Author Topic: Under raise - underbet  (Read 28379 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #30 on: November 04, 2011, 12:23:16 PM »
Jasper,
 If you check on your turn to bet, you have acted. A short bet after your check will not re-open the betting to you. It's that simple. Don't tell us we're wrong, just continue to disagree. Oh, by the way, did you use the word passes instead of check?

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #31 on: November 04, 2011, 04:48:24 PM »
No, Nick, I did not notice the word passes instead of check.  Where is the word passes?

I have repeated the definition of Check right out of RROP about three times in this thread so if you can't see how a player retains his right to act when he checks then we do disagree and that will have to be it.  I do disagree with you and your still wrong  :D ;D ;)

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2011, 05:00:03 PM »
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)
 
Oddly to the contrary I have only played in houses that forbade this

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2011, 06:15:54 PM »
Jasper,
 This is your reply:


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"

Do you see where it says, "If any player opens the betting"...a short all-in does not open the betting. Repeat that to yourself about 10 times and then maybe it will sink in :)

RobinK

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2011, 11:55:09 AM »
 HI all,

 It looks like a never ending debate and frankly it is quite amusing to read :)
 
 I fully agree with JASPER on this one. Well said and written Jasper.

 Regards    RK

P.S. Have you ever tried, how this all works in online-poker?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2011, 10:03:34 PM »
Robin K,
 On the turn, it is your turn to act the blinds are 100/200, you check. The next player goes all-in for 150, two players call. The action returns to you...you can fold or call, you can not raise. Are you telling me that you think this is wrong?

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2011, 12:46:36 PM »
i Know you addressed RobinK but....

Yes, I believe it is wrong.

I am fairly sure that you will agree that player C or D have the right to raise by placing 350 chips in the pot, am I right?

if that is true, AND by checking a player only gives up the option to INITIATE betting but RESERVES the right to ACT then why should he not be allowed to raise when it is his turn.  It is a check raise, that is all.  Now if he INITIATED the bet and a player goes all in short then when it comes back to him he can not raise at that point.

Would you say that is correct RobinK?

RobinK

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2011, 03:07:42 PM »
 Hi Nick,

 As I said before, I agree with Jasper and therefore, yes I think your statement is wrong. I do not consider check as an "aggressive action", but simply as a players option to pass the action to the next active player. Therefore, I would allow the player to raise, when the action comes back to him and he is facing a bet, even if the bet is less then minimum bet, because its an all-in.

 I have personally never seen or witnessed similar scenario. I think, someone who has not enough chips to make at least the minimum bet after flop, would never "just" call pre-flop and the only time the player would be in this situation is after checking his option as a BB. However players are unpredictable and it still can happen, but I do not think you will have to deal with this situation more then once a year, if ever. In case you are the TD or Floorman and you can justify your decision, as it is in the best interest of the game or simply it is correct according to you, just go for it.

Regards 

RK

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #38 on: November 22, 2011, 03:51:40 PM »
For Robin and Jasper,

 One more try.

No limit, blinds 100/200, after the turn; Player A checks, Player B goes all-in for 10, Players C and D call the 10...back to Player A...He CAN NOT raise! If anyone doesn't agree, perhaps a friendly wager can add to the discussion.

RobinK

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2011, 04:49:28 PM »
Do you see where it says, "If any player opens the betting"...a short all-in does not open the betting. Repeat that to yourself about 10 times and then maybe it will sink in

Let me get this straight. So, for you a short all-in does not open the betting? By this you are saying that :

action on TURN, blinds 100/200

Player A - checks
Player B - goes all-in for 30 (according to you, this does not open the betting because it is not at least the minimum bet.)
Player C - can he CHECK/BET? (since the betting is not opened yet, he should be allowed to CHECK,BET), if so how much is the minimum he must BET?
              or can he only CALL or RAISE or FOLD?

 Try to answer this one for me Nick, please.
               

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #40 on: November 22, 2011, 07:26:02 PM »
RobinK,

 In your example Player C can not check because he is facing action from the all-in player. Therefore he may fold, call or add the full wager onto the all-in action. If Player C takes that action, then Player A may raise. If Player C just calls the all-in, then A can not re-open the betting with a raise.

 I'd rather not argue over this. I'm only trying to correct your misunderstanding of this raise rule.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #41 on: November 24, 2011, 01:30:36 PM »
I'm going to chime in here and put in my vote.  I think Nick C is absolutely correct and have always interpreted the Rule this way for as long as I can remember.

My reading of RROP is the same as Nick's and I have always thought it was clear on its face.  I can appreciate that people have tried to compare and contrast language (e.g. what "opens" the betting, what is an "action", etc.) from different rules of the set to try to make a contrary case, but let's face it, RROP wasn't written or vetted by a lawyer.  Perhaps we need a lawyer to correct the "inconsistencies", if they do exist. ;-)  In any event, I doubt that the author originally put much thought about whether "act", "action" or all other similar terms should share similar properties across all rules.

For example, I don't think that "reserving the right to act" necessarily means "reserving the right to raise" or "reserving the right to act with all actions available to the players as if he had not checked", for example.  I would contend that the "reserving the right to act" language, for that particular rule, was simply meant to mean that by checking, you are not folding.  It is a description to the layperson of what is meant by "check".  The player will still have options to do something when it comes around to that player's turn again... but there's nothing to say about what options those are, and certainly it does not explicitly say "all betting and raising options".  For that you have to rely on other rules.   

I feel it really is a stretch to try to interpret the rule in such a way that player A can still raise a short-all in after checking, but in any event, I think it is at least within the spirit of the rule that such an "angle" (being allowed to check-raise a short all-in after checking) should not be permitted. So perhaps we should focus on what the rule should be if it isn't actually 100% clear to everyone what it is supposed to say. 

I believe that by "checking" rather than "betting" when both options are available to you, you are forfeiting your right to raise a less-than-a-full bet, in the same way that by "calling" instead of "raising" when both options are available to you, you are forfeiting your right to raise a less-than-a-full raise.  I don't see why the checker should have more options than the caller, when the relative differences between the opponent's wager and the checker/caller are of a comparable order of magnitude relative to the minimum bet size for that round.

In my view, when you check, you are essentially saying "I Bet Zero".  You can decide to call me by "Calling Zero" (check), or you can "Raise" my bet of Zero.  If you raise my bet of Zero, then you are obliged to make the minimum raise (which is betting at least the BB).  If, however, you cannot make the minimum raise over Zero because you are short, you can go all-in for less, and the "Bet Zero" player will not be able to raise if no one else has raised by the time action gets back to him (applying the "normal" rule).  If you think of a check as "Bet Zero" (which I believe has historical basis although of course it's difficult to prove that now), then it is clear that the initial checker should not be able to raise a short all-in, by applying the other rules as you know them.  Maybe this is "old school" thinking, but I think it is right.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #42 on: November 24, 2011, 03:57:05 PM »
K-Lo,
 Well said. It's nice to know that out of 1500+ members there are a few that agree. Thanks for your response.

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #43 on: November 24, 2011, 07:20:50 PM »
K-lo, Very nice. I like the jargon of "I bet zero" as well. That would confirm what you are saying about reserving action as well. Your "zero" bet would remove the ability to raise yourself. Well said.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #44 on: November 24, 2011, 10:39:48 PM »
We have heard the zero bet argument before.  I appreciate the view.

But.....  saying that a check is "I bet zero" is reading something into the rules that simply isn't there.  I can actually get behind the argument that a check is action and somebody that has acted can't raise a short all-in even though I don't happen to agree.  That argument fits much better with what is written in RROP.

I just think that the definition of CHECK in RROP speaks clearly.  In fact it says just the opposite: "to waive the right to INITIATE the betting, ..."   so if the player waives the right to initiate betting then how can he be betting zero?

Nope this rule set was not written by lawyers but by a guy that tried to put order to a whole lot of poker rules into one common set of rules.  So the fact that we don't agree on this particular reading of the rule should be no surprise. 

Take a look at RROP Betting & Raising #7.  it says that an all in wager of less than half a bet does not open the betting to a player who has previously acted AND is all in for all previous bets.   Granted, this particular rule says it is specific to limit play but I think it sort of demonstrates the concept I have been trying to argue.  That is: the rule about not reopening the betting would only apply to a player that has already put chips in the pot BEFORE the short bet. 


...I feel it really is a stretch to try to interpret the rule in such a way that player A can still raise a short-all in after checking, but in any event, I think it is at least within the spirit of the rule that such an "angle" (being allowed to check-raise a short all-in after checking) should not be permitted. So perhaps we should focus on what the rule should be if it isn't actually 100% clear to everyone what it is supposed to say. 


K-Lo, could you spend some time telling me why check raising a short all-in - when other players are in the pot - is such an angle shoot and should not be permitted?


I believe that by "checking" rather than "betting" when both options are available to you, you are forfeiting your right to raise a less-than-a-full bet, in the same way that by "calling" instead of "raising" when both options are available to you, you are forfeiting your right to raise a less-than-a-full raise.  I don't see why the checker should have more options than the caller, when the relative differences between the opponent's wager and the checker/caller are of a comparable order of magnitude relative to the minimum bet size for that round.


the relative difference between the opponent's wager and the checker/caller are of little consequence.  The player that follows the short all-in has the option of raising (attempting to isolate the short player, perhaps) but chooses to not take the option.  That player is facing a bet, short as it is, and has all his options open to him.  I think that the definition of check as written says that the ONLY OPTION that the checking player gives up is the right to initiate the betting.   There is no other rule to suggest he has given up any of his other options.

Isn't the relative bet amount the same for a check-raiser when players simply limp in with a minimum bet for the round?  In other words the player that just calls a full bet is doing the same thing that the player who just calls a short-all in.  And I know we all agree that a player is allowed to raise when the action gets back to him in that case.

I await your response to why it is such an angle shoot against a short all-in, perhaps that will have some new info.  I still believe our argument comes down to the wording in the rules that say a player that has acted can't raise a short all-in and whether or not a check constitutes that action. A player that has placed chips in the pot has exercised his right to aggression to which all other players have the opportunity to respond.  If he subsequently faces a shot all-in he can't raise.  I think that is the key difference.