" of 175. Notice I don't call the all-in a "raise" but an "all-in wager" because it doesn't establish a new min-raise threshold because it's only an increase of 50 over the previous raise of 75. The min raise is still 75 at this point. SO.... the next player to act can either a: smooth call the 175 total. OR b: raise at least the "largest previous bet or raise" (see TDA Rule 31), which is still 75, to a total of at least 250 (the 175 all-in plus 75 min raise).   NOW, these are no-limit raising rules. Notice that in no-limit the next player cannot "complete" the 175 all-in wager and make it 200 total. Completing the bet is not an option in no-limit poker. Thanks for asking for clarification, that's a good illustration.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2010, 10:47:32 AM by MikeB »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2010, 04:17:36 PM »
I would like to chime in here cause I remember having an interesting conversation with a local dealer on this very thing.  Playing live several of us at the table (3/5 NL) were discussing a particular play and possible outcomes.  We were using the 3bet 4 bet lingo to refer to the raise/reraise/rereraise that had occurred.  The dealer said that there are no 3 or 4 bets in NL poker and he and I were off on a debate over the rest of his time in the box.

The thing is that the terms started up several years ago on the strategy forums among, mostly, internet players.  When they refer to the 2, 3 or 4 bet in a NL game the amount of the raise is irrelevant.  It is simply referring to the line of betting: one raise after another.  In limit poker, it is essentially the same thing only difference being that the bets are a fixed amount.

I am going to have to disagree with MikeB in his description of the all in wager presented by michaelgtjr.  If there is a bet of 50 by player A and player B Raises 75 to 125 then there is an all in totaling 175 it is not a wager but an incomplete raise/all in.  So if there is a player yet to act behind this all in player that player has the option of calling the 175 or reraising the original raiser and, I think, the amount of the raise only has to be 75 to a total of 200.  He is not technically "completing' a raise by the all in guy but doing the raising himself because the all in guys all in is irrelevant.  See RROP section 14.  TDA 31 refers to the previous "Legal" bet or raise.  Now if there are just the 3 players and action is back to player A after the all in all options are open, raise to total of 200, call the 175, fold.  If Player A just calls then player B can ONLY call the 175 or fold, a raise is not open to him because the all in is not a legal raise and player b can't raise himself.

 edit: hope that isn't too confusing.  let me know and I'll try and make it clearer.  All I'm saying MikeB is that the all in amount doesn't effect the next minimum amount that any other player yet to act has to raise.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2010, 04:21:41 PM by JasperToo »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2010, 05:02:26 PM »

I am going to have to disagree with MikeB in his description of the all in wager presented by michaelgtjr.  If there is a bet of 50 by player A and player B Raises 75 to 125 then there is an all in totaling 175 it is not a wager but an incomplete raise/all in.  So if there is a player yet to act behind this all in player that player has the option of calling the 175 or reraising the original raiser and, I think, the amount of the raise only has to be 75 to a total of 200.  He is not technically "completing' a raise by the all in guy but doing the raising himself because the all in guys all in is irrelevant.  See RROP section 14.  TDA 31 refers to the previous "Legal" bet or raise.  Now if there are just the 3 players and action is back to player A after the all in all options are open, raise to total of 200, call the 175, fold.  If Player A just calls then player B can ONLY call the 175 or fold, a raise is not open to him because the all in is not a legal raise and player b can't raise himself.

 edit: hope that isn't too confusing.  let me know and I'll try and make it clearer.  All I'm saying MikeB is that the all in amount doesn't effect the next minimum amount that any other player yet to act has to raise.
RROP Section 14, Paragraph 2 probably comes closest to describing this situation:  Quote: "If a player goes all-in for an amount that is less than the minimum bet, a player who wishes to raise must raise at least the amount of the minimum bet. For example, if the minimum bet is $100, and a player goes all-in on the flop for $20, a player may fold, call $20, or raise to at least a total of $120."  Also, see this link, paragraph 4. It cites a prior edition of RROP, not sure which one: http://www.pokerzone.com/rules/general/no+limit Quote: "4."Completing the bet" is a limit poker wager type only, not allowed at big-bet poker. For example, if a player bets $100 and the next player goes all-in for $140, a player wishing to raise must make the total bet at least $240 (unless going all-in)"  Perhaps this topic should be reviewed at a future Summit, thanks for the comments!

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Rule 31 Raising
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2010, 06:22:32 PM »
mmm... maybe.  going to have to think about this one for a bit.  :-\