POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2013 Summit

Taking another look at the Raise Rule on re-opening

<< < (2/3) > >>

Steven:
I reiterate that "does not re-open" is not equivalent to "does close"

If my grand daddy's barn door is already "open" and the renter is not allowed to "re-open" it' it will stay open, it will not"close"

The way you guys are interpreting the rule'' any all-in of less than a full raise would disallow a check-raise. This would include an all-in of one measly chip, an all-in of the exact call amount, an all-in of one chip short of the full raise, and of course any all-in between those end points!

Mike and Ken: are you guys maintaining your position on how you think the rule is worded or by how you think the rule should be intended?

It's my opinion that the rule needs to be reworded such that the check-raise can clearly occur!

MikeB:

--- Quote from: Steven on May 17, 2013, 11:45:27 AM ---I reiterate that "does not re-open" is not equivalent to "does close"

If my grand daddy's barn door is already "open" and the renter is not allowed to "re-open" it' it will stay open, it will not"close"

The way you guys are interpreting the rule'' any all-in of less than a full raise would disallow a check-raise. This would include an all-in of one measly chip, an all-in of the exact call amount, an all-in of one chip short of the full raise, and of course any all-in between those end points!

Mike and Ken: are you guys maintaining your position on how you think the rule is worded or by how you think the rule should be intended?

It's my opinion that the rule needs to be reworded such that the check-raise can clearly occur!

--- End quote ---

I think it's easiest to look at the rule this way regarding a check-raise or any other form of action...

Let's say it's NLHE, 100-200, I'm the SB, and there are three other live players plus me (B, C, D) post flop.

I check (intending to check-raise). B checks, C goes all-in for his last 80. D calls the 80.

Action is back to me. I've already acted. the 80 short all-in does not re-open the betting for me. I can only smooth call the 80 or fold, same for Player B.

I cannot check raise in this situation because the action after me did not re-open betting for me. There is nothing "sacred" about a check that gives the checker the inalienable right to raise when the action comes back. The only thing that does that is a full raise back to the checker.

The ONLY person in this scenario who could raise (and thus re-open betting for me) is Player D. He could have made it at least 280 total (the 80 short all-in plus a 200 min-raise), but he chose not to.

IF Player D had chosen to raise to at least 280 total, then when the action gets back to a player who has already acted (me in this case), then I'm looking at a full raise (280), so betting is re-opened for me and I can then re-raise (or check-raise in this case).

***************
Yes, I definitely agree that a short all-in does not immediately close the betting for a prior actor, but it also doesn't re-open the betting.... exactly the language of the rule. The only thing that re-opens the betting is a full raise back to the player who has already acted.

Hope this helps.

BTW: There are so many questions on re-opening the betting (see this sticky thread: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=823.0) that post-Summit the TDA will mostly likely have an Illustration Addendum that will provide specific examples so the language of the rule can be seen "in action" in a couple scenarios to make it more clear.

Nick C:
Hello Mike, I've been following this thread for a couple days and I'd like to comment. One of the statements you made: "The only thing that re-opens the betting is a full raise back to the player who has already acted." I'd like to clarify that a full bet would also re-open the betting to a player that checked. i.e. Player A checks, Player B bets 200 and Player C goes all-in for 220...Of course Player A can raise.

 In your other example: "IF Player D had chosen to raise to at least 280 total, then when the action gets back to a player who has already acted (me in this case), then I'm looking at a full raise (280), so betting is re-opened for me and I can then re-raise (or check-raise in this case).
 The min raise would be another 200 for a total of 480...correct?

MikeB:

--- Quote from: Nick C on May 17, 2013, 09:32:48 PM ---Hello Mike, I've been following this thread for a couple days and I'd like to comment. One of the statements you made: "The only thing that re-opens the betting is a full raise back to the player who has already acted." I'd like to clarify that a full bet would also re-open the betting to a player that checked. i.e. Player A checks, Player B bets 200 and Player C goes all-in for 220...Of course Player A can raise.

 In your other example: "IF Player D had chosen to raise to at least 280 total, then when the action gets back to a player who has already acted (me in this case), then I'm looking at a full raise (280), so betting is re-opened for me and I can then re-raise (or check-raise in this case).
 The min raise would be another 200 for a total of 480...correct?


--- End quote ---

Absolutely, min raise by A here would be 280 + 200 = 480 total.

Also, agreed, either a full bet or full raise re-opens the bet to a player who's already acted. In a technical sense it's always a "raise" of sorts to the player who's already acted, because it has to be a full amount above whatever action he previously made. If he previously checked, then a full bet would do it... and in a sense a full bet is a "raise" of sorts above a check.

This just goes to show that the only way to conclusively present this rule is with illustrations, otherwise we will always be discussing the nuances of the semantics...

Nick C:
Thanks, Mike. Illustrations might be the answer.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page