Author Topic: Short All-ins  (Read 5347 times)

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Short All-ins
« on: March 08, 2012, 11:20:20 AM »
Another issue causing some disturbing answers:

NLHE
Blinds 200/400
UTG Shoves for 650 Total

What are following players options
A Call Amount
B Minimum Raise Amount

Just for the record I know the correct answer but don't want to post it, as I would rather have other TD's re-inforce my interpretation

Regards
Stuart
Stuart Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2012, 11:40:37 AM »
NLHE
Blinds 200/400
UTG Shoves for 650 Total
What are following players options

UTG has raised 250, but this is not a full-sized raise since the minimum raise amount for the round is 400 (the amount of the big blind).

Thus, the next player may
a) fold.
b) call 650.
c) raise.  minimum raise is to a total of 1050 (amount to call '650' + minimum raise amount '400').
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 12:35:11 PM by K-Lo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2012, 05:45:04 PM »
I agree with K-Lo.

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2012, 05:51:49 PM »
Thanks for the input which I agree with 100% had some disturbing answers

1 following players have to call for 800
2 following players can call the 650 or raise to 800/900

Bizarre how some people will interpret a rule incorrectly and then blindly argue that they are correct

Stu
Stuart Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2012, 06:19:56 PM »
some disturbing answers ...

1 following players have to call for 800
2 following players can call the 650 or raise to 800/900

Bizarre how some people will interpret a rule incorrectly and then blindly argue that they are correct

or how about this one (also wrong):  1300 since a "raise must be double the last bet"?   ??? 

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2012, 09:00:12 PM »
I'm training poker dealers right now and I always hear the double the last bet thing. Makes me laugh. Once they learned to raise properl they all said they had a headache.

Luca P.

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • Alea Casino Nottingham
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2012, 12:53:29 AM »
When I was writing my house rules set, I added this one, what do you think about?

Quote
Multiple All-ins wagers less than a standard raise, even if they don't qualify as a full raise, must be considered as a "raise action" thus first player after has the option to either re-open the betting with a raise or call. If this player decides to call, then other players still in game have the option to either call or fold.
Example 1: 50/100. Player A bets 100, Player B raises 200, Player C all-in 225 (not a full raise of 100). It's player A turn. If he calls, then player B can only fold or call.
Example 2: 50/100. Player A bets 100, Player B raises 200, Player C all-in 225 (not a full raise of 100). It's player A turn. If he raises, player B can now decide to re-raise.

Is this all true?
I mean, that's the way I understood RROP
Card Room Manager

Alea Casino
108 Upper Parliament Street
Nottingham
NG1 6LF
Tel 0115 871 7288

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2012, 07:04:56 AM »
Hi Linker:

Multiple All-ins wagers less than a standard raise, even if they don't qualify as a full raise, must be considered as a "raise action" thus first player after has the option to either re-open the betting with a raise or call. If this player decides to call, then other players still in game have the option to either call or fold.

In all honesty, this house rule confuses me.  :-[  First, the way the rule is worded, is sounds like the first player can re-open the betting by "calling", which would not be correct.  Also, if there are multiple all-ins, whether or not a player that has already acted can raise really depends on the amount he needs to call.  This is the point of RROP's no-limit rule #4: You can have multiple all-ins, where each when considered individually is not a full raise, but when action returns to a player, that player may or may not be able to raise again... it depends.

For example:
50/100. Player A bets 100, Player B raises 200, Player C goes all-in 250 (a raise of 50), Player D goes all-in for 275 (a raise of 25).  If player A calls, B cannot raise.
50/100. Player A bets 100, Player B raises 200, Player C goes all-in 250 (a raise of 50), Player D goes all-in for 300 (a raise of 50).  If player A calls, B can still raise.

In both these cases, the amounts of the raises by C and D are all less than 100, but the betting will be re-opened to B if A only calls in the second example but not the first.

Quote
Example 1: 50/100. Player A bets 100, Player B raises 200, Player C all-in 225 (not a full raise of 100). It's player A turn. If he calls, then player B can only fold or call.
Example 2: 50/100. Player A bets 100, Player B raises 200, Player C all-in 225 (not a full raise of 100). It's player A turn. If he raises, player B can now decide to re-raise.

Specifically, your examples are correct, but the reason why A has the option to raise is not because of the all-in and it is not because C's wager is a "raise action" as your rule suggests; A can raise because B has legally raised, and the subsequent all-in is not relevant.  Because B has made a legal raise, A will be facing a legal raise regardless of what happened after B, so A can re-raise.  Another way of looking at it is that when action comes back to A, he needs to call 125 to stay in, which is more than the minimum raise amount of 100 for that round, so A can re-raise.  Consider if B had only called 100 initially -- A would not be able to raise then, although the house rule would seem to imply that he would have that option.

On the other hand, if A decides to call, it is only 25 for B to call (which is less than the minimum raise amount of 100 for that round), so B cannot raise again because he is not facing a raise of 100 or more after taking into account all betting that has come before him. 

IMO, RROP NL #4 is somewhat confusing, because it starts off talking about multiple all-in wagers, even though the example given doesn't show multiple all-ins.  But the principle itself is sound, and you really have to read it in conjunction with the preceding rule, which says "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", to get the whole picture.  You may be better off sticking with the language of RROP NL #3 and #4 than trying to rewrite the rule for your house rules set.

Here are the two RROP rules for your reference:
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.)
4.   Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise. Example: Player A bets $100 and Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn’t fully raised. (Player A could have raised, because Player B raised.)

 

Luca P.

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • Alea Casino Nottingham
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2012, 10:30:25 AM »
K-Lo you were exhaustive, thank you very much.
I'm an italian TD, so I hav to traslate from english to italian, and now I was trying to traslate back to english what I wrote in my house rule, but now I've understood this rule because of your explanation :)
Thank you again!
Card Room Manager

Alea Casino
108 Upper Parliament Street
Nottingham
NG1 6LF
Tel 0115 871 7288

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2012, 11:16:34 AM »
No problem, Linker.  I'm so jealous... I wish that I could speak Italian!  :)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2012, 02:22:20 PM »
K-Lo,
 That was a great post! I'd like to make a suggestion that could clear up questions about raises. I noticed that Linker_split said Player A bet 100 and player B raised 200. This is a common mistake that is made because most of us understand that the raise was 100 more to a total of 200. K-Lo added the key word in his excellent response to the question. By saying Player B raised to 200 could have a very different reaction from the dealer and other players. The simple word -to- makes the difference. A 100 bet followed by a 200 raise is a total of 300.

 I'm glad K-Lo went over RROP. I still have problems with the way it's written. I don't agree with this line:
   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. I always think of the confusion the rule causes when a player checks on a round, is followed by a bet and a raise. Somehow it implies that the player that checked can not raise. I also don't think the word "subsequently" is needed and the sentence rambles on. I am not questioning the poker mind of Bob Ciaffone, his work is brilliant. I understand the options to all players but I can easily understand how others will not. It could be better written.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2012, 02:52:56 PM »
Nick is absolutely right.  I interpreted the question to say "Player B raises TO 200", because a raise of 200 would definitely mean something different. 

Luca P.

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • Alea Casino Nottingham
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2012, 05:24:42 PM »
That's because here in italy when we want to say: "A bet 100, B fa raise 200" that means "B Raises up to 200" not "B raises 300" :D
Card Room Manager

Alea Casino
108 Upper Parliament Street
Nottingham
NG1 6LF
Tel 0115 871 7288

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Re: Short All-ins
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2012, 01:59:59 PM »
I had a hard time convincing most of my staff that this was correct (which I 100% know it to be) because the former lead poker floor told people "no, you complete the bet, it's in the TDA Rules"... which obvs is wrong.  He had a bad habit of quoting "the TDA rules" a lot, but other than that he usually knew what he was talking about... just not on this one.