Author Topic: Player all-in for less than a min-raise. Bet re-opening & min re-raise questions  (Read 19398 times)

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 553
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.

« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 04:04:37 PM by BillM16 »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 553
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!!!
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 04:37:57 PM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3271
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
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

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 553
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.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3271
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
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.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 08:50:46 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1151
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?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 02:26:16 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3271
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
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.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 02:58:55 PM by Nick C »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 553

--- 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.





Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3271
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
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.

« Last Edit: June 18, 2016, 07:38:34 AM by Nick C »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 553
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~

« Last Edit: June 18, 2016, 10:23:42 AM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3271
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
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....?????
« Last Edit: June 18, 2016, 01:07:34 PM by Nick C »

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
 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.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2016, 03:42:41 PM by Dave Miller »
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3271
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
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. :)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1151


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.


« Last Edit: June 20, 2016, 12:55:47 AM by MikeB »

Steff0111

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
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”.