Rule 31 Raising

[Nick C]

Happy Holidays,
 I am in agreement with most, whenever we mention Rule#31, that some changes need to be considered. Why is it that everyone understands the procedures for limit games. The 50% rule for all-in player's is logical and it makes sense. As soon as someone, anyone tries to explain no limit we are lost and confused, (myself included). I would like to point out a few areas that cause problems when I try to teach student dealers about raising.
 
#1 Why do we refer to an all-in players raise as action only? I understand, it is not complete but, by Webster's definition a raise is as follows; RAISE- To increase another player's bet in poker....To bet at a higher level than a preceding bettor. It has no mention of doubling the preceding wager. Why not call it a raise? Especially when the number of raises is irrelevant in no-limit?

#2 What's wrong with using the 50% Raise Rule in no-limit? I know that there are casino's in New York that use the 100% Raise Rule in no-limit and it works out with no problems. No-limit Player A bets 100, Player B goes all-in for 190, the next player can Fold, Call 190 or raise at least 100, totaling 200 (minimum). The all-in bet is not even recognized as a complete raise, so even though it is a substantial increase, it does not reopen the betting to the original bettor.

#3 I would like to see a separation of no-limit and pot-limit when it comes to betting and raising.

#4 I would like to see a complete set of separate rules for All-in players.

There are many great discussions on earlier posts.

I think that we need to look at some of the rooms that don't use the TDA rules. The rules don't work if they are only understood by TD's and floormen.

[JasperToo]

Though about it!

Here's the thing: I ran this by a number of dealers and players and they all came up with the same answer. The !00% rule seems to be what we do out here in California most of the time.  However, after carefully reading what MikeB posted and RROP 14:1-4 it seems that it's wrong.  The real kicker for me is paragraph 4.  I have read and reread that many times and always felt a little confused by it (because of our constant use of the 100% rule clouding my head).  But if you read the example in paragraph 2 and quoted by MikeB and then consider parapraph 4 you might come up with a scenario like this; (I don't think the example that RROP gives there is complete enough)

  Player A opens for the minimum of 100
  Player B goes all in for 125
  Player C goes all in for 200 (according to Mike's interpretation this is not a legal raise - it would have to be 225 - However, if it is now A's turn to act again the total wager for multiple all in wagers each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise still act as a raise ...etc)

This means Stuart explanation seems correct and MikeB's as well.  Putting it all together means that I am used to doing it the wrong way and I fear that I will not be able to change it much around here.

However, I am not convinced that TDA 31 is actually addressing this part of the raising procedure.  I believe it is just saying that anybody with enough chips to make a legal raise is obligated to do so if they toss in more that 50% of that legal raise.  It's not really talking about what a legal raise is.  So, while I am in agreement that some sort of clarification is in order I am not sure it would be in 31. 

[Nick C]

I've always had a tough time understanding why multiple raises by all-in players are added together and can qualify as a full raise. Jasper Too, I'm only trying to understand the rules so I can explain them. I still see no reason why we can't use a 50% rule, or a complete raise (100%) in no-limit. I know how the Rules are written, I just want to know why? I think we should simplify the raise rules. The 50% rule in limit is simple and effective. The all-in raise rules for no-limit are confusing. There must be a compromise or better explanation. How can I teach a rule, I don't understand?

There have been many posts on this subject and I've flip-flopped myself, not knowing which way was best. My students always preach the KISS rule....Keep It Simple Stupid!

If we can't voice our thoughts on the Discussion Forum, then where?

[JasperToo]

I've always had a tough time understanding why multiple raises by all-in players are added together and can qualify as a full raise. Jasper Too, I'm only trying to understand the rules so I can explain them.I still see no reason why we can't use a 50% rule, or a complete raise (100%) in no-limit. I know how the Rules are written, I just want to know why? I think we should simplify the raise rules. The 50% rule in limit is simple and effective. The all-in raise rules for no-limit are confusing. There must be a compromise or better explanation. How can I teach a rule, I don't understand?

There have been many posts on this subject and I've flip-flopped myself, not knowing which way was best. My students always preach the KISS rule....Keep It Simple Stupid!

If we can't voice our thoughts on the Discussion Forum, then where?

Nick, the highlight parts of your post makes me fear you thought I was somehow questioning you or your motives.  If I am wrong about that then great, otherwise I am agreeing with you on the need for clarification was just commenting on where we might put that clarification in the rules.  The fact that I have been doing it the 100% way all along conflicts with my new understanding of the rules so I could really use a clarification 

Anyway I think we agree

[Nick C]

Jasper Too,
 Thanks for your response. I think this is a good time to toss around some new ideas. Hopefully, we can put our heads together and come up with a little fine tuning for Rule #31. Maybe we can list some options and put it to a vote.

[chet]

JasperToo" posted in part: 

"However, I am not convinced that TDA 31 is actually addressing this part of the raising procedure.  I believe it is just saying that anybody with enough chips to make a legal raise is obligated to do so if they toss in more that 50% of that legal raise.  It's not really talking about what a legal raise is.  So, while I am in agreement that some sort of clarification is in order I am not sure it would be in 31."

As I recall the discussion of this rule at the last TDA Summit, I think your statement above is 100% correct.  This rule is not intended to apply to the 'all-in' player (although in some situations it certainly could).  It is intended to apply to situations like this:
Blinds are 300/600.  UTG calls, UTG+1 says raise and throws in a single 1000 chip.  Applying Rule 31, UTG+1 has to put another 200 into the pot and he cannot raise more than the minimum.

As to a "rule" for the multiple all-in players, I could support same.  Perhaps someone can come up with some suggested language and post it in the "Suggestions for new TDA Rules" Topic.

[MikeB]

  Player A opens for the minimum of 100 > Player B goes all in for 125 >
  Player C goes all in for 200 (according to Mike's interpretation this is not a legal raise - it would have to be 225 - However, if it is now A's turn to act again the total wager for multiple all in wagers each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise still act as a raise ...etc)

Jasper: Just to keep the discussion rolling with your illustration above, let's first assume that there are a couple other players with deep stacks, player D and E....  SO:

1) Example 1: Player D and E call the 200 all-in wager from Player C. Action is now back to Player A.  Note that A started this betting round off with a bet of 100, and it's now back to Player A for a total of 200. That represents a full 100 unit raise to player A. Player A may now call the 100, or raise whatever the max for this game is, or of course fold. While Neither Player B's increase of 25 or Player C's increase of 75 is in itself a sufficient increase to re-open the betting, when COMBINED they are sufficient, so Player A is free to take any action he wants.

2) Example 2: Player D wants to raise. In this case Player D must make at least a min raise (which is $100) and make it a total bet of at least 300 to Player E.

[MikeB]

Jasper, to get to another issue which may be at the heart of what's causing your frustration with this, there is one "final" issue to these additive all-in bets that makes them quite different from "normal" betting. This issue was actually the subject of one of the slides at the 2009 Rio Summit. Matt Savage had presented this slide based on a question that Bob Ciaffone had posed.

The situation is as follows: Player A bets 100. Player B raises to 200. Player C goes all in for total of 270. Player D goes all in for total of 350.
Now, Ciaffone posed two questions to the membership: 1: does Player D's action re-open the betting to player B? and 2: If so, what is the minimum re-raise that Player B would have to make?

To the first question, there's universal concurrence that the betting is re-opened to B. Simply because B had originally raised for 100 and when the betting comes back to him it's 150 more (350-200 = 150), so the action is clearly re-opened to B.  The somewhat stickier question is what is his minimum re-raise? The answer to that is also 150. The main reason? Frankly because "that's the way it is".

The alternative would be to say that the min re-raise is still $100 because neither Player C or Player D increased the betting by more than $100. Consider this: Let's say that Player C had chips and just raised it $100 (to 300 total), and Player D had chips and raised it $100 more (to $400 total), then if A smooth called, it would be 200 to Player B (instead of 150 with the 2 all-ins) and the min-raise for Player B would be.... $100. So we have the anomaly that if all-in's aren't involved and it's $200 to Player B, the min raise is $100, but if all-ins are involved and it's $150 to Player B, the min raise is $150. So this is an added twist to the whole story. I had e-mail correspondence w/ Bob Ciaffone on this illustration after the Summit, and despite the apparent anomaly from one point of view we both agreed that this arrangement is so widely deployed in the poker world that to try to change it would not be worth the confusion, not that he supported changing it. So, "thats the way it is" when we're dealing with additive all-in bets.

[JasperToo]

NickC - it looks like we are all in agreement here that this one needs some kind of clarifying rule. Once I get this square in my head I might draft something myself 

Chet

As I recall the discussion of this rule at the last TDA Summit, I think your statement above is 100% correct.  This rule is not intended to apply to the 'all-in' player (although in some situations it certainly could).  It is intended to apply to situations like this:
Blinds are 300/600.  UTG calls, UTG+1 says raise and throws in a single 1000 chip.  Applying Rule 31, UTG+1 has to put another 200 into the pot and he cannot raise more than the minimum.

As to a "rule" for the multiple all-in players, I could support same.  Perhaps someone can come up with some suggested language and post it in the "Suggestions for new TDA Rules" Topic.

Exactly what I think as well. 

MikeB.. both your last posts are crystal clear and actually the "anomalous" size of the raise in that multiple all in scenario is simple for me to see now.  Actually, I am not so sure that it is a stickier situation because if you were to look at it the way I am used to then you would see that player C didn't make a legal raise so his wouldn't count.. Player D would essentially be raising Player B 150 more.  Strangely that part wasn't sticky for me.  We have just never added the All-in guys portion of the bet to the total that was required for a raise.  As I mentioned my part of the world seems to use the all or nothing rule and finding a way to get things to change would be tough around here.  But a TDA rule with a solid example would get the job done.  Thanks for the solid examples and for clearing up an RROP rule that has had me bugged for quite sometime. 

I know I didn't start this thread but thanks guys!

[Nick C]

Jasper Too,
 I'm with you on this one. When I have to read a rule over, and over, and over again, IMO, it needs work. I don't know why we allow the undersized action of any all-in player to be considered in the equation. I would like to contact Mr Ciaffone and discuss this with him.

 Mike, if Player A bets 100 and Player goes all-in for 125 and Player C goes all-in for 175, are you saying that;the short action of 25 more and 75 are to be added together? Opening the raise option to Player A?

 I am not looking for debate, or any heated discussion. I am only trying to understand the rules for raising in no limit poker.

 Chet suggests that the rule is not for all-in players. Why can't we specify and separate rules for all-in players? Although, the short raises could only be from an all-in player.

[JasperToo]

NickC that was the sticky part for me too, I was not used to including the all in players bet in the total another player had to put in the pot PLUS the minimum raise amount.  I would always just discount the all in guy as action and look back at the last legal bet/raise and have the third player do his betting from that.  But then I was always stuck on RROP 14:4 not making any sense to me until working through this thread.

So if I may answer for Mike (perhaps with Mike) he is not saying that the 25 and 75 are added together.  the 125 is not a legal raise (but now the minimum bet is 125 and a legal raise would have to be 100 for a total of 225) the 175 is not a legal raise over the 125 (as mentioned it would have to be 225 but the minimum bet is now 175 even though the minimum raise remains 100) so the next player would have to put in 275 to make a legal raise.  But lets say a player only has 200 and is all in.  This again, is not a legal raise against the 175 but the action back to player A is for 200 which DOES REOPEN the betting to him even though there have been no LEGAL raises so far.  

That's what I see now as correct raising - with all in players.  MikeB does that look right?

Also, guys based on this understanding of things I threw together a quick suggestion for rule changes/additions in that forum, please check it out. (we are moderated so it hasn't shown up yet but I submitted this morning)

[Nick C]

Jasper Too,

 Your suggestions are not listed yet, but I will be looking for them. I have gone over some of the earlier posts and I want to add something to one of Mike's posts:

 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 !

The total would then be 950, correct?

Chet also mentioned that he thinks the rule is not meant for all-in players. He is correct. That is interesting, too. In all forms of poker, in order to raise, a raise must be at least the size of the bet, or the size of the (incremental) raise in front of you, (which ever is larger)....so, only an all-in player can make a short bet.

Why can't we separate, or define action to/of all-in players, from other players?

[JasperToo]

Apparently I did something wrong earlier this morning trying to post my rule change suggestions in that forum.  It's up there now, please comment.

The total would then be 950, correct?

That's correct, the way I understand it now.

....so, only an all-in player can make a short bet.

Why can't we separate, or define action to/of all-in players, from other players?

Yes, only an all-in player could make a short bet.  As to the second part of that quote, what are you thinking about when you say define the action of all-in players?  You mean add extra explanation to the rules we are discussing?  If so, then I think we could but perhaps with smaller changes (something like I have suggested ) that part would be more obvious than it is now.  I know as someone that had trouble with this part of the rule now that I see the intent of RROP 14:1-4 the all-in short bets are less troublesome.  Doesn't mean it couldn't use even more clarity somehow, of course.

[MikeB]

So if I may answer for Mike (perhaps with Mike) he is not saying that the 25 and 75 are added together.  the 125 is not a legal raise (but now the minimum bet is 125 and a legal raise would have to be 100 for a total of 225) the 175 is not a legal raise over the 125 (as mentioned it would have to be 225 but the minimum bet is now 175 even though the minimum raise remains 100) so the next player would have to put in 275 to make a legal raise.  But lets say a player only has 200 and is all in.  This again, is not a legal raise against the 175 but the action back to player A is for 200 which DOES REOPEN the betting to him even though there have been no LEGAL raises so far.  

That's what I see now as correct raising - with all in players.  MikeB does that look right?

Yes, the above is 100% right in answer to Nick's question. The "fast track" way to look at it is that if the action gets back to Player A and it's not at least a full raise for him to call (Since player A opened the betting for 100, then in your illustration it needs to be at least 100 for him to call to re-open), then the action isn't reopened. Since 175 was the last full wager made in Nicks example, then it's only 75 for Player A to call, that's not a full raise so he can only call the 75, action isn't reopened.

[MikeB]

Jasper Too,

 Your suggestions are not listed yet, but I will be looking for them. I have gone over some of the earlier posts and I want to add something to one of Mike's posts:

 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 !

The total would then be 950, correct?

Yes.  This thread touches on alot of issues and perhaps some sorting-out / clarifying / illustrating should be considered at the next Summit.