Author Topic: Under raise - underbet  (Read 28374 times)

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2011, 03:22:25 PM »
Thanks for the example and I understand your position, you've been fairly clear about what you believe.  What I am curious about is how have you come to that conclusion?  What rule do you cite to explain that ruling when a player like me says "wth are you talking about, of course I can check raise here!".  

I can't think of a rule that says anything like that so I would like the opportunity to study it.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2011, 03:35:57 PM »
Robert's Rules of Poker Version 11:

3. All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)

I'll repeat it for DCJ001 in case he can't locate it. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may NOT subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2011, 04:20:17 PM »
and now we are back to whether or not a check is "action" in the sense that it is used here.  So let's see if RROP can't help us out here.  Let's go to the glossary of RROP and look up the terms 'Action" and "Check":

ACTION: A fold, check, call, bet, or raise.  For certain situations, doing something formally connected withe the game that conveys information about your hand may also be considered as having taken action.  Examples would be showing your cards at the end of the hand, or indicating the number of cards you are taking at draw.

Ok, so a check is action.  A player who checks can be considered to have acted.  But what sort of action is a check?....

CHECK: To waive the right to initiate the betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates the betting.

So this says that while a check may be "action" it is a specific type of action.  One that gives the player the right to "act again" if an opponent initiates the betting.  But let's go a little further because what we are really discussing here is whether player A can actually raise once action comes back to him, or "Check-Raise".....

CHECK-RAISE.  To waive the right to bet until a bet has been made by an opponent, and then to increase the bet by at least an equal amount when it is your turn to act.

Wow, to you see the last bit there where it says you have the right to act again?  And you get to increase the bet by at least an equal amount this time!!!!

How do you reconcile what you read in rule 3 (under RROP sec 14) about a player who is " not facing a full size wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum..." with what is in rule 2 of the same section that says "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 theminimum 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"??????????

The only apparent difference between player C, who according to rule 2 can raise the short all-in, and player A, whom you claim cannot, is that you say player A has already "acted".  And this is where I believe that the term can have a different meaning here.  I believe that "acted" here refers to a player that has already put a wager in the pot.  I can demonstrate this by using our example again but rather than a short all in we use an all-in that is just above the minimum bet.

So, player A checks, player B bets $10, player C goes all-in for $13, action is now back to player A and I know you will agree that player A can Raise to $23 at least.... But what if player A decides to just call the $13?  THEN PLAYER B WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RAISE BECAUSE HE HAS ALREADY "ACTED" (BY BETTING) AND CANNOT RAISE THE SHORT ALL-IN BECAUSE HE IS NOT FACING A FULL SIZE RAISE!!!!  That is what rule 3 is referring to. NOT TO THE CHECK RAISER of a short all-in initial bet!!!

Do you see how those rules are related?  And how the term "action" is being used differently?

btw - check out rule 4 in section 14 as it gives the example above, essentially.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2011, 05:29:01 PM »
Jasper,
 Try not to overthink a situation. The difference between the rules is: #2 is refering to a player that has not yet acted and is facing a short all-in wager, therefore he still retains his right to bet...the key here is; this player did not act prior to the all-in bettor.

 I think the situation explained in RR's is when the all-in bettor is the BB and he did not have the required bring-in (the 100 BB), so in NL the bet can not be completed and a full raise is required. I hope this makes sense.

 The biggest problem that you are having is recognizing a check as action, it is. Consider that the player that checked initially could have bet all of his chips but, he chose not to. That is the difference. Every player, in a no limit game can go all-in on any betting round. If he checks (or passes), he might not have the opportunity to bet unless the action is re-opened to him.

 A check, in turn in poker is the players decision to waive the right to bet..he has acted.

DCJ001, Where are you? Anything to say?

 I just looked at #4. The reason that Player A could raise is because Player B made a FULL RAISE of 100 more. It has nothing to do with the short all-in

 If you can't understand what RR's is saying then I can't help you.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2011, 05:54:07 PM by Nick C »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2011, 11:23:52 PM »
Jasper,
 Try not to overthink a situation. The difference between the rules is: #2 is refering to a player that has not yet acted and is facing a short all-in wager, therefore he still retains his right to bet...the key here is; this player did not act prior to the all-in bettor.

CHECK: To waive the right to initiate the betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates the betting.

Apparently,a player that checks still retains the right to bet, according to the definition of a check in RROP

....
 I think the situation explained in RR's is when the all-in bettor is the BB and he did not have the required bring-in (the 100 BB), so in NL the bet can not be completed and a full raise is required. I hope this makes sense.

Reread rule 2... the part where it says "At all other times"  .. this statement means that the raising a short all-in is happening OTHER than the bb.  So, no, your interpretation does not make sense.

The biggest problem that you are having is recognizing a check as action, it is. Consider that the player that checked initially could have bet all of his chips but, he chose not to. That is the difference. Every player, in a no limit game can go all-in on any betting round. If he checks (or passes), he might not have the opportunity to bet unless the action is re-opened to him.
 

I have no problem recognizing that a check is action.  it is.  But it is you that seems to want to completely ignore the documentation within the rules that clearly states that it is a special kind of action that allows the player to ACT AGAIN if someone else initiates the betting.  You are right, he may not have the opportunity to bet unless the action (there is that word again) is re-opened to him.  and when it is he can raise.  It is called a check-raise.


CHECK-RAISE.  To waive the right to bet until a bet has been made by an opponent, and then to increase the bet by at least an equal amount when it is your turn to act.

A check, in turn in poker is the players decision to waive the right to bet..he has acted.


CHECK: To waive the right to initiate the betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates the betting.

please notice the part where the player RETAINS the right to act if another player initiates the betting.

I just looked at #4. The reason that Player A could raise is because Player B made a FULL RAISE of 100 more. It has nothing to do with the short all-in

No, it is only true that player A can raise because player B initiated the betting.  But if you look at the example further, you will see that player B CANNOT raise because he has acted by putting chips in the pot and when the action gets back to him, he is not facing a full size wager and therefore cannot raise.  You are right, Player A's right to raise has nothing to do with the short all-in.  That is the whole point, the short all-in has nothing to do with player's A's options.

DCJ001, Where are you? Anything to say?

Yeah, what the heck, DCJ001?

If you can't understand what RR's is saying then I can't help you.

Ok, well,my head is bleeding so I am going off to bed.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2011, 06:42:39 AM »
Jasper,
 I didn't create the rule, I'm only trying to explain it. If you have a complaint call Bob.

In one of your examples you want player B to raise himself?!

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2011, 07:41:21 AM »
No, Nick, I don't want player B to raise himself.  I said that if he was facing a short bet he could not raise because he had already bet.

I'll email Bob and see what he has to say.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2011, 07:01:20 PM »
I thought that we would hear from someone on the BOD on this one. It would be nice. Is there anyone there that can confirm what I've said, or do we just let our members continue to do it the wrong way?

 I have a lot of posts because when someone asks a question or makes a statement, I respond. The Discussion Forum is for the benefit of all members. If you agree or disagree it would be helpful to hear what you have to say. There are too many questions that remain unanswered.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2011, 02:57:55 AM by Nick C »

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2011, 04:22:52 PM »
After all of this I have come to the simple conclusion that the short all-in wager does NOT constitute a bet under which the CHECK or CHECK-RAISE rule would apply. A bet in poker would mean a full regular bet. Be it $100 in your examples or otherwise.
50-100 NLHE, Three handed, On the flop
Player A checks
Player B goes all-in for 20
Player C calls

Player A has checked and retains the right to raise IF a bet was made. An all-in wager of less than 100 would not constitute a proper full bet, does not count for the purposes of reopening betting, and would not create eligibility for Player A to raise.
Nick wins!
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 09:57:45 PM by Spence »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2011, 10:40:31 AM »
I can appreciate your logic but the rules are clear about this and actually are very specific - RROP section 14 - No-limit Holdem #2:

"2. The minimum bet sizeis the amount of the minimum bring-in, unless the player is going all-in.  The minimum bring-in is the size of the big blind unless the structure of the game is preset by the house to some other amount (such as double the big bline).  The minumum bet remains the same amount on all betting rounds.  If the big blind does not have sufficient chips to post the required amount, a player who enters the pot on theinitial betting round is still required to enter for at least the minimum bet (unless going all-in for a lesser sum) and a preflop raiser must at least double the size of the big blind.  At all other times, when someone goes all-in for less than the minimum bet, a player has the option of just calling the all-in amount.  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."

Please note two things.  the rule clearly states that the "minimum bet size is the amount of the minimum bring-in, UNLESS THE PLAYER IS GOING ALL-IN. Which tells me that it is still a BET but the size limit is adjusted because of the all-in condition.  The rule does not seem to suggest that an all-in bet is somehow NOT a bet.  If you can read into that sentence that it is, please explain.

But, in case you do find a way, the rule goes on with a great example of what a players options are regarding that short bet.  Notice the part about midway that starts "At all other times..."  The next sentence specifically deals with our issue: "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".  So clearly, you cannot argue that, and I quote you "A bet in poker would mean a full regular bet" because the rule allows a subsequent player the option of either calling or RAISING at least the amount of the minimum bet.

Spence, you were arguing that the all-in does not constitute a bet under the check-raise rule.  But if the rule allows a subsequent player to RAISE a short all-in then why wouldn't the player that checked be allowed to raise?  The player that checked RETAINS THE RIGHT to act if another player opens the pot (which the short all-in BET has done) therefore the checking player can RAISE AT LEAST THE AMOUNT OF THE MINIMUM BET. 

And the rule goes on to give an example of what that raise would look like for a subsequent player ($120) after the short all-in ($20) so.....

Nick loses!

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2011, 12:00:03 PM »
Jasper,
 It's not a contest, I didn't loose. Why don't you try to look at the rule and see it the way Bob wants you to. The first situation is on the first betting round only. If an all-in has less than the BB, the next player must at least put in the BB. That has nothing to do with a player that checks in a later round and an all-in bettor does not have the minimum (size of the BB). The only way the player that checked can raise is if another player makes a full bet. Also, after the flop, a player that wants to participate can call a short all-in. The min is no longer required.

 How would you like to be in a game where a player checks, the next player goes all-in for 100 (the min is 1000), you call, and then the guy that checked goes all-in for 10,0000!!!
 The short bet is not enough to re-open the betting to a player that already acted..and yes, that includes a check.

Take some friendly advice and don't try that move at the Bellagio.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2011, 11:39:53 PM »
First off Nick, I know it's not a contest.  Just people trying to be funny.  Relax.

Secondly, I spent a great deal of time analyzing the rule and since you will never let go of the whole "check is action" logic then I won't go on except to ask this:  Does the rule make it clear that a player behind the short all-in is allowed to raise?

Thirdly, on my last trip to Vegas, I check raised several players that called a short all-in bet at several casinos, including the Belagio.. because A PLAYER THAT CHECKS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ACT IF PLAYER OPENS THE BETTING.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2011, 04:23:32 AM »
Jasper,
 You answered the question. A short bet does not re-open the betting. Yes, a player that checks can raise, but only if another player makes a full bet. I am relaxed. I am a little frustrated because I take pride in being able to break-down a situation and explain it so the students I teach can understand it. There is no point in our continued discussion. I know I'm right, and you think you are, and none of our expert rulemakers want to sort it out.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 03:29:38 PM by Nick C »

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2011, 10:32:22 PM »
I can appreciate your logic but the rules are clear about this and actually are very specific - RROP section 14 - No-limit Holdem #2:

"2. The minimum bet sizeis the amount of the minimum bring-in, unless the player is going all-in.  The minimum bring-in is the size of the big blind unless the structure of the game is preset by the house to some other amount (such as double the big bline).  The minumum bet remains the same amount on all betting rounds.  If the big blind does not have sufficient chips to post the required amount, a player who enters the pot on theinitial betting round is still required to enter for at least the minimum bet (unless going all-in for a lesser sum) and a preflop raiser must at least double the size of the big blind.  At all other times, when someone goes all-in for less than the minimum bet, a player has the option of just calling the all-in amount.  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."

Please note two things.  the rule clearly states that the "minimum bet size is the amount of the minimum bring-in, UNLESS THE PLAYER IS GOING ALL-IN. Which tells me that it is still a BET but the size limit is adjusted because of the all-in condition.  The rule does not seem to suggest that an all-in bet is somehow NOT a bet.  If you can read into that sentence that it is, please explain.

But, in case you do find a way, the rule goes on with a great example of what a players options are regarding that short bet.  Notice the part about midway that starts "At all other times..."  The next sentence specifically deals with our issue: "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".  So clearly, you cannot argue that, and I quote you "A bet in poker would mean a full regular bet" because the rule allows a subsequent player the option of either calling or RAISING at least the amount of the minimum bet.

Spence, you were arguing that the all-in does not constitute a bet under the check-raise rule.  But if the rule allows a subsequent player to RAISE a short all-in then why wouldn't the player that checked be allowed to raise?  The player that checked RETAINS THE RIGHT to act if another player opens the pot (which the short all-in BET has done) therefore the checking player can RAISE AT LEAST THE AMOUNT OF THE MINIMUM BET.  

And the rule goes on to give an example of what that raise would look like for a subsequent player ($120) after the short all-in ($20) so.....

Nick loses!
Rule #2 is very nicely put but Rule # 3 puts that to rest:
"3.All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)"
Rule 2 is only missing the portion about a player who has already acted.
"A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet"
This is exactly the issue we are arguing and it is there plain as day. The player who checked cannot raise.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 10:33:28 PM by Spence »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2011, 08:59:49 AM »
Spence, you and Nick are really stuck on that "Check is Action" thing.  i will say it simply.  You are wrong.

I have spent a bunch of time demonstrating that a check is not "action" in the sense the word is used in these rules.  It's a homonym, same sound, same spelling, different meaning.

Please look at the glossary of RROP for "check".  the player ONLY passes on initiating the bet.  If any player opens the betting then the player that checks "reserves the right to act".  So if a check is action, then how does the player that checks reserve the right to "act".??  So, really, with that definition, has the checker actually "acted"??????

Please, guys, what the hell is a check raise if it is not this?  Remember, he is not really raising the all-in player anyway, he would be raising the other players in the hand. 

The short bet would only effect a player that has already put chips in the pot before the short bet.

Are you guys really telling me that you have never seen a player check, have a player go all-in short with a caller or two and then raise big to isolate the all-in player?  I know you have.

And I have to say, I have never been in a house that did not allow this move against a short bet.  (of course, it's probably a relatively rare occurrence)