NL 50% raise or no raise?

[JasperToo]

I would like to get some feedback and perhaps a little debate over RROP and the fact that in tournaments if a player puts in 50% or more of the previous bet or raise then he has to make it a full raise but in many (most? all?) NL cash games if a player puts in an amount that is even $1 short of the full raise then he is said to only be making a call.

I am interested in a couple of things:
 1. How many play their cash games with the 50% rule?
 2. If you don't, what rule are you referencing that says you should not?
 3. If you do use it, how many players seem to find it odd?  Or do they bother to question it at all?

I reference the section in RROP titled Betting and Raising:14, and of course the entire Section 14 - NL holdem rules.  When I interpret these I believe that it is correct to use the 50% rule in a NL cash game ( I rather suspect that this is where TDA got it from).

Ok, let the games begin!

[Nick C]

Jasper Too,
 Using multiple cheques or bills (cash) I prefer using the 50% rule in all forms of cash poker, no matter what the limit. I know there are cardrooms that insist on a verbal declaration or the exact minimum required to raise but, that only applies in tournament NL. IMO, players that push 50% or more of a required raise must complete to the minimum.

[Nick C]

Jasper,
 I think we have had a similar discussion on this subject some time ago. I like to define the rule as a 100% raise rule, just the way we explain the 50% rule. You are correct about cash games that require at least a full raise from an all-in to re-open the betting. In a limit game, that is not the case because a 50% or more raise will re-open the betting as long as the raise limit has not been met.

 I would prefer the 50% rule be used in all forms of poker, but it's not. 

[JasperToo]

I know what you are talking about but let's make sure our nomenclature is the same.  When I am referring to the 50% rule I am simply talking about the fact that if you put in 50% or more of a raise that you are essentially declaring a raise and must make it a full raise.

I think you are talking about the 50% rule in limit play that allows a player to raise if an all in player is in with 50% or more of a raise by completeing the bet to the minimum and then raising.  Or if the all-in is less than 50% then the next player can only call or complete to the minimum raise.  This is NOT what I am looking to discuss here as we have discussed that before and RROP is pretty clear that the completing the bet is not used in big bet poker.

I am just looking for the frequency of places that use the essence of TDA rule 38 in their NL cash games.

[Nick C]

Jasper,
 There is too much confusion with the 50% rule. Your last reply will confirm that. I have always been in favor of separating the rules for all-in's because of this. The only time a short bet can legally be made is when a player is all-in. All other situations in every form of poker requires at least a raise the size of the bet, or full raise the player is facing.
 The other rule (half the bet) is for a player that puts the incorrect amout into the pot, whether it is a short bet or possible raise, based on the amount wagered. IMO, This should apply in all games, but it does not.

[Brian Vickers]

We use the 50% raise rule in our cash and tournament play.  NL is NL and the rules shouldn't differ between tournament and cash if it can be helped (obvs penalties will differ).  If a player puts out half or more of the amount required to raise, he is held to the minimum legal raise (unless it is goverened by the multi-chip overchip rule).

[Spence]

Unfortuantely my card room does not use the 50% rule. (We did at my last and had far fewer issues) We force the players to put 100% of the raise or they are taken to a call only. If someone bets 50 in front of you and you come out with 95 in your hand thinking it was a full 100 stack the excess is returned to you and you are held to a call. Seems ridiculous in my eyes.

[Nick C]

Spence,
 I know of casinos that do that too. You are correct, it is ridiculous.