Under Raise and some Rule 31 questions

[AleaLeedsCardRoom]

Very interesting conversation:)   And just to cause trouble...  If player A wished to raise, then what would his minimum raise be?  Would it be based on the under raise or player B's initial bet, or some mix of the two???

This has been bugging me for some time and now seems like a good time to ask:)

Lewis

[Nick C]

Lewis,

 I would like to respond but I need to know the exact example that you are refering to. Sorry.

Nick C

[Nick C]

Lewis,

  I thought that I would give you this explanation. Assuming that the game is no-limit or pot-limit. Once a player checks he can only call or fold an all-in player that goes in with less than a minimum bet. The minimum bet is at least the size of the big blind. Example; No-limit blinds $200/$400, on the turn, player A checks, player B checks and player C goes all-in for $350, when the action returns to player A he can only call, if he calls (or even folds) the same option is available to player B (who also checked) unless another player makes a full bet of at least the required amount of $50 more bringing the total bet to $400.
  The more complex situation is when a player makes a wager and the all-in player raises with less than 100% of the required raise. Lets look at the example above. Player A checks, player B bets $400 (the minimum required bet) and player C raises and goes all-in with $700 (not 100% of the $400 bet). In this case, the betting was reopened to player A because of the initial bet by player B. Look at it this way, if player C folded, wouldn't player A have the right to check-raise? Of course. This is the best I can do. Remember, other games with fixed bets and structure bet games have different rules for raising. In any form of poker a raise must be at least the size of the bet, or the size of the raise in front of you. Unless you are all-in. I guess I will never be able to get away from these examples, they are almost as boring as the "bad beat" stories that we all have to hear.

Thanks for listening....I hope this makes sense.
Nick C

[AleaLeedsCardRoom]

Thanks, that does make sense, however I am confused about what amount playerA's minimum raise would be.
Consider my own example, with blinds at 100/200, after the flop:
Player A checks
Player B bets 500
Player C calls
Player D all in for 800
Action then folds round to player A.

My understanding is that player A can re raise but players B&C cannot unless player A does.

My question is, what is the minimum that player A can raise by in this situation, would it be...
To 1000  (500 more than player B's bet)
To 1300 (500 more that [player D's all in)
Or to 1100 (300 more than player D's all in)

Sorry for such a ramble.

Thanks
Lewis

[MikeB]

I guess I'm not expressing the situation properly and please, correct me if I'm wrong. Before I try again; the last line in rule #31 is what I question; an all-in wager of less than a full raise (which the $490 wager of player C qualifies as because it would have to be a raise to $500) would not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. When you consider that player A did act first by checking. Why should he not be allowed to raise player B's initial wager of $250? Thanks for your response Nick C

Hey Nick: First off, these bet-reopening situations can be a little tricky. Here's how I'd look at this one:
1) The key is that the only thing that re-opens betting in NO LIMIT game is a full bet or raise. Anything less and you can only call it.
2) It doesn't matter how that full bet is reached. It could be by one better, or a series of all ins that TOTAL a full bet or raise.
3) In this case, we don't exactly know what the full minimum original bet is, but we know it has to be at least 250 because that's what B bet. Once B makes that 250 original bet, then a subsequent raise has to be at least 250. So, let's assert some values here and say we're at 125-250 on the blinds.
4) THIS BETTING ROUND starts with A checking.... If the action doesn't "build up" to at least a full minimum bet (250) by the time action gets back to A, he can only smooth call any all-in wager that's less than a full bet (per rule 31).
5) Now, A checks and B bets 250 (the full minimum for a 125-250 blind level). RIGHT THERE the betting for A is re-opened. 6) Player C goes all in for another 240 and we're up to 490 total to A. 7) A can call, raise, or fold... the action is re-opened because the total bet back to him is at least a full minimum. And in this case, either B's bet of 250 constitutes a full bet to re-open OR lets hypothesize that B checked and C went all-in for his $490... the $490 would also be in excess of a full bet and enough to re-open action to A & B. 7) Now, let's hypothesize and say B checks and C goes all-in for just 240 total, then that's not a full minimum bet, A & B have already acted, and neither of them can raise the 240, they can only smooth call.

[MikeB]

Very interesting conversation:)   And just to cause trouble...  If player A wished to raise, then what would his minimum raise be?  Would it be based on the under raise or player B's initial bet, or some mix of the two???
This has been bugging me for some time and now seems like a good time to ask:). Lewis

Hi Lewis. Great queston. First off, this is a NO-LIMIT game, that's critical. In No-Limit every bet or raise is considered a full autonomous action. It is not eligible to be "completed" as many limit structures are. So, in No-Limit we would have the minimum for the original example as follows:
1) A checks, B bets 250, C makes an "all-in wager" for 240 more, for a total $490.
2) The $490 is a "complete" bet (not a full bet, but a complete bet nonetheless). Because this is no-limit it is not subject to being "completed" to $500, which would be the minimum required for a raise if C had the chips.
3) SO, we start with 490 for A to call. If A wants to raise, he has to make at least a full minimum raise (which is 250 here), for a total to B of $740.

[Nick C]

Mike,

 This is where I'm lost, completely. In no-limit the raise of $240 does not reopen the betting because it is not a complete raise of the $250 required.I repeat the $240 raise is not a full raise I will not respond any further on this thread until this is resolved. Thanks for your response. There is no reason to write any more, all you have to do is go back and read what I've written several times already. Would a bet of $1,000 that was raised by an all-in player to $1,020. reopen the betting to the original bettor, I don't think so.
Nick C

[Stuart Murray]

Lewis,

to directly answer your question the minimum raise in your example would be 1300 total (minimum)
This would be constructed as B's bet of 500 + D's all-in for 800 total (300 more) + a minimum full raise of 500

Regards
Stuart

[MikeB]

I am confused about what amount playerA's minimum raise would be. Consider my own example, with blinds at 100/200, after the flop:
Player A checks Player B bets 500 Player C calls Player D all in for 800 Action then folds round to player A.

My understanding is that player A can re raise but players B&C cannot unless player A does.

This is absolutely true for NO LIMIT and POT LIMIT poker as your example is structured (100/200 blinds with a player opening for 500). But be aware that the rules for limit poker vary, so note the specific minimums to re-open in any limit tournament you officiate. In some limit structures, a raise of at least HALF the minimum can re-open betting and in your example, a 800 is more than a half min-raise over a 500 initial bet, were it a limit game...

My question is, what is the minimum that player A can raise by in this situation, would it be...
To 1000  (500 more than player B's bet)
To 1300 (500 more that [player D's all in)
Or to 1100 (300 more than player D's all in)

In No-Limit or Pot Limit (as in your example) it would be 1300 as Stu Murray described. It's just good to be aware that the rules for min. bets/raises/re-opens/and completions in limit games may be different and should be clearly stipulated to avoid any misunderstandings.

[AleaLeedsCardRoom]

Thank you all foryour replies, they are very helpful

Lewis

[Nick C]

Hello to all,

 I said that I wasn't going to respond to this question until I understood the meaning myself. I have to say that after a lengthy conversation with Dave Lamb, I understand the meaning of rule #31. I don't like it, but I now know how to explain it. I have to take this time to apologize to those of you that might have been misled or misinformed by my misinterpretation of this rule.
 I have been using the ruling in our local jurisdiction in the Buffalo ,Niagara Falls area (Seneca Niagara Casino). The ruling they use is very simple for me to understand and that is what I have been preaching. I have no right to speak for a ruling that I did not agree with or understand until my conversation with Dave. For those of you that are interested, or come to our part of the country to play no-limit poker I would like to explain it to you. This is what they use in cash games.

                                                          No-limit

  ******Any undersized all-in wager is not considered a bet******Any undersized all-in raise is not recognized as a raise.*****

The wagers described above require players to call the all-n bet or raise (of course) to be eligible for any portion of the pot, but a raise is defined as 100% of the bet.

As far as rule #31 we did agree that it could use some "tweaking" and the TDA will look into possibly rewording it.

Nick C