Taking another look at the Raise Rule on re-opening

[Nick C]

So much attention has been given to Accepted Action, and Out of Turn that we have failed to resolve some issues with the Raise rule (currently #37). I think we need to clarify 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."
On prior discussions, we have established that checking in turn is "action;" therefore, the current rule implies that a check-raise is not allowed.

There are numerous posts on this subject but many go back to the old #31 that pertained to raises prior to the updated 2011 version.

Trying to get something going here  

[Steven]

The rule says the wager does not "re-open" it does not say it "closes" the betting to someone that has previously acted. So if we assume the checker can always check raise (I.e., the betting is open for him) and the bettor  needs the betting to be reopened,  then the current rule will not re-open for the bettor,  but the checker is already "open" and the "does not re-open" has no negative effect.

I agree that maybe the rule could be clarified, but "does not re-open" is not the same as "close" if the current state is already "open"

[Nick C]

Steven,

Like you, I understand what the rule implies. However, like you I also feel a need for more clarification. The current rule seems to apply only after a legal size bet has been made, otherwise no raise is possible? A player that checks in turn; can re-enter the betting round if another player opens that round, and will have every option open to them, including a raise.

A brief explanation at the end of the rule would be enough. Any player, who has acted by checking in turn, is allowed to re-enter that round of betting with all options open to them.

  I'm trying to say that; the current rule does not apply to any player that has checked in turn prior to the bet and short all-in that followed. Whew!

The rule could actually apply to all games, limit included, if we changed some wording. Example: An all-in raise must qualify as the required legal amount, in order to reopen raising.

[MikeB]

The rule says the wager does not "re-open" it does not say it "closes" the betting to someone that has previously acted. So if we assume the checker can always check raise (I.e., the betting is open for him) and the bettor  needs the betting to be reopened,  then the current rule will not re-open for the bettor,  but the checker is already "open" and the "does not re-open" has no negative effect.

I agree that maybe the rule could be clarified, but "does not re-open" is not the same as "close" if the current state is already "open"

While thumbing through these suggestions for rules changes at the Summit I came across this thread.... Just to clarify, a checker can't check-raise unless the action returning to him is at least a full bet

[K-Lo]

Agreed.

[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]

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!

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]

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?

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.

[Tristan]

How about something like:

In a singular betting round of no-limit & pot limit, a player that is not acting for the first time will NOT have the option to raise unless they are faced with a bet/raise that is greater than or equal to what was a minimum bet/raise from their previous action in that round.

[Nick C]

NO-LIMIT & POT LIMIT

Any Player that has checked on his turn to act, is allowed to raise if a subsequent player makes a legal bet. A legal bet must fulfill the minimum requirement, which is at least the size of the big blind.