Nick,
I will try one last time to sort out where I agree and disagree with your points. Then, I must agree with Mike and end this thread.
Thank you Bill,
That would be helpful but would still need some work. The TDA and RRoP is defining a short all-in to be considered a full raise, when it is not.
Nick, the TDA and RRoP are defining
the result of multiple (short) all-in wagers to be a full raise -
only when they total a full raise to the player.A player can make an all-in wager that is larger than the original bet that they are facing and it is not a full raise. A subsequent player can make another all-in wager that is larger than the bet they are then facing and again it would not be a full raise. Therefore, these two wagers are short all-ins, neither of which is a full raise in regard to the amount of the bet they were facing. However, the total amount raised by these two wagers can amount to a full raise in regard to the original bettor. By both TDA and RRoP rules, it satisfies the definition of a legal full raise to the original bettor even though that wagered amount resulted from multiple wagers of which neither amounted to a full raise, by themselves, when considering either the total bet they faced or the total bet by the original bettor.
Addendum in TDA Rules 2105:
Rule 44: Re-opening the bet.
Example 1. Series of short all-in wagers that add up to a full raise and thus re-open betting:
NLHE, Blinds 50-100. Postflop, A opens betting for the 100 minimum.
B goes all in for a total of 125. C calls the 125,
D goes all in for 200 total and E calls 200.
Action returns to A who is facing a total raise of 100.
(Yes but the legal raise should be to 225 not 200)
Nick, you introduce your own term here that is not found in either TDA or RRoP, which just adds to the confusion. We are already struggling with the term
raise, which is being qualified as either a single full raise or a combination of short all-in wagers that act as a full raise when totaled. These are all
legal wagers. True, Player D did not make a
full raise to 225.
Since 100 is a full raise ...
(without an all-in at this point, it is not),
Nick, according to both TDA and RRoP rules, 100 is a full raise amount to Player A. That is true, with or without all-ins.
Since 100 is a full raise ...
... the betting is re-opened for A who can fold, call, or raise here.
(Yes, this I understand but we are allowing "double the bet"to re-open from any position.)
Nick, the betting is reopened for Player A because he is facing a full raise amount of 100 - true - regardless of where it came from.
Note that neither B’s increment of 25 or D’s increment of 75 is by itself a full raise, but when added together they total a full raise and thus re-open the betting to “a player who is facing at least a full raise when the action returns”.
(The only time the all-in player's bet of 200 qualifies as a "valid" "legal" raise is when the short all-in is in the UTG position following a legal full bet.)
Nick, this is either completely false or completely obfuscated by your use of terms not established in the rules. Again, all of the wagers are legal. They can be wagers that are a single full raise bet or they can be combination of short all-in wagers that amount to a full raise.
Fix that in the rules and addendum and we'll have something that is not so confusing. We are telling players that in order to raise, after a short all-in increase, that we MUST add the largest bet amount from that "street" on top of the elevated bet we are facing...except the all-in player that doubles the size of the valid, legal bet even though it falls short of a proper raise.
Again, either completely false or completely obfuscated - to me.
I do agree that the wording can be improved in the TDA rules by adopting what RRoP says. I also think that the Example in RRoP doesn't help. I prefer the examples that Mike et. al., have included in the Addendum to 2015 - which can also be improved.
Finally Nick, if you are suggesting that betting should only be reopened if the bettor if facing a full raise made by a single wager then I respectfully disagree. Multiple all-in wagers that are not individually full raises should be a full raise together when the math is correct.
Regards,
B~