This is from an earlier post from March 2010. There were many suggestions, but I thought this was worth looking at again.
MikeB
Administrator
TDA Member & Veteran Poster
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2010, 10:59:42 pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Nick C on March 25, 2010, 11:55:45 am
There are many discussions regarding raises. There was a posting earlier this month that made me realize that rule #31 will have to be addressed at the next meeting. The last sentence; 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. I did forward this to the administration department and it will be addressed. The example that was submitted on March 6, 2010 was a perfect example for explanation. The game is no-limit.
Player A checks.... Player B bets $250
Player C goes all-in for $490 (less than the required amount to be considered a raise)
The way the rule is written, because player A has acted prior to the bet and all-in raise, he would not be allowed to raise. That is incorrect. Player A will have the right to raise.
Mike B's response;
Actually, in this situation, Player C's bet of $490 is apparently over the minimum bet for this round, that minimum bet being $250 or less (Player B's bet). Either way you look at it, either Player B's bet of $250 OR Player C's total bet of $490 both are by themselves at least minimum bets and enough to re-open the action to A. Since Player A hasn't acted on Player B's full bet of $250, he has a right to act on it, regardless of whether Player C's raise of $240 to 490 total is a full minimum raise.... am I missing something ? Once Player B makes a minimum bet the action is re-opened for A, it doesn't matter IMO what Player C does at that point.... The only situation where Rule 31 would apply here is if Player B checks and Player C is all-in for something less than whatever the minimum for this round is, but that's not the case (unless I'm missing something at 1am cst which is always possible I agree that Player B cannot raise here if Player A just smooth calls Player C, because C's all-in wager of another 240 doesn't constitute a full raise to B.
To Chet and Mike B
I guess I'm not expressing the situation properly and please, correct me if I'm wrong. Before I try again; the last line in rule #31 is what I question; an all-in wager of less than a full raise (which the $490 wager of player C qualifies as because it would have to be a raise to $500) would not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. When you consider that player A did act first by checking. Why should he not be allowed to raise player B's initial wager of $250?
Mike I really like it when you enter our conversation. Chet, I'm sorry I omitted part of the
address....nickscasinopoker@comf5.com...
The confusion that I see is because the ruling should read (IMO): A wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the original bettor.
I think I have a better example; The game is no-limit player A checks player B bets $100 player C calls, player D calls player E goes all-in for $120...now back to player A. What are his options? he can fold, he can call, or HE CAN RAISE, because he is raising player B and not the all-in player (E). If this example does not contradict rule #31 please explain. Player A (who started the action with a check, still defined as having acted) has every right to raise in that position. To continue, if player A were to fold or call the $120 all-in wager then player B ( the original bettor) can only call. Chet you are right, we don't need any more examples.
Thanks for your response
Nick C
Stuart Murray's Reply:
Nick,
I see your point regarding the under raise rule, the wording under your interpretation is misleading. You are correct that the wording needs to be 'cleaned' up a little but even your example: "A wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the original bettor" would be flawed as if with blinds at 50/100 A and B check and then C moves in for 75 the betting is not re-opened to them.
Definitely something that needs to go under scrutiny. I think everyone is happy with the situations and when betting is open and when it is not, but I do see your point that this rule does require clarity.
Regards
Stuart