Author Topic: New Fix for Rule #37?  (Read 8241 times)

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: New Fix for Rule #37?
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2011, 10:33:53 PM »
How about:


In no-limit and pot-limit, for each given betting round, any player who checks may not subsequently raise when the action returns to that player if the amount to be called is less than the minimum bet size for that betting round. 

In no-limit and pot-limit, for each given betting round, any player who bets may not subsequently raise when the action returns to that player if the amount to be called is less than the full size of the last bet or raise in that betting round. 

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: New Fix for Rule #37?
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2011, 11:37:29 PM »
How about:
In no-limit and pot-limit, for each given betting round, any player who checks may not subsequently raise when the action returns to that player if the amount to be called is less than the minimum bet size for that betting round. 
In no-limit and pot-limit, for each given betting round, any player who bets may not subsequently raise when the action returns to that player if the amount to be called is less than the full size of the last bet or raise in that betting round. 

We need to combine both those rules into a single sentence or tie them together somehow rather than stating it twice but yes that is effectively how we want the rule enforced.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: New Fix for Rule #37?
« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2011, 06:46:55 AM »
K-Lo and Spence:

Good job!

In no-limit and pot-limit, any player who checks or bets, may not check-raise or re-raise an "action only" wager from an all-in player.

Check-raise is allowed following a full bet only.

I'm sure there is better wording but I like where this is going.

Keep in mind, the problem only occurs with the all-in player. Let's keep this one going.

Merry Christmas   
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 07:02:32 AM by Nick C »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: New Fix for Rule #37?
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2011, 04:02:15 PM »
I thought that we should take a look at a prior thread that Brian Vicker's started on rule #38 which has been switched to #37. check it out.

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=526.0


There's more to add to the list. this is on the same subject from last year, only the numbers have changed (from #31 in 2009 to #38  in version1.0 to #37 this year). There were over 2700 hits on this one.

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=265.0

 

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: New Fix for Rule #37?
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2011, 09:01:04 AM »
Hey Nick, this post is for you!!!!

Of course my post was directed at you.  You created the thread and I was replying directly to the OP.  Your name is implicit to the context. 

Speaking of context, your response to my post leaves me wondering if you actually read mine.  Though I appreciate that you managed to define all the possible actions when it is your turn in a hand of poker it seemed a complete non sequitur.  But maybe that's just me.

Spence, sir, your language sounds pretty good outside your head too.  Interested to see if anyone else thinks so.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: New Fix for Rule #37?
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2011, 09:39:00 AM »
Jasper,

 I mentioned the possible actions because Chet wrote: "I have a more difficult time defining the term "already acted" and trying to explain that to the players."

 And you wrote: "As I see it, #37 is specifically speaking of "Raises".  So that a Raise has to be of "Full" or "Legal" size in order to open the betting to a previous player.  The already acted part is easy here because, well, anybody that has checked can't be getting raised can they?

The answer to your question, a player that checked can't be raised, is true. However, you must also have a legal (full) bet before a player can raise. A short all-in has the same effect, as a check.
 
  I also want to say that I don't like going to the dictionary to try and understand what the hell you're trying to say, especially when it isn't even a word ???non sequitir?
ENGLISH ONLY! 8)

I like all of the suggestions that were made. This one should have been addressed long ago.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: New Fix for Rule #37?
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2011, 04:38:44 AM »
Just for the record, I don't think that we must come up with a one sentence rule that covers both situations (i.e. all-in<minimum bet, all-in>minimum bet but<minimum raise).  If having two related rules makes it absolute clear, we should not shy away from having two rules.  The additional clarity is worth the extra paper, imo.

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: New Fix for Rule #37?
« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2011, 04:14:44 PM »
Just for the record, I don't think that we must come up with a one sentence rule that covers both situations (i.e. all-in<minimum bet, all-in>minimum bet but<minimum raise).  If having two related rules makes it absolute clear, we should not shy away from having two rules.  The additional clarity is worth the extra paper, imo.
I didn't so much mean one sentence as much as a complete thought. But you're right. It does not need to be one sentence. I simply don't think we should state the same sentence twice with only a minor change between them. It's more about creating a fluid rule that completes the direction we are taking without being to wordy.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 04:42:13 PM by Spence »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: New Fix for Rule #37?
« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2011, 06:26:53 PM »
Spence,
 Earlier you said the word "amount" didn't work for you. How about "legal amount"? In limit poker a 50% increase from an all-in player is considered enough to re-open a raise from others in that round, in no-limit it does not
.
I think this is where we need to go.

In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a legal amount does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. A player that has already checked on a betting round can not raise the action of a short all-in, unless a legal bet were made prior to the all-in.

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: New Fix for Rule #37?
« Reply #24 on: December 29, 2011, 09:26:56 PM »
I like where you're headed. I think the second sentence is clear as well with the different wording "Bet"
In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a legal amount does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. A player that has already checked on a betting round can not raise the action of a short all-in, unless a legal bet were made prior to the all-in.
I would want some small reference made to the betting round or stakes or whatnot as K-Lo said in:
In no-limit and pot-limit, for each given betting round, any player who checks may not subsequently raise when the action returns to that player if the amount to be called is less than the minimum bet size for that betting round. 
In no-limit and pot-limit, for each given betting round, any player who bets may not subsequently raise when the action returns to that player if the amount to be called is less than the full size of the last bet or raise in that betting round. 
Mind you, No-Limit betting rounds do not change so perhaps it's not necessary...