Author Topic: Under raise - underbet  (Read 28384 times)

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #75 on: December 07, 2011, 11:02:27 PM »
Jasper - You're so easy to convince...  Doesn't take much other than an e-mail from Bob does it?   LOL    :P

Thanks for following up.  I found it really interesting that his explanation focuses on the properties of the all-in bet itself (a short bet is "action" only, not a legal wager) rather than the properties of the initial check (whether a "bet zero", or whatever).

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 #76 on: December 08, 2011, 09:22:37 AM »
K-lo,
 You think six pages on the subject indicates Jasper Too was easy to convince !!! ??? :)

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #77 on: December 08, 2011, 09:25:25 AM »
I was being facetious!   :D

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #78 on: December 08, 2011, 09:38:41 AM »
Jasper - You're so easy to convince...  Doesn't take much other than an e-mail from Bob does it?   LOL    :P

Thanks for following up.  I found it really interesting that his explanation focuses on the properties of the all-in bet itself (a short bet is "action" only, not a legal wager) rather than the properties of the initial check (whether a "bet zero", or whatever).


Yes I did notice that and I am glad that you did also.  That was Matt Savages approach as well and it makes it quite a bit easier to get my head around it.   If I accept that the short bet doesn't "initiate" the betting because it is not a legal wager (technically, because it is not a full bet) then the language of the rule can still make sense. Including the definition of check in that the checker can not initiate his own bet (by raising the short one) because, well, no one else has initiated it.  It's a different viewpoint than Nick was arguing but comes to the same end only now I can see how that can work and satisfy everyone. 

It is a bit odd that his simple answer gave the right perspective (for me at least) for it to all make sense.

I can relax now and find my next chew toy.

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #79 on: December 08, 2011, 05:24:21 PM »
Conclusions like this don't come along often. Savour the fact that we made some real headway on this one. Go team!

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 #80 on: December 09, 2011, 11:26:31 AM »
DCJ001,
 I waited two days to see if you would respond to this post. It doesn't surprise me though. You always have something to say when I don't agree with a rule but you don't have anything to say when I'm right. Even when Bob Ciaffone says I'm right, you don't agree.

   Re: Under raise - underbet
Reply #14 on: October 20, 2011, 03:19:52 PM    
________________________________________
"Nick. Did you read the example in RROP that Jasper and I brought to everyone's attention?"

Evidently, Nick likes to ignore common sense and the rules with which he disagrees or does not understand.

DCJ001, Do you understand the rule now?











 

   


« Last Edit: December 13, 2015, 08:10:29 AM by Nick C »

Lado

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #81 on: April 23, 2015, 10:27:20 AM »
6 pages?! The Man(NickC) said it once: player A can not raise and he's correct! End of story!