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

Revision needed to re-opening language?

(1/3) > >>

MikeB:
An associate submitted the following suggestions on the topic of re-opening the betting:

[begin comments]....

... I need to point this out...someone with less experience than us may interpret [re-opening language] differently (literally) based on the way it is written…

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

Ok, so the scenario again is: 1-2 blinds, no-limit game, Player A checks.  Player B bets 25.  Player C goes all-in for 40.  The house rules (incorrectly), that Player A is not allowed to raise because "an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted"

[To avoid this] might it be better if the rule read something to the effect that:… an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted on the last full bet or raise?

Anyway, my concern was, with the hundreds and hundreds of cardrooms out there and dozens more popping up, I have to believe this is not the only one that may find this translation confusing.  But then again, maybe not.  Just a heads up…   KW
[ end comments ]

Nick C:
Mike,

 We have been discussing this one more than any other rule. There are numerous suggestions for changes on past posts. Before the 2011 Summit it was TDA Rule #31, just in case you want to look them up.

 

MikeB:

--- Quote from: MikeB on September 17, 2012, 04:12:02 PM ---An associate submitted the following suggestions on the topic of re-opening the betting:

[begin comments]....

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

Ok, so the scenario again is: 1-2 blinds, no-limit game, Player A checks.  Player B bets 25.  Player C goes all-in for 40.  The house rules (incorrectly), that Player A is not allowed to raise because "an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted"

[To avoid this] might it be better if the rule read something to the effect that:… an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted on the last full bet or raise?
[ end comments ]


--- End quote ---
 KW: I like the meaning you're trying to achieve, not necessarily the verbatim language. What about something closer to "... an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted... if the total of all bets and raises back to that player is cumulatively less than a full bet amount...".  I know that lingo would need polishing, but it makes the vital point that regardless whether there's an intervening short all-in, it is the total bet back to the player who has already acted that determines re-opening.  This is important for the same concerns you give in your example, b/c your proposed language does not literally address the impact of an intervening full raise between the short all-in and the already-acted player.... stipulating the total bet back to the already-acted player as the key consideration seems to achieve this.

Food for thought, thanks again for the recs.

K-Lo:
Nice points.  I do see the point of potential confusion for newbies.

How about just simply:  ".... does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted and is not facing a full raise"?

Nick C:
Mike,
 
 I like where we are going with this.

 I believe adding something like; However, this will not deprive a player from the right to "checkraise" any bet on that round.

 There are many suggestions on other posts.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page