Author Topic: Rule #38 - Short all-ins  (Read 3936 times)

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Rule #38 - Short all-ins
« on: October 31, 2011, 04:43:54 PM »
I would have liked to see the verbage of
"In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted"
changed to
"In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who is not facing a legal bet or raise."

The reason I believe this is important, is that more players than should have been confused by the last part "already acted".  Say Player A checks, Player B bets $50 and then player C goes all-in for $65.  By the orginal verbage some would argue that Player A would not be allowed to check raise, when clearly he can.  I understand that Player C's bet doesn't need to reopen the betting to Player A because Player B already did, but surprisingly a lot of people have tried to argue against this or have been confused by this...
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 08:54:25 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule #38 - Short all-ins
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2011, 06:54:00 PM »
Finally, someone agrees with me. I've been complaining about that rule from the first day I joined the TDA. All you have to do is go back on the forum. It used to be rule #31. There were more hits on that question than any other rule, and yet it was never changed.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule #38 - Short all-ins
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2011, 02:26:23 AM »
Gentlemen,
I've come to the conclusion that the rules are written as they are, just so we can debate what they are really trying to say.

The following should be considered for amending TDA Rule #37 Raises…This would replace the last sentence in the existing rule.
How does this sound?... Check -raise is permitted in all games only  after a complete legal bet has been made on that betting round. Any short all-in bet ( action only), will not reopen betting options to any player that has checked, or bet, prior to the all-in wager.

Once a player has acted by checking or betting, they may not re-open the betting on that round unless another player makes a full bet or raise.

The standard amount considered necessary for an all-in bet to qualify as a full bet will be governed by the limit for that game.

 limit: The all-in must be at least 50% of the required amount for that round.

No limit: Because there is no fixed amount for any betting round, only the minimum, the required amount necessary to re-open a round of betting must be 100% of the bet or raise.


Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Rule #38 - Short all-ins
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2011, 07:43:53 PM »
This rule definitely needs some solidarity and the language needs work. I'm surprised that this was not taken care of at the last summit and needs to be addressed well before the next one. I do not yet agree with some of the language being used and most of our rules are simplistic in that they do not have subsections and such. I like the fact that we leave them in a way as to be able to enact Rule #1 when necessary as well. Here is the rule as it is written right now.
37: Raises A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips in Rule 39). In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.
The main concern seems to be if checking will rerserve the right to raise a short all-in. We need to decide if as a community we want to allow that or not then create our rule accordingly. Never forget our mission is to create a common ruleset that we can all enforce and abide by.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule #38 - Short all-ins
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2011, 10:07:54 AM »
This rule definitely needs some solidarity and the language needs work. I'm surprised that this was not taken care of at the last summit and needs to be addressed well before the next one. I do not yet agree with some of the language being used and most of our rules are simplistic in that they do not have subsections and such. I like the fact that we leave them in a way as to be able to enact Rule #1 when necessary as well. Here is the rule as it is written right now.
37: Raises A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips in Rule 39). In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.
The main concern seems to be if checking will rerserve the right to raise a short all-in. We need to decide if as a community we want to allow that or not then create our rule accordingly. Never forget our mission is to create a common ruleset that we can all enforce and abide by.

I agree with just about everything you say except the part about leaving the rules in a way that we can enact rule #1. That's one of the problems, the rules should be firm, and not left to how the floor interprates the rule. It should be more "etched in stone" (for lack of a better description). "Sorry Sally, I can't help you on this one," here it is in black and white," you tossed your cards into the muck and you can't get them back," period! Or, "substantial action has taken place, therefore you can not raise on this round, you can only call." Sorry.

The simple short answer to a question that keeps rearing it's ugly head is No, the betting can not be reopened on a round by any short all-in.

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Rule #38 - Short all-ins
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2011, 04:52:54 PM »
I agree Nick that rules should be firm and obvious in their intention and not open to interpretation, only that they allow for rule #1 to be enacted when necessary for preservation of the integrity of the game. Cards mucked are cards mucked, not open for interpretation but things like dealer error or players intentionally trying to disrupt the game, we have a back up plan in rule #1. Whenever I go to a table now to make a ruling that has no specific rule attached to it I might start saying "I AM ENACTING RULE #1 FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE GAME!!!!" then make my ruling.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 05:22:01 PM by Spence »

diz475

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
Re: Rule #38 - Short all-ins
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2012, 02:15:39 PM »
my question on this rule is why does it not say anything about limit betting ( call, complete, raise. )
i use our house rules in a limit tourn. but ive heard some crazy stuff from players like

1200 chip betting round player a in all in for 1000

my rule player B can call 1000 or raise to 2200

this guys rule player B has to call 1200 or raise to 2400( i dont know how you can make a 1400 chip raise in 1200 chip betting round but i guess maybe in someplaces )

if the all in was for 550 player b can call 550 or complete to 1200

this guys rule player B still has to call 1200

all this is post flop if it was pre flop and the big blind is the all in thay must still call the 1200

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Rule #38 - Short all-ins
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2012, 02:41:25 PM »
I think you can rely on RROP sufficiently for issues relating to limit betting.