I can't remember if we talked about this, but I had an interesting question from a student in my dealer training tonight with respect to this rule:

**38: Raises**

A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round.

Simply put, if Player A bets 500, and Player B bets 1000 (essentially a minimum raise), we know that a subsequent player must raise to at least 1500 total for it to be a legal raise, because the largest previous raise amount is 500. So then I was asked "well isn't the largest 'previous bet' actually the bet of 1000, making the minimum raise amount 1000, to a total of 2000"?

An interesting argument. I don't think his interpretation is what the rule intends, since we would never then have to consider the amount of the largest "raise" at all because the actual total wager (that he considers the 'previous bet') would always be greater. What the rule is really saying, I think, is that "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet - if the pot has not yet been legally raised - or the size of the largest previous legal raise - if the pot has been legally raised - of the current betting round". This is correct, no? But I can see how there could be some confusion with the current wording.

Thoughts?