PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: lukeo83 on May 29, 2016, 02:57:08 PM
-
we was playing 5-10k blinds and it goes around the table to behind the button and he only has 14k left so he goes all in which is the correct way to play out the hand
1. if a player wants to call the all in of 14k they must go 20k as that would be the min raise amount allowed as there is players with action pending after this player.
2. flat calls the 14k but players with action pending after this player can reraise if they want?
3. everyone must flat call the 14k and the flop comes out.
just had a few arugments over this at my games .
the way i see it is the big blind has wanted to raise but didnt have anuff for a full raise so the first player that wanted to call would make it 20k as that is the min raise amount and if noone calls his 20k then he just matchs the 14k
-
lukeo83,
First of all, you did not mention the limit of the game being played. I will assume it is no limit.
In no limit, each player may fold, call the 14K or raise...the min raise is to 24K not 20K. If the game were limit, the all-in (being less than 50% of the required legal raise), would have been action only not counting as a raise. Remember, in limit poker there is usually a limit (or cap) on the number of raises.
Back to no limit. The 50% rule does not apply and a raise must be at least the size of the largest amount wagered on that street.
-
you totally miss was i was asking tho and yes its not limit if blinds was 5-10k and behind the button shoved for 14k which is less then the min raise rule does the next player in turn have to go to 20k or just flat call the 14k
-
A call would be 14k.
A minimum raise would be 24k.
The remaining players who have not yet acted can either fold, call or raise.
If there are no raises, when action returns to those who have already acted, they can only fold or call.
-
lukeo83,
I don't believe I missed what you were saying, and Dave confirmed what I wrote. The only way a player could make the bet 20K would be if he were all-in, too. The minimum raise in your described situation is 24K. Only limit poker would recognize 20K as the correct raise.
-
I am going to back-track a bit on what Dave wrote on his last post: "If there are no raises, when action returns to those who have already acted, they can only fold or call." This is true if you are not counting the blinds or if we are referring to the turn or river, but in this case, the small blind could raise. Likewise if the small blind called the all-in, the big blind could have also raised.
In either event, the min raise would still be 24K, not 20K.
-
Hi Luke... great question, I've renamed the thread a bit so it's obvious this question also pertains to re-opening the bet.
First, by "behind the button" I assume you mean the button is on the player who pushed all-in for 14k.
This means that every other player except the SB and BB have already acted. The SB and BB still have their option open.
Because there's an all-in wager for less than a min-raise, players who have already acted can only call the 14k, only the SB and BB can raise. If they choose to raise they have to raise on top of the 14k because "every bet in no-limit is considered a completed bet" (per long-standing RRoP), and there's no option to "complete" the 14k to 20k here.
If either the SB or BB does raise, the minimum they can make it is thus 14k + 10k = 24k total. If one of them does raise then ALL the remaining players at the table can then re-raise because they are facing a full min-raise.
One twist here to your illustration: let's say the SB pushes all-in for a total of 20k (including his 5k SB), then that also re-opens the betting for players who have already acted, because the combination of the two all-in wagers constitutes a min-raise even though neither by itself is a min-raise.
-
Wait a sec... That contradicts what I was led to believe.
Say there are limpers for 10K, then the all in of 14K.
A couple limpers for 14K, then the all in for 20K.
Obviously, those that haven't acted yet, as well as the blinds could raise.
The early 10K limpers are facing a full raise, so they can re-raise.
However, the later 14K limpers already had an opportunity to re-raise. The new raise to 20K is not enough to open the re-raise option on their 14K limp. Their only option is to call or fold.
44: Re-Opening the Bet.
In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing at least a full raise when the action returns to him.
-
Dave,
There is far too much confusion on this raise issue. What Mike has described is a situation where the SB goes all-in for 20K which is a 100% raise of the 10K BB. It has nothing to do with the earlier mentioned 14K. I really don't know why everyone insists on counting combined bets because they make no sense at all.
I believe I covered every scenario that Mike mentioned on an earlier post. If any player goes all-in with a short raise: Blinds 5K 10K...next player all-in with 11K, 12K, 13K, 14K, 15K, 16K, 17K, 18K, or 19K...the next raise must be 10K more in order to reopen the betting.
i.e.BB 10K UTG all-in for 11K, other players may fold, call the 11K or raise to at least 21K...same situation but the UTG goes all-in for 19K, both blinds can raise because they have not acted...their action was blind!
-
Wait a sec... That contradicts what I was led to believe.
Say there are limpers for 10K, then the all in of 14K.
A couple limpers for 14K,
The guy who went all-in for 14k has the button, if there are "a couple limpers for 14k" after him, they would have to be the SB and BB. And only the SB and BB can re-raise the 14k... if they choose to limp for 14k then there is no possibility of a re-raise from any of those who initially limped the big blind for 10k, they can only smooth call the 14k because they have already acted.
then the all in for 20K.
There's no possibility of a player who has already acted going all-in for 20k, only the SB or BB could do it in this example.
-
Mike,
Would you say I am correct in my examples? If I'm wrong please explain. I am also confused by your replies to Dave Miller: The guy who went all-in for 14K has the button, if there are "a couple limpers for 14K" after him, they would have to be the SB and BB. ??? And only the SB and BB can re-raise the 14K...???
I understand the last line about the blinds calling the 14K and the other players can not raise.
The final answer you gave is also a little confusing to me. You wrote: "there's no possibility of a player who has already acted going all-in for 20K, only the SB or BB could do it in this example. ??? Sorry, I'm getting lost here.
-
Would you say I am correct in my examples?
Looks like it.
The guy who went all-in for 14K has the button, if there are "a couple limpers for 14K" after him, they would have to be the SB and BB. ??? And only the SB and BB can re-raise the 14K...???
Pretty simple... only the SB and BB haven't acted and have their options open. No other player can re-raise the 14k. They can only re-raise if the bet to them is 20k or more.
The final answer you gave is also a little confusing to me. You wrote: "there's no possibility of a player who has already acted going all-in for 20K, only the SB or BB could do it in this example. ??? Sorry, I'm getting lost here.
In the example there are "a couple limpers for 14k" (which would have to be the SB and BB), "then the all-in for 20k". That can't happen if the SB and BB have just limped. Everyone else to their left has already acted and can only smooth call the 14k.
-
Mike,
For some reason I'm having a tough time sorting out your examples. I'll have to think this one out a little better and get back to you. I do have another question for you, which might help you understand why I'm not getting this!
When a player goes all-in, can another player go all-in for less than the required legal raise amount? Player A calls 10K BB, Player B goes all-in for 14K, Player C only has 18K...can he go all-in or must he only call the 14K and keep his 4K for another betting round?
I understand that, if he is allowed to go all-in for 18K, the min raise for the current round would now be 28K, correct?
-
I think you've missed one point in my post.
I was suggesting a slightly different hypothetical situation.
Here it is spelled out in detail:
A - SB, 5K
B - BB, 10K
C - fold
D - limp 10K
E - All In 14K
F - limp 14K
G - fold
H - All In 21K
I - Button, limp 21K
OK, maybe if I said 'Call' rather than 'limp', this would have been more obvious.
At any rate, In this situation, All early players, A, B or D can raise. However, if they either fold or call, F can only fold or call.
Obviously, no matter what else happened, the blinds have the option to re-raise.
While all limpers already had a chance to raise, even if the blinds only call, player D is facing a full raise, which opened the option to him to re-raise.
If it's still 21K when it gets to F, he is only facing a partial raise of his 14K call, so he isn't entitled to re-raise.
Bottom line, even if there were several partial raises, when action returns to a player, if the combined raise they have to call is less than one BB, then their only option is to call or fold.
-
When a player goes all-in, can another player go all-in for less than the required legal raise amount? Player A calls 10K BB, Player B goes all-in for 14K, Player C only has 18K...can he go all-in or must he only call the 14K and keep his 4K for another betting round?
Player C can absolutely go all-in for less than a full raise in this example because this is his first chance to act.
Look at a slightly different example where Player C wouldn't be allowed an all-in wager:
Player A calls 10K BB, Player B goes all-in for 14K, Player C (with a total of 18K in chips) pushes out 14K, Player D goes all-in for 16K, Player A calls the 16K.... Player B is already all-in for 14K, at this point Player C can only smooth call the 16K, he can't push all-in for 18K because he's already acted and he's not facing at least a full min-raise to him (which in this case would be 24K.
I understand that, if he is allowed to go all-in for 18K, the min raise for the current round would now be 28K, correct?
Yes.
-
BTW: For several years the most frequently asked questions about TDA Rules pertained to the exact topics of this thread: 1) What is the min raise to a player and 2) When is betting closed (and opened) for a player who has already acted.
These questions were so frequent that a special sticky thread was created at the top of this forum category:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=823.0
Min-raises and re-opening the bets are also the subject of numerous examples in the TDA Rules Illustration Addendum found at the back of all longform versions of the rules:
http://www.pokertda.com/poker-tda-rules/
The Illustration Addendum was adopted at the 2013 Summit and has gone a long way towards answering these important fundamental questions with real-world examples.
-
Dave ,
I appreciate the time you took to better explain the situation.
Mike,
Thanks for answering my question about the all-in slightly larger than a prior all-in. Correct me if I'm wrong but, on your statement that follows: Player A calls 10K BB, Player B goes all-in for 14K, Player C (with a total of 18K in chips) pushes out 14K, Player D goes all-in for 16K, Player A calls the 16K.... Player B is already all-in for 14K, at this point Player C can only smooth call the 16K, he can't push all-in for 18K because he's already acted and he's not facing at least a full min-raise to him (which in this case would be 24K.
Wouldn't the min raise be 26K...and not 24K?
-
Great question. At the time C last acted he bet 14k total. So the minimum total raise amount to reopen the bet for him is 24k. Since he's not facing a bet of at least 24k he can only call the 16k or fold.
-
Everybody:
I'm ready to cast my vote for all poker limits to use the simple rules that govern limit games! I'd even include a limit to the number of raises. When was the last time you saw more than 3 raises on a single betting round? It's so much easier to understand, and if you're fortunate enough to understand how the current no limit raise rules work, would you please send me a simplified explanation so I can explain it to my students... :D
-
I'm ready to cast my vote for all poker limits to use the simple rules that govern limit games! I'd even include a limit to the number of raises.
Then it wouldn't be a no-limit game.
if you're fortunate enough to understand how the current no limit raise rules work, would you please send me a simplified explanation so I can explain it to my students... :D
No problem, here are the explanations:
1: See Rule 43 "Raise Amounts" and Rule 44 "Re-Opening the Bet" here: http://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/
2: See "Illustration Addendum" on Rules 43 and 44 on pages 14-16 here: http://www.pokertda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Poker-TDA-Rules-2015-Version-1.0-full-longform-PDF-1.pdf The Addendum provides no less than 11 real-world illustrations in detail.
-
Mike,
Thanks for your response. The first answer you gave: "Then it wouldn't be a no limit game." To that I say" "When was the last time you saw more than three raises on a single betting round in no limit?"
I easily followed all of the examples in TDA #43 and #44 (although I've disputed the part about a player that has already acted).
In the Addendum #44 Reopening the bet makes little sense to me. A combination of short all-in bets are not added together, there must still be a 100% raise amount to re-open betting, correct? Blinds 5 & 10 UTG all-in for 14...next player all-in for 19....next player all-in for 11...would a player going all-in for 20 reopen the betting? Or must it be 29?
Looking back, this might be what Luke was looking for.
-
In the Addendum #44 Reopening the bet makes little sense to me. A combination of short all-in bets are not added together, there must still be a 100% raise amount to re-open betting, correct? Blinds 5 & 10 UTG all-in for 14...next player all-in for 19....next player all-in for 11...would a player going all-in for 20 reopen the betting? Or must it be 29?
Nick, you keep saying "I don't understand" but is it possible you haven't studied the rule? Thousands of people have and understand it, so I'm guessing you just need to study it a bit more and create sample situations so you can figure out whether betting is re-opened or not.
The bottom line is, that each player who has already acted must face at least a full raise to him in order for his raise option to re-open. You don't have to think beyond that. Whether I'm facing a full raise to me because one player made a full raise or whether a series of short all-in wagers totals a full raise, doesn't matter. BOTH of these situations open the betting to me:
NLHE, 5-10 blinds, I'm UTG and I call the 10... (so I've already acted)... the button raises by 10 to make it 20 total, when it comes back to me I'm facing at least a full minimum raise to me of 10 more, so I can raise without limit, my raising option is re-opened.
NLHE, 5-10 blinds, I'm UTG and I call the 10... (so I've already acted)... seat 5 pushes all-in for 11 total, seat 6 pushes all-in for 14 total, seat 7 pushes all-in for 18 total, and the button pushes out his last 20 for 20 total.... when it comes back to me I'm facing at least a full minimum raise to me of 10 more, so I can raise without limit, my raising option is re-opened. NOTE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION: No single player in this series made a full minimum raise, but the total of the short all-ins reaches a full raise (10 more to me) so my option to raise is re-opened. If the button had pushed all-in for 19, then it would not be a full raise to me, and I could only call.
Hope this helps, you just have to study the rule and I'm very sure you'll understand the idea.
-
In the Addendum #44 Reopening the bet makes little sense to me. A combination of short all-in bets are not added together, there must still be a 100% raise amount to re-open betting, correct? Blinds 5 & 10 UTG all-in for 14...next player all-in for 19....next player all-in for 11...would a player going all-in for 20 reopen the betting? Or must it be 29?
NLHE, 5-10 blinds, I'm UTG and I call the 10... (so I've already acted)... seat 5 pushes all-in for 11 total, seat 6 pushes all-in for 14 total, seat 7 pushes all-in for 18 total, and the button pushes out his last 20 for 20 total.... when it comes back to me I'm facing at least a full minimum raise to me of 10 more, so I can raise without limit, my raising option is re-opened.
NOTE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION: No single player in this series made a full minimum raise, but the total of the short all-ins reaches a full raise (10 more to me) so my option to raise is re-opened. If the button had pushed all-in for 19, then it would not be a full raise to me, and I could only call.
Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that it is possible that not every short all-in wager contributes to the amount raised. As in Nick's example, one of the players was all-in for less than the bet faced. So, it doesn't contribute to the amount raised - as it wasn't a raise.
Also, when we speak of the amount raised, it has two relative meanings:
1) the amount raised by the player who was facing a bet
2) the amount raised when returning to the player who had previously acted
So, in Mike's example, no single player made a minimum full raise over the bet faced. Yet, the button did indeed make a full minimum raise to the player who had previously called 10, when the button bet 20.
-
It should also be noted that there might be other players in between, that called the small raises. If the UTG does not exercise his option to reraise, that's it. The remaining callers are not facing a full raise, so they can only call or fold.
-
I have been debating this raise rule issue for 5 years. I've heard from numerous TD's and yet not one explanation has convinced me that the current rule is fine the way it is, and needs no change.
Mike Bishop has responded more than I can count and believe me, for that I am grateful. Without Mike's input there would be no Discussion Forum. He is the only member on the Board of Directors that responds whenever a question is asked.
The most recent debate will never be resolved until the Raise rule is written in such a way, that it can be understood by all.
there are numerous discussions that MikeB has listed on an earlier post that are worth another look.
Mike, you recently suggested that I possibly haven't studied the rule. On the contrary, I have studied, examined, and evaluated it and this is what I see: A raise rule (#44) that contradicts the No limit raise rule #43. The first sentence reads: A: A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round. Yet in no limit, we are told that a short all-in will alter that amount, i.e. On the turn, UTG bets 10, next Player goes all-in for 14...at this point the necessary amount required to raise is 10 more or a total of 24.
In all of the examples given, an all-in player betting 20 is accepted as a qualifying action that would reopen the betting to the UTG...correct? If all of your examples are correct, we should consider listing an exception to our rule. Whenever there are multiple all-in players on a given betting round, any short all-in that at least doubles the original bet amount is sufficient to reopen the betting to the original bettor, even though it is less than the required amount necessary if there were no all-in.
The Addendum Rule #44 Re-Opening the Betting Example 1 Series of short all-in wagers that add up to a full raise and thus reopen the betting. This gives the impression that multiple short all-ins are added together until the double the bet is reached...this is false. In order to reopen the betting at least one of the all-in players must have enough to double the biggest bet.
I believe I understand what the TDA is trying to say. Not only do I question why we should allow a short raise to reopen the betting, but I question how we are supposed to understand this rule when it is written incorrectly.
If I'm correct, it is NOT a series of short all-in's that add up to a full raise.
-
Hi Nick: After reading your last post above it's obvious you have a few misunderstandings about the TDA rules. Your misunderstandings include:
1: In order to re-open the betting to Player A who has already acted, some single player must make a full minimum raise before the bet returns to Player A. This is not true. What is true is that when the bet returns to Player A, the total of the bet must total at least a full minimum raise. Please stop and fully grasp that before continuing. The examples I'll provide in a moment hopefully will be the simplest possible.
2: The "exception" to the rule that you suggest is already in the rule. No additional language is needed. The rule unambiguously states: "...an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing at least a full raise when the action returns to him". The bottom line is what bet amount you are facing when the action returns to you. Again, please stop and contemplate that. If you are facing what amounts to a full raise above your prior action, then you can re-raise, if you're facing "less than a full raise" then you can only call or fold.
Here is the real-world example that should clarify everything for you in very simple clear terms:
NLHE 5-10, with eight players, SB / BB are in seats 1 and 2.
Seat 3: calls 10. So the bet to seat 8 was 10, and he will have to face at least a full raise when the action returns to him... i.e. the bet will have to be 20 for him to re-raise.
Seat 4: calls 10. Ditto, he will have to face a bet of at least 20 to re-raise.
Seat 5: makes it 40 total. So he has raised by 30, and thus he will have to face a total bet of at least 70 to be able to re-raise. If he faces a bet of 69 or less when action returns to him, he can only call or fold.
Seat 6: calls the 40. Ditto, he will have to face a bet of at least 70 to re-raise.
Seat 7: makes it 100 total. So he has raised by 60. Thus he will have to face a total bet of at least 160 when the action returns to him to be able to re-raise.
Seat 8: calls the 100.
*********************************
At this point, please understand: For every one of these players, it doesn't matter how the bet gets to their "trigger" value to re-open for them. Whether A) a single player makes the full minimum raise for that player OR B) there is a series of short all-in wagers that reach that total minimum. It does not matter. Just as the rule states, if they are facing a full minimum raise (for them), they can raise, otherwise they can only call or fold. You're the only person who has trouble with that concept, so just study it, you will get it. Nobody can put this concept in your repertoire but you. We can give example after example, you just have to contemplate it. But be assured, it's in the rule and in the addendum illustrations.
*********************************
Now, back to our example.
Seat 1 and 2 (SB and BB). Betting is open because they have not yet acted on their options.
For Seats 3 to 6, betting is open because they are all facing at least 100 total. That's more than the 20 total needed for seats 3 and 4, and more than the 70 total needed to re-open seats 5 and 6.
For Seats 7 and 8: Betting is not yet open, because no single player (or no series of short all-ins) has yet reached 160, the minimum amount needed to re-open for them.
*********************************
NOW, the minimum raise amount is currently 60 (Seat 7's raise from 40 to 100). Let's continue the betting:
Seat 1: calls 100. Unless somebody (or a series of short all-ins) makes it 160 total, he's finished re-raising for this round.
Seat 2: calls 100. Ditto.
Seat 3: pushes all-in for 80.
Seat 4: pushes all-in for 120 (this is a short all-in wager because he's only increased the bet by 20 from 100 to 120. He hasn't made a full minimum raise of 60).
Seat 5: Calls the 120 total. For this player the bet must be at least 180 total when it returns to him, otherwise he cannot re-raise.
Seat 6: pushes all-in for 160 (this is a short all-in wager because he's only increased the bet by 40 from 120 to 160. He hasn't made a full minimum raise of 60).
Seat 7: It's 160 to him. NOTICE, no single player made a full minimum raise to this player, but he's still facing a full minimum raise because of the short all-ins. Action is now open for this player and he can re-raise according to Rule 44. Please stop and study this. . Seat 7 calls.
Seat 8: Ditto, calls the 160 total.
***************************************
NOW, at this point:
Seats 1 and 2: all options open because they both face a full minimum raise of 60 (for 160 total), even though that was reached with a series of short all-ins.
Seat 3: all in
Seats 4 and 5: Can only call unless Seat 1 or 2 makes it at least 220 (by a re-raise) or at least 180 by a short all-in
Seat 6: all in
Seat 7 and 8: Can only call unless it's at least 220 when the action returns to them.
*********************************************
To re-visit your post: NickC said:
"The Addendum Rule #44 Re-Opening the Betting Example 1 Series of short all-in wagers that add up to a full raise and thus reopen the betting. This gives the impression that multiple short all-ins are added together until the double the bet is reached...this is false." Wrong, it's true.
NickC said: "In order to reopen the betting at least one of the all-in players must have enough to double the biggest bet." Again, wrong. Re-read the rule and you'll find the rule is about the amount the player who has already acted is now facing. It's not about the amount of each short all-in.
Hopefully this gives you enough material to contemplate the rule and arrive at an understanding of it.
-
I've added this thread to the sticky thread on minimum raise and re-opening the bet questions here: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=823.0
Also started a thread on whether a language edit to Rule 44 is needed, here: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1292.0
Keep in mind this is one of those rules that no matter how you write it, examples are needed in the Illustration Addendum.
-
Mike,
I thank you for all of the time you have dedicated to my questions about raises for no limit. I don't know how much time it will take, but I'll attempt to digest what you wrote and get back to you. Too much for me to tackle right now.
-
Mike,
Still wracking my brain over this one...sorry. Now I understand why, in France, they require a "double" the bet your facing in order to raise! ;D
-
Mike,
I sent you a message a few days ago and I'm guessing that you gave up on me ever understanding the raise rule for no limit. I'll quote what you wrote (in obvious frustration) on your last reply to me: You're the only person who has trouble with that concept, so just study it, you will get it. Nobody can put this concept in your repertoire but you. We can give example after example, you just have to contemplate it. But be assured, it's in the rule and in the addendum illustrations.
Now, I've been known to make a wager now and then and I'm prepared to empty my bank account on this one. I'll wager out of the thousands that you claim understand TDA Rule's 43 & 44 there are 10 thousand that don't...and that includes floor persons and tournament directors.
5 & 10 Blinds...on the turn UTG (seat 3) calls 10 (in order for him to raise he must be facing a raise that totals 20)...next player (seat 4) goes all-in for 14...next player(seat 5) calls 14 (in order for him to raise the bet must be 24 when it returns to him) next player (seat 6) raises to a total of 50 while facing a 14 bet so in order for him to re-raise the bet must be 86 total before he can reopen...is that correct?
-
Now, I've been known to make a wager now and then and I'm prepared to empty my bank account on this one. I'll wager out of the thousands that you claim understand TDA Rule's 43 & 44 there are 10 thousand that don't...and that includes floor persons and tournament directors.
Keep in mind that TDA Rules on min-raising and re-opening the bet are no different than Roberts Rules:
RRoP General Rules
3. In no-limit and pot-limit games, unlimited raising is allowed.
6. Any wager not all-in must be at least the size of the previous bet or raise in that round.
7. ....Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to individually qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.
RRoP No-Limit Rules:
3. All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise.
4. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.
5. “Completing the bet” is a limit poker wager type only, and not used at big-bet poker.
SO, when you refer to "TDA Rules", you are also referring to Roberts Rules... there is zero difference.
These are the RULES OF RAISING IN POKER.
You are correct in saying that a fair number of people, especially newbies, have a difficult time at first grasping how these rules work... The TDA historically has received more questions regarding min-raises and re-opening the bet than any other subjects... HENCE the sticky thread on the subject AND the Illustration Addendum in the TDA Rules.
5 & 10 Blinds...on the turn UTG (seat 3) calls 10 (in order for him to raise he must be facing a raise that totals 20)...next player (seat 4) goes all-in for 14...next player(seat 5) calls 14 (in order for him to raise the bet must be 24 when it returns to him) next player (seat 6) raises to a total of 50 while facing a 14 bet so in order for him to re-raise the bet must be 86 total before he can reopen...is that correct?
You got it! Like any other sport, you're not going to learn overnight the rules of football or basketball or you-name-it. It does take some effort. Congratulations!
-
Mike,
I thank you for confirming that I now understand what re-opens the betting in no limit. However, I still don't believe that is what RRoP is saying.
Same scenario that we've been discussing: Blinds 5 & 10 on the turn...UTG bets 10, next player goes all-in for 14, next player calls...when the action returns to the initial bettor (UTG) he can only call unless another all-in raises to 24 not 20. This is where we have disagreed on all prior discussions. This also fits the raise rules from RRoP.
Why would we allow a player that has already acted, the second opportunity to go all-in? Or raise a possible single player, that is not all-in?
Please understand, that I understand what you say the rule means, but I don't agree.
-
Mike,
I thank you for confirming that I now understand what re-opens the betting in no limit. However, I still don't believe that is what RRoP is saying.
It is the RRoP rule... re-read it here:
4. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.
Clearly, a series of short all-ins will re-open the betting if the accumulated amount equals a full raise back to the player who has already acted. This is the RRoP Rule, it's the TDA Rule... it is really a "universal" rule of betting and raising.
Same scenario that we've been discussing: Blinds 5 & 10 on the turn...UTG bets 10, next player goes all-in for 14, next player calls...when the action returns to the initial bettor (UTG) he can only call unless another all-in raises to 24 not 20. This is where we have disagreed on all prior discussions. This also fits the raise rules from RRoP.
No, your example does not fit the raise rule of RRoP, which I've posted above... the multiple short all-ins just have to cumulatively equal a raise back to the player who's already acted. In your example the UTG opened for 10, so the bet has to be at least 20 when it returns to him in order to re-open betting for him.... not 24. If a series of short all-ins cumulatively totals 20 the UTG can re-raise.
Why would we allow a player that has already acted, the second opportunity to go all-in? Or raise a possible single player, that is not all-in?
Well, first because that's the rule, but the reason it's the rule is that the player is now facing a full raise so he can re-raise. Why would we require him to just call an amount that equals a full raise but not allow him to re-raise?
On the other hand we "protect" his live opponents with chips by not allowing him to re-raise if he's facing an amount less than a full raise.
-
Mike,
Thanks again for your response. If I can go over this with you (one more time), I think we might understand why there is confusion with the raise rules for no limit. I know , you are not confused, but many are.
RRoP
4. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise. To this I wrote: The Addendum Rule #44 Re-Opening the Betting Example 1 Series of short all-in wagers that add up to a full raise and thus reopen the betting. This gives the impression that multiple short all-ins are added together until the double the bet is reached...this is false. In order to reopen the betting at least one of the all-in players must have enough to double the biggest bet. You said this was incorrect.
Take our original situation: Blinds 5 & 10 on the turn...UTG bets 10, next player all-in for 20...of course this would reopen the betting when the action returns to the UTG. However, placing this all-in player in a different position where intervening players are also all-in (but for lesser amounts) does not comply with what is defined as a, proper raise. Same situation but after the UTG bets 10, the next player goes all-in for 14, followed by a call and then followed by a 20 all-in. The proper min raise should be 24 but we allow the all-in to re-open the betting because he doubled the original bet. This is what you are saying, correct? If this is correct then my statement highlighted in red is correct.
How can the betting be re-opened (even in your example) by multiple all-in's if at least one all-in player does not bet 20? This is what is wrong with the rule the way it is currently written.
In no limit and pot limit, a raise must be at least the size of the largest bet or largest raise amount of the current betting round. If a player initiates a bet of 10 the next minimum raise must be at least 10 more. If the opening bet is followed by a (action only) short all-in. i.e. Bet 10 all-in for 14...the min raise is now elevated to 24. The exception to this rule is: when a player goes all-in with less than the required amount, he may still re-open the betting to the initial legal bettor if his all-in at least doubles that amount.
Like I said before, I understand what you are saying but I strongly disagree with the verbiage, and I disagree with the idea of a short bet re-opening in this case. I also don't believe this is the intent of Roberts Rules.
-
SB $10, BB $20, UTG calls $20.
UTG+1 wagers an additional $4 all-in for $24
UTG+2 wagers an additional $7 all-in for $31
SB folds, BB folds, action returns to UTG.
Nick, with which of the following statements do you agree or disagree?
1) UTG+1 did not make a full raise.
2) UTG+2 did not make a full raise.
3) UTG is facing a full raise.
Regards,
B~
-
Bill,
I have no idea where you are going with this but #1 No, he did not make a full raise...#2 No, he did not make a full raise, either. Therefore #3 UTG is certainly not facing a full raise, but must call 11 more to compete for the pot.
-
Nick, that's great. We agree. How would your answers change if:
SB $10, BB $20, UTG calls $20.
UTG+1 wagers an additional $14 all-in for $34
UTG+2 wagers an additional $7 all-in for $41
SB folds, BB folds, action returns to UTG.
Do you agree with:
1) UTG+1 did not make a full raise.
2) UTG+2 did not make a full raise.
3) UTG is facing a full raise.
Regards,
B~
-
Bill,
#1 UTG+1 did not make a full raise....
#2 UTG +2 did not make a full raise...
#3 UTG is facing an option to call or fold only because he is facing two all-in players!
Your next point, please.
-
RRoP
4. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.
To this I wrote: The Addendum Rule #44 Re-Opening the Betting Example 1 Series of short all-in wagers that add up to a full raise and thus reopen the betting. This gives the impression that multiple short all-ins are added together until the double the bet is reached...this is false. In order to reopen the betting at least one of the all-in players must have enough to double the biggest bet. You said this was incorrect.
Like I said before, I understand what you are saying but I strongly disagree with the verbiage, and I disagree with the idea of a short bet re-opening in this case. I also don't believe this is the intent of Roberts Rules.
Why try and parse the intent when the language is unmistakable? "Multiple all-in wagers each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise still act as a raise and re-open the betting..." That language is crystal clear and needs no digging to find it's true intent. It means what it says.
BOTTOM LINE: A opens for $10, it has to be 20 or more when it gets back to him to re-raise. It does not matter how the betting gets to 20... don't think beyond that. You are overthinking here.
BOTTOM LINE: A opens for $10, B raises to 30 total. It has to be 20 or more for A to re-raise and 50 or more for B to re-raise when the action returns to them.... don't think beyond that. It doesn't matter how those amounts are reached... either by a single raise or by "multiple all-in wagers each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise"... either way the betting just has to reach those values.
-
Bill,
#1 UTG+1 did not make a full raise....
#2 UTG +2 did not make a full raise...
#3 UTG is facing an option to call or fold only because he is facing two all-in players!
Your next point, please.
Allow me to add another live player to Bill's illustration so the UTG is facing a live player
SB $10, BB $20, UTG calls $20.
UTG+1 wagers an additional $14 all-in for $34
UTG+2 wagers an additional $7 all-in for $41
Button (who has chips) calls the $41
SB folds, BB folds, action returns to UTG.
Do you agree with:
1) UTG+1 did not make a full raise.
2) UTG+2 did not make a full raise.
3) UTG is facing a full raise.
Your answers now that UTG is facing a live player with chips?
-
Thanks Mike.
-
My answer is: Not facing a full raise (action only) because a full raise would have been 54 if there were no all-in. Yet I understand that according to the TDA rules a raise is allowed by UTG because you allow a short all-in to re-open the betting.
What you are not comprehending is the fact that in every single example you have given, you insist on saying it makes no difference how the (double the bet) gets there, as long as it happens! And I'm telling you it's impossible without a single individual short all-in reaching that number...impossible! It is not the sum of the all-in's...it must involve a single short raise that would support your raise rule if no other all-in's were involved.
You keep asking me to think this out...will you please think out what I've written? I'm not trying to be difficult, only understand the rules.
-
Nick, look at it from the perspective of the player.
I'm the UTG, and I call $10.
Several players call and/or go all in. When the action returns to me, it's $27 to call.
Do I really care HOW it got to $27?
All I care about is, if it's $20 or more to call, as long as there's someone left who isn't all-in, I have the option to re-raise.
The reason this is so confusing is two-fold:
1: It's very rare to have multiple small all-in raises.
2: The tournament strategy to check it down when someone is all-in.
Therefore, if someone raises when there's an all-in, people freak out.
-
My answer is: Not facing a full raise (action only) because a full raise would have been 54 if there were no all-in. Yet I understand that according to the TDA rules a raise is allowed by UTG because you allow a short all-in to re-open the betting.
The UTG is facing a bet of $41 which is a full raise of $21 over his previous called amount of $20.
What you are not comprehending is the fact that in every single example you have given, you insist on saying it makes no difference how the (double the bet) gets there, as long as it happens! And I'm telling you it's impossible without a single individual short all-in reaching that number...impossible!
Nick, you say it is impossible without a single individual short all-in reaching that number. A single individual short all-in that reaches the number is BY DEFINITION NOT A SHORT ALL-IN as it would be a full raise by itself.
It is not the sum of the all-in's...
It is the sum of the short all-in RAISED AMOUNTS. In our example, UTG+1 raised by $14 over the $20 call and UTG+2 raised by $7 over the $34 call. The sum of those multiple short all-in RAISED AMOUNTS ($7 + $14) is $21. That $21 is a full raise amount to the UTG who called $20 and is now facing the bet of $41.
Regards,
B~
-
Bill,
In your last example, did one player go all-in for 41? Yes he did...I rest my case.
-
Bill,
In your last example, did one player go all-in for 41? Yes he did...I rest my case.
Nick, but that one player did so as a short all-in that followed another short all-in. Thus, multiple short all-ins got us there. If the one player who was all-in for $41 acted alone then he would not be short.
RRoP
Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.
-
Let's take Dave's approach of examining it from a player's perspective. In this case, let's say that the button who made the call of $41 says:
"The UTG cannot raise because nobody made a full raise."
His statement would be PARTLY correct in that neither UTG+1, UTG+2, or the button made a full raise. However, as we know, there is no requirement that the "full raise" must be made by an individual player. Multiple player short all-in wagers can contribute to the full raise amount.
So, the floor is called and the button says:
"UTG+1 only raised $14 not $20." --- true
"UTG+2 only raise $7 not $20." --- true
"I only called, I didn't raise at all." --- true
"Nobody made a $20 raise." --- true
"The UTG cannot raise." --- FALSE!!!
-
Please take a look at my post from 2010. It might help you understand my frustration over this raise rule:
Nick C
TDA Member & Veteran Poster
***
Posts: 2703
View Profile http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile Email Personal Message (Online)
Re: Question about rules #29 and 31
« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2010, 02:15:37 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Chet, Stuart and anyone else out there that is having issues with the raise rule.
POT-LIMIT
Consider this: Pot-limit is the only poker game that could dictate a different maximum bet or raise to every player on every betting round.
The number of bets combined with varied amounts alter the allowable wager, even when the bets are equal. Example; Pot size $100
Player A bets $50, Player B calls $50, Player C calls $50, Player D calls $50, etc. With each call the maximum bet and raise option changes
to each new bettor. This makes the undersized bets and raises of all-in players a relevant part of the allowable bets, because it alters the size of the pot. I would accept this as a very logical and understandable ruling for pot-limit.
Example; The accumulation of wagers including those of multiple all-in players with differing amounts will be considered when compiling a full raise amount for that round of betting.
NO-LIMIT
Unlike pot-limit: Example; blinds 10/20, pot size (irrelevant) Player A bets $50, player B calls $50 player C calls $50 and player D calls $50 etc.
The number of players should not dictate any change in options to players that follow on that round of betting, unless a full raise is made.
Any undersized bet by an all-in player shall be recognized as action only . Any undersized raise can never reopen a re-raise to the player that initiated the first full bet for that round of betting. Any player that checked prior to a full bet followed by an all-in raise, or a full raise by an intervening player will have every option, including a re-raise.
I think we need to separate the two
-
Please take a look at my post from 2010. It might help you understand my frustration over this raise rule:
--- cut ----
Unlike pot-limit: Example; blinds 10/20, pot size (irrelevant) Player A bets $50, player B calls $50 player C calls $50 and player D calls $50 etc.
The number of players should not dictate any change in options to players that follow on that round of betting, unless a full raise is made.
Any undersized bet by an all-in player shall be recognized as action only . Any undersized raise can never reopen a re-raise to the player that initiated the first full bet for that round of betting. Any player that checked prior to a full bet followed by an all-in raise, or a full raise by an intervening player will have every option, including a re-raise.
I think we need to separate the two
Nick, you have made clear your frustration with the rule consistently for quite some time. Of course, the rule in RRoP and TDA has existed for at least 12 years. As Mike has said, it is the most popular topic of contention.
-
Bill,
I will Quote what you wrote and try to explain my point...again.
"His statement would be PARTLY correct in that neither UTG+1, UTG+2, or the button made a full raise. However, as we know, there is no requirement that the "full raise" must be made by an individual player. Multiple player short all-in wagers can contribute to the full raise amount."
So, the floor is called and the button says:
"UTG+1 only raised $14 not $20." --- true (short all-in, action only)
"UTG+2 only raise $7 not $20." --- true (false...this is a short all-in action only of 21 more)
"I only called, I didn't raise at all." --- true
"Nobody made a $20 raise." --- true
"The UTG cannot raise." --- FALSE!!!
Let's switch the UTG+1 and UTG+2...UTG+1 goes all-in for 41...UTG goes all-in for 34...of course the UTG+1 reopens (provided there are other callers that are not all-in). The point is, one of the players must double the largest bet of the biggest valid wager!
That's all I'm trying to explain. I don't agree with it but I understand what the TDA wants us to use. Multiple players are irrelevant...a short all-in is not raising another short all-in. UTG bets 10 UTG+! goes all-in for 11...UTG+2 goes all-in for 12...he didn't raise UTG+1 a dollar, he made a short all-in action only increase of two dollars on a 10 dollar wager!!! :D That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
I have much more to support what I believe.
Why no one will admit that a single player, at some point, must push his all-in amount that at least doubles the original bet...well, it blows my mind! ::)
Please tell me you understand what I'm saying...somebody, anybody.
-
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
I have much more to support what I believe.
Why no one will admit that a single player, at some point, must push his all-in amount that at least doubles the original bet...well, it blows my mind! ::)
Please tell me you understand what I'm saying...somebody, anybody.
Nick: Thanks for putting alot of work into these illustrations.
Now, we need to get back to the purpose of this forum: which is to convey the correct interpretation of the current TDA Rules.
It's fine to make suggestions as to changes people would like to see, but our main purpose is to help understand the rules as they are and how they apply to certain situations.
On this topic, the fact is that for the betting to be re-opened for a player who has already acted, the only thing that matters is that the raise amount he is facing equals or exceeds the amount of a full minimum raise to him. It does not matter how that amount was reached, whether by one player making the raise or a series of multiple all-in wagers each in itself too small to constitute a raise. Thinking beyond that just gets you into trouble.
Player A opens for $10, the bet must be 20 or more for him to re-raise. Doesn't matter how the betting gets to 20.
Player A opens for 10 then B raises to 30 total, the bet must be 20 or more total for A to re-raise, and 50 or more total for B to re-raise. Again, doesn't matter how the bet gets to those amounts. Don't think beyond that or you will just get confused.
For the purpose of training a dealer that's about as simple as it can be. And way back on an earlier page of this thread you asked for a simple explanation in order to train dealers. There you have it.
That is the rule, and clarifying TDA Rules is a huge part of this forum.
Now, you have made it abundantly clear that you believe the rule is something different, or should be something different, and/or that the current rule "blows your mind". Well, you have registered your disagreement. But we have to focus on what the rule is so that people are not confused. Hopefully the rule is clear, and your beliefs are also clear. There's not much to be gained by continuing this thread IMO. Have all needed points been made?
-
Mike,
I have the utmost respect for your thankless position, I really do. I also know what the purpose of the TDA is and that is why I have participated through the years. However, when it comes to the TDA raise rules I would be depriving my students of a logical, sensible unexplainable answer to what should be a simple question.
No limit & Pot limit raising and re-opening the betting are the most confusing subjects, as you have also stated, that have ever been discussed on this Forum. There are well over 100,000 views on just a few of the old posts on this subject.
What I do understand about the TDA raise rules for no limit:
post flop...UTG bets 10 UTG+1 goes all-in for 14...UTG+2 calls 14...the next player must raise to a minimum of 24...unless he is all-in. If he is all-in with less than the required, (valid, legal, proper etc) amount, his bet will still re-open the betting to the UTG as long as it is 20! (Is it then illegal?)
You are correct about there not being any sense in you continuing this thread, you have tirelessly tried to convince me that no change in TDA 43 or 44 is necessary. I hope you don't mind if I continue to try and get a response from a few different members.
I'd really like to talk with Bob Ciaffone
.4. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise. Example: Player A bets $100 and Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn’t fully raised. (Player A could have raised, because Player B raised.) Part of this was omitted on a prior post. I see no mention of our topic here.
-
--- much deleted ---
Please tell me you understand what I'm saying...somebody, anybody.
--- much deleted ----
That is the rule, and clarifying TDA Rules is a huge part of this forum.
Nick, I understand what you are saying. Mike, perhaps there is clarification that can be made in 2017.
Nick is noting that the example provided in RRoP v11 allows Player A to raise because Player B raises. It doesn't allow a player who already acted to reopen the bet by virtue of multiple short all-in wagers.
RRoP v11
4. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise. Example: Player A bets $100 and Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn’t fully raised. (Player A could have raised, because Player B raised.)
Again to Nicks point:
In the TDA Rules of 2015, the wording in the rule does not make it clear that multiple short all-ins can result in a raise. One could read this as:
- a short all-in doesn't reopen betting
- a full raise is needed to reopen betting
TDA Rules 2015
44: Re-Opening the Bet.
In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing at least a full raise when the action returns to him. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum.
The point of contention here only becomes clear when we read the Addendum.
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. Since 100 is a full raise, the betting is re-opened for A who can fold, call, or raise here. 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”.
I recommend that the wording of the rule in 2017 be altered so that it includes the first sentence of RRoP and includes an example that makes it clear as in the case of Rule 44 Example 1 of TDA 2015.
-
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.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)Since 100 is a full raise (without an all-in (at this point, it is not), 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.) 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.)
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.
-
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~
-
Bill and anyone else out there that doesn't want to hear any more from me on this subject can skip this post. I'm going to give one more explanation:
No limit Blinds 5 & 10 eight handed, post flop. UTG bets 10 UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 goes all-in for 19, next player goes all-in for 20...now according to you and the TDA, the 1dollar (raise) re-opens the betting to the UTG even though he can't stand a raise himself! Ridiculous!
Your sitting in a game and the action begins in front of you with a bet of 10, the next player calls, the next player goes all-in for 14, you call...the next player goes all-in for 19, the next player goes all-in for 20. The action comes around to the original bettor and he raise to 3000 because (according to our rules) the one dollar increase re-opened the betting. Correct? Please let me know if I'm explaining this correctly.
I'm more disappointed in every response that refuses to confirm the facts that I've stated: A player bets 100 and the next player goes all-in for 125...the required raise from any player not all-in would be 100 more or 225 total. Yes or No?
Any way you say it the fact remains that on any given round involving all-in players, in order to re-open the betting to a player that initiated the 10 original bet, one (at least one) must have at least 20 when he goes all-in. Yes or No?
While we're at it, let's take another look at #44 In no limit and pot limit an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to a player that has already acted....?????
-
I think it should be pointed out that the minimum amount that a player with chips has to bet for it to be a legitimate raise, has nothing to do with whether or not a player that has already acted has the option to re-raise when the action returns to him.
-
Dave,
For some reason you don't want to answer a couple of simple questions. Besides, your last post makes no sense at all. Look at it this way, what else would you rather do with your time. You have to admit, you must feel a "rush" when you go to the Discussion Form and see that Nick C has a post you haven't seen! ;D
Have a nice evening. :)
-
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.
Just to clarify the disinformation as it pops up:
200 is a full legal raise to player A. A opened originally for 100, so if the bet is 200 back to him (by whatever means), he can re-raise.
If A wants to re-raise he will have to make it at least 300 total.
**************************************************************
NOW, since Player C smooth called the 125 all-in, the minimum raise amount to re-open for Player C is 225. If A just smooth calls the 200 and makes it 200 to Player C, then Player C can only call the 200 because there's not been a full legal raise to Player C of 225 total.
Again, the TDA Rule in conjunction with the Illustration Addendum help develop a full understanding of the min-raising and re-opening the bet rules. You just have to study them.
-
The rule says:
...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”.
Could it be something like:
... “a player who is facing at least the amount of chips which would have been a full raise to his original bet/raise when the action returns”.
-
I have read through this whole thread and I'm pretty sure I understand the rule in question. Would it be simpler to explain it this way:
A player may only raise when the action is on that player for the first time in the betting round OR the action they are facing is a bet equal to or greater than the chips they have already bet in the current betting round [might need to be worded differently to make it clear that "action they are facing" is referring to additional chips on top of what they have already put in]. i.e. if a player has already put 10 chips in earlier in the same betting round and the bet they are facing is 20 or more, they may call, raise, or fold. If the bet they are facing is 19 or less, they may call or fold.
Just my two cents. I believe I understand the rule anyways, but for those who are confused by it, this might be helpful. I always tell players who don't understand the rule to ignore everything that has happened and just look at the bet the player is facing. If a call means at least doubling what they already have bet, they can raise. If it's less than double, they can only call/fold.
PS This is my first post. I hope to become involved in these discussions. I'm not in the business. I run my own home tournaments but have never worked for an actual poker room/casino. I am, however, very interested in the rules and procedures of running poker games/tournaments.
-
Steffo111,
Your language is an improvement, in my opinion. Consider what you wrote and then take a look at my example. Blinds 5 & 10 post flop Adam bets 10... Bill calls 10...Chet raises to 25...Donnie goes all-in for 14...Eleanor calls 25...Frank goes all-in for 29. George makes the min raise to 44...anyone disagree? The point I will try to make is the action from the short all-in players is irrelevant. they are not added together, only the raise from Chet, (in my example below) reopens the betting.
Let's go back and look at each individual and see who can raise, who can not, and how much the min raise would be to each.
Adam of course can raise all of his chips but the min raise would be 15 more (44+15=59)...Adam calls the 44.
Bill would have the same option if Adam folded or he may call or raise another 15 on top of the 44 he is facing...Bill folds.
Chet, (the original raiser) can fold, call 44, or raise any amount with at least a 15 increase. Chet calls 44.
Donnie is all-in for the main pot with 14. (main pot 94).
Eleanor can fold, call, or raise any amount with a minimum of 15 more. She calls 44.
Frank is all-in for 29 which includes the main pot (94) plus the first side pot of 75...169 total.
George can not raise because no player re-raised.
With two all-in players in for different amounts there will be three pots to decide:
The Main (pot A) 94 total...(pot B) 75...and (pot C) 60. Adam, Chet, Eleanor and George are in for all pots (total 229). Any additional betting on another street will be decided among the four remaining players.
-
Steffo111,
Your language is an improvement, in my opinion. Consider what you wrote and then take a look at my example. Blinds 5 & 10 post flop Adam bets 10... Bill calls 10...Chet raises to 25...Donnie goes all-in for 14...Eleanor calls 25...Frank goes all-in for 29. George makes the min raise to 44...anyone disagree? The point I will try to make is the action from the short all-in players is irrelevant. they are not added together, only the raise from Chet, (in my example below) reopens the betting.
Okay, we're now on page 5 of this thread... example after example...
Hopefully everyone has had their say...
NOW it's time to wrap this up, by getting back to the FUNDAMENTALS of the TDA Rule, because that's what this forum is about...
The TDA RULES on minimum raises are crystal clear:
Rule 43: A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round.
NLHE, 5-10 Blinds, on the turn Player A opens for 25. That's the "largest bet of this round".
Player B calls 25,
Player C wants to raise, and has to make it at least 50 total... Player C makes it 50 total, a min raise. The raise of 25 is still "the largest bet or raise of the round"
Player D raises to 125 total which is a raise amount of 75 over the prior total bet of 50. SO, the "largest raise of the round" is now 75...
Player E smooth calls 125
Player F wants to raise, he has to raise by at least 75, and he does so, makes it 200.
Player G re-raises to 450 total, a raise of 250. So now 250 is the "largest raise of the round". The next player who wants to raise has to "raise at least equal to the largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round",
Player H: Can either call the 450, or raise at least 250 more for total of 700.
And so on... crystal clear. And if you need any further illustration, see the Poker TDA Illustration Addendum on page 14 and 15 here: http://www.pokertda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Poker-TDA-Rules-2015-Version-1.0-full-longform-PDF-1.pdf
Rule 44: Re-Opening the Bet.
The very bottom line, is that for a player who has already acted they must be "facing a full raise" when the action returns to them. The shorthand is "facing a full raise"... as dealers and TDs you need to study and find out exactly what is meant by "facing a full raise" or per RRoP "a full size wager". Once you learn what is meant by that, you will always know to apply it.
Read TDA Illustration Example 44-1, page 15 "a series of short all-in wagers add to a full raise and re-open the betting". This is exactly, unmistakably, consistent with Roberts Rules language: "Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise."
Read Example 44-2A, page 16: a single short all-in wager of 7500 that does not re-open betting for Player A who has already acted by calling a 4000 initial bet. Player A is not facing "a full raise" which would be 8000 total, so A can only call.
Read Example 44-2B: where there is a bet by the BB on top of the 7500, and that does re-open betting for Player A because he's now facing more than 8000.
In Example 44-1 the full raise was reached only by adding up short all-in wagers.
In Example 44-2A the full raise was not reached by a single short all-in wager
In Example 44-2B the full raise was reached by a combination of short all-in wager and a full min raise.
BOTTOM LINE: It doesn't matter how you get to the min-raise amount, as long as a player is "facing a full raise" action is re-opened. If not, the player can only call or fold.
NOW, perhaps the language of the Rules can be tweaked, but experience shows that NO MATTER WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS, Illustrations are needed. Period. And once you have reviewed the examples, you know the intent of the rule, so the shorter the rule language the better. We will go through this thread and mine out the proposed language changes. However, there should be zero confusion about the rule itself... a series of short all-ins will re-open the betting if they total a full raise to a player who has already acted.
Thanks for all contributions, we will close and archive this thread.