PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2013 Summit => Topic started by: Nick C on December 22, 2011, 07:19:08 AM
-
One of the more controversial, disputatious rules is TDA #37. Raises: 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.
My suggestion is a simple fix...remove the word RAISE and replace it with AMOUNT.
In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full amount does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.
It clearly needs something. Does anyone agree?
-
No.
-
Wow! I can always count on you for another intelligent answer. Your capacity for thought and knowledge in all of your answers on this forum remains the same...worthless!
-
Nick:
I can see more problems with "Full Amount" than I do with "Full Raise". Any of us should be able to figure out what is necessary for a "Full Raise", ie., generally twice the size of the bet or raise that player is facing.
How do you define "Full Amount"? Full Amount of what? I can argue that it can be defined as an amount equal to the Small Blind OR an amount equal to the Big Blind OR an amount equal to all the chips in that players stack OR on and on and on. You obviously have some definition in mind for that term, it might help if you shared that.
I really don't think that for most of us the problem is with the term "Full Raise", I know it isn't for me. I have a more difficult time defining the term "already acted" and trying to explain that to the players.
By the way, your pissing match with DCJ001 is getting a little old, at least for me. You asked if anyone agreed, he obviously did not and stated so clearly and simply as he could without any personal commentary. Keep on if you like, it is certainly your right, but consider that you may be offending more people than not.
Enough of my soap box.
Chet
-
Chet,
I bring a serious issue back to the table, that you agree needs work, and you tell me to lay-off DCJ001. Why don't we do something constructive and see if we can make it better. If you think it's okay the way it is, why were so many members wrong when it was the most debated subject in the history of the forum?
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=515.0
To answer your question, conditions that must be met for the all-in bet to be a full amount is the size of the BB if initiating a bet, or the full amount (the minimum raise requirement) of the biggest bet of that round (100%).
-
Sorry Nick, I disagree as well. "Amount" seems too vague for me. Unfortunately I don't have a better option but "Amount" doesn't work for me. The rule does need work and consensus. I think we are progressing though.
-
Thanks Spence,
Let's not drop the ball on this one.
-
Well, this one is certainly straight out of my latest soap box so I will try and help you out.
I fully agree with Chet on this one, the troublesome part is not the Full Bet or Raise part. That, in my opinion, is the easy part (even considering how difficult it can be for a newbie - I thought it interesting that the WSOPE France ignores the difference and just goes with double the last wager). The issue is "who has already acted". Well, sort of.
Our previous thread, all 6 pages of it, revolved around that very thing. The answer for me turned out not to be "who has already acted" so much as is anybody facing a 'legal" bet. If you recall, the outcome to the previous thread was that since the check raiser was not facing a "legal" (full, if you will) initial bet, then technically the betting was not "opened" and the checking player could not raise (he can just call). (after all that arguing, I can see it clearly now in RROP sec 14:3, go figure) But that whole discussion revolved around a short-all in "first" bet that was not even the size of the BB.
As I see it, #37 is specifically speaking of "Raises". So that a Raise has to be of "Full" or "Legal" size in order to open the betting to a previous player. The already acted part is easy here because, well, anybody that has checked can't be getting raised can they? And we finally all agree (well, I do anyway) that check is action for the purpose of counting who's turn it is so as far as rule #37 is concerned we shouldn't have a problem.
So if you think the disputation is about what constitutes a "full raise" then perhaps we could find some language that somehow makes it clear that the raise is only that portion over and above the initial "bet" (wager). But I would not be hopeful that you could find anything more clear than "full raise". Couldn't hurt trying I suppose.
The part that is not explicit in TDA rules that may help with some of the problems players have has to do with the multiple all-ins and that is dealt with in RROP Sec 14:4. I think it is one of those things that we are supposed to know and therefore it didn't end up in TDA rules. It could though, as that is probably the area that players have trouble with.
And just a note. You asked Chet why so many members where wrong on the most debated topic and without looking back at the thread, I will say that I was the most wrong but I was damned persuasive so don't hold it against anybody :) :). BTW, he was doing something constructive: he was trying to get you to lay off DC (though, Chet, I doubt DC needs the assist as I am sure he is fully entertained). Just my 2 cents, dude.
but to directly answer your question "It clearly needs something, does anybody agree?"
No.
-
Jasper,
Very interesting post. It was obviously directed at me, but my name isn't mentioned once.
*FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT ANY MORE...STOP READING THIS POST.
For the rest of us, I will break down the meaning of "already acted."
No-limit Hold'em
Already acted:
When the betting option comes to you: Pre-flop:
You may; a.fold b.) call or c.) raise.
After the flop:
When you are first to act, you may; a.) check or b.) bet.
If a player has checked to you, you may; a.) check, or b.) bet
If you are facing a bet, you may; a.) fold, b.) call or c,) raise
If you have done any of the above...you have acted!
I will later define what I believe to be a "full bet" or "full raise."
-
*FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT ANY MORE...STOP READING THIS POST.
FYI:
Typing in capital lettters iis generally understood as a rude way to communicate:
http://www.google.com/search?q=typing+in+capital+letters&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
-
THANK'S, MERRY CHRISTMAS!
-
You guys are a hoot!
-
Tell me if any of this makes sense
In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a previous full bet or Big Blind does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.
Hmmm. I'm worried it sounded better in my head...
-
THANK"S, MERRY CHRISTMAS!
You too.
-
Spence,
It's better than what we have now.
-
How about:
In no-limit and pot-limit, for each given betting round, any player who checks may not subsequently raise when the action returns to that player if the amount to be called is less than the minimum bet size for that betting round.
In no-limit and pot-limit, for each given betting round, any player who bets may not subsequently raise when the action returns to that player if the amount to be called is less than the full size of the last bet or raise in that betting round.
-
How about:
In no-limit and pot-limit, for each given betting round, any player who checks may not subsequently raise when the action returns to that player if the amount to be called is less than the minimum bet size for that betting round.
In no-limit and pot-limit, for each given betting round, any player who bets may not subsequently raise when the action returns to that player if the amount to be called is less than the full size of the last bet or raise in that betting round.
We need to combine both those rules into a single sentence or tie them together somehow rather than stating it twice but yes that is effectively how we want the rule enforced.
-
K-Lo and Spence:
Good job!
In no-limit and pot-limit, any player who checks or bets, may not check-raise or re-raise an "action only" wager from an all-in player.
Check-raise is allowed following a full bet only.
I'm sure there is better wording but I like where this is going.
Keep in mind, the problem only occurs with the all-in player. Let's keep this one going.
Merry Christmas
-
I thought that we should take a look at a prior thread that Brian Vicker's started on rule #38 which has been switched to #37. check it out.
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=526.0
There's more to add to the list. this is on the same subject from last year, only the numbers have changed (from #31 in 2009 to #38 in version1.0 to #37 this year). There were over 2700 hits on this one.
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=265.0
-
Hey Nick, this post is for you!!!!
Of course my post was directed at you. You created the thread and I was replying directly to the OP. Your name is implicit to the context.
Speaking of context, your response to my post leaves me wondering if you actually read mine. Though I appreciate that you managed to define all the possible actions when it is your turn in a hand of poker it seemed a complete non sequitur. But maybe that's just me.
Spence, sir, your language sounds pretty good outside your head too. Interested to see if anyone else thinks so.
-
Jasper,
I mentioned the possible actions because Chet wrote: "I have a more difficult time defining the term "already acted" and trying to explain that to the players."
And you wrote: "As I see it, #37 is specifically speaking of "Raises". So that a Raise has to be of "Full" or "Legal" size in order to open the betting to a previous player. The already acted part is easy here because, well, anybody that has checked can't be getting raised can they?
The answer to your question, a player that checked can't be raised, is true. However, you must also have a legal (full) bet before a player can raise. A short all-in has the same effect, as a check.
I also want to say that I don't like going to the dictionary to try and understand what the hell you're trying to say, especially when it isn't even a word ???non sequitir?
ENGLISH ONLY! 8)
I like all of the suggestions that were made. This one should have been addressed long ago.
-
Just for the record, I don't think that we must come up with a one sentence rule that covers both situations (i.e. all-in<minimum bet, all-in>minimum bet but<minimum raise). If having two related rules makes it absolute clear, we should not shy away from having two rules. The additional clarity is worth the extra paper, imo.
-
Just for the record, I don't think that we must come up with a one sentence rule that covers both situations (i.e. all-in<minimum bet, all-in>minimum bet but<minimum raise). If having two related rules makes it absolute clear, we should not shy away from having two rules. The additional clarity is worth the extra paper, imo.
I didn't so much mean one sentence as much as a complete thought. But you're right. It does not need to be one sentence. I simply don't think we should state the same sentence twice with only a minor change between them. It's more about creating a fluid rule that completes the direction we are taking without being to wordy.
-
Spence,
Earlier you said the word "amount" didn't work for you. How about "legal amount"? In limit poker a 50% increase from an all-in player is considered enough to re-open a raise from others in that round, in no-limit it does not
.
I think this is where we need to go.
In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a legal amount does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. A player that has already checked on a betting round can not raise the action of a short all-in, unless a legal bet were made prior to the all-in.
-
I like where you're headed. I think the second sentence is clear as well with the different wording "Bet"
In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a legal amount does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. A player that has already checked on a betting round can not raise the action of a short all-in, unless a legal bet were made prior to the all-in.
I would want some small reference made to the betting round or stakes or whatnot as K-Lo said in:
In no-limit and pot-limit, for each given betting round, any player who checks may not subsequently raise when the action returns to that player if the amount to be called is less than the minimum bet size for that betting round.
In no-limit and pot-limit, for each given betting round, any player who bets may not subsequently raise when the action returns to that player if the amount to be called is less than the full size of the last bet or raise in that betting round.
Mind you, No-Limit betting rounds do not change so perhaps it's not necessary...