Rule 44: clarifying language needed on short all-ins totalling a full min raise?

[Nick C]

Gentlemen:

 TDA #43 a) A raise must be at least equal to the largest previous bet or raise. This rule applies to all forms of poker.
                b) Limit poker shall restrict the amount based on the structure of the event. see addendum for explanation.
                c) No Limit will allow, up to, an all-in wager to any player facing a qualifying bet or check. Because of the broad range of possible raise amounts...please refer to addendum.
                d) Pot Limit will restrict the maximum allowable raise based on the size of the pot and the "string" of bets you are facing. See addendum.
                e) Because of the varied, and differing raise rules involving all-in players, please refer to the addendum for clarification between, Limit, No Limit and Pot Limit.
               

[Nick C]

Suggestions for TDA #44 Re-opening the betting:

 TDA #44 a) Limit poker: limit poker has a restriction to the allowable amount and number of raises for a specific betting round. This will be based on the type of game (i.e. Stud, Hold-em, Omaha, Draw, etc.) and the structure of the game being played.
                b) At Limit Poker: If a "short" all-in wager is introduced, the half the bet rule will be used. See addendum for full explanation.
                c) No Limit Poker: No Limit Poker shall have no restrictions on the maximum allowable wager, or the number of raises so long as you have not waived your right by checking on your initial turn to act, and the action was not re-opened to you.
                d) The question of when bets and raises are re-opened will be further explained in the addendum...
                e) Pot Limit Poker: Pot Limit will restrict the maximum amount of any bet or raise based on the size of the pot and the bet you are facing. Because Pot Limit has no limit to the number of raises it is generally grouped together with No Limit. However, the maximum allowable bet could restrict players from going "all-in." See addendum.
                 f) Special note: Any player, (not all-in) that places an incorrect amount of chips into the pot without prior verbal declaration, shall have his amount corrected based on a 50% rule. Less than 50% shall be reduced to the minimal allowable bet and 50% or more shall be corrected to the minimal allowable raise.
               

[GreggPath]

Chet, the rule would be completely accurate in the shortened form.  The multiple short all-in's is one way to create a raise and is important.  Likewise, a single short all-in that does not reopen the betting is important. There are other worthwhile examples which are also important.  But, including this information in the rules section makes it harder to understand.  The Ol' Folks might have to read the Addendum too. 

This whole thread is making my head hurt 

I have re-read the whole thread and re-read the rule as it's written now. To be honest, I think the current wording is fine. If anything, I would just add a clarifying statement as to what "full raise" means. Something like, 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 a total bet that constitutes at least a full raise (at least double the amount that the player already bet in the current betting round) when the action returns to him.

But, like I said, I think the rule is fine as-is. I can read that rule, apply it to any situation, and get the ruling. If Player A facing a full raise? Yes? Then he can raise. No? Then he can only call/fold. To apply the rule, there is no reason to look back at previous players' actions. Just need to look at how much the player has already bet (X) and how much more he is facing (Y). If X > Y, not reopened. If X <= Y, reopened.

[Max D]

Just finished reading the whole thread too , I am good with Mike's 1st option on the opening thread:
"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 a bet amount totaling 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".

[Nick C]

Is there anything inaccurate about my last two suggestions?

My biggest problem with the current raise rule is when the first to act checks...in my opinion he has acted and is deprived of a check raise option, because our rule does not say anything about a "short" all-in bet, it mentions an all-in raise. Without a prior bet (which would re-open the betting to the checked player) a raise would not be possible. That's it I'm not trying to change any TDA rule, just make it easier to explain.

[GreggPath]

Are you saying that, say, on the river, SB checks, BB goes all in for any amount, UTG calls... then SB can't raise because there is no "all-in raise" to re-open the betting, just an "all-in bet"?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point... but the rulebook says an "all-in wager" which covers a bet or raised all-in. The only reason SB wouldn't be able to raise is if BB's all-in was less than a big blind (minimum legal bet above the amount he has put in, which is 0)

[Nick C]

The rule says: an all-in wager of less than a full raise...it does not say less than a full  bet.  So a bet was necessary before the all-in could raise...correct? To me, it implies that because I checked (acted) I have no right to raise.

 All I know is, in all the years I've worked in poker I've never had a single problem with raises in limit games...only no limit . I don't even want to get into pot limit. They should all be separated (limit...no-limit...&...pot limit) because they are all different.

 About 4 years ago, while conferring with Chuck Ferry regarding these very raise rules, he agreed with me 100% that there was definitely something wrong with the wording. Mr Ferry was living in Manila at the time of our first correspondence

Mike B, You might find this interesting. I know you are familiar with this author.

----- Original Message -----
From: CRFERRY@aol.com
To: nickscasinopoker@comf5.com
Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2012 6:11:02 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Happy New Year

hi Nick  and have a happy 2012
we moved from Manila to a lot smaller island and safer too. they have a nice small poker room here.
good luck on the rules it has been a life long goal of mine to get the rules the same.
chuck
 
In a message dated 1/1/2012 12:55:46 P.M. China Standard Time, nickscasinopoker@comf5.com writes:

Hello Chuck,
 
 I hope all is well with you and you were not affected by the terrible events in Manila. Let me know what you're doing these days. I'm still fighting to get the rules back to where they belong. I still use your books as reference.
 
Nick Ciavarella

I have some really interesting conversations with Chuck. I'm sorry to say that I have not been in touch with him in a very long time. I hope he is well.

[Dave Miller]

Forgive me if this has been covered. I've been glossing over these discussions.

The rule says: an all-in wager of less than a full raise...it does not say less than a full  bet

What this means is, if players check, then a player goes all in for less than one BB, if there are no raises by players who have not acted, the players who checked can only call or fold.

[BillM16]

As I posted earlier, I believe we should rely largely upon examples in the illustrations section to clarify the numerous aspects of bets, raises, and all-ins that are short of a minimum bet or full raise.  That said, if most believe that wording should be changed in the TDA rules, then I encourage you to consider very closely the salient points made in the following RRoP rules:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

I find no need to improve upon the language that Mr. Robert Ciaffone has chosen in these rules.  These could either be incorporated into the TDA existing rules or added to a new rule that pertains directly to Short All-Ins.

[Nick C]

Bill,

 I do agree that RRoP are more suited for the TDA, even though they are primarily for cash games. I do want to point out the difference:

   I'd stop some of my grumbling if we used this.

A player who has already acted and is not facing a full size 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.

 I still don't care much for the verbiage about the multiple all-in wagers...but, one step at a time.

[GreggPath]

Dave, I see what you are saying about the phrase "less than a full raise" since an all-in bet isn't necessarily an all-in raise. Would changing it to "less than a full raise or bet" work? Otherwise, I think the wording is fine.  Definitely would be against getting into specifics (multiple short all-ins) in the rule itself. That's what the addendum is for.

Bottom line is the rule is written perfectly and should not cause any confusion (other than the word "raise") that can't be figured out using the addendum (and I would argue that it shouldn't even be necessary to look at the addendum if you read the rule carefully).

[Nick C]

Gregg,

 How can you say that the current rule is better than the suggested rule from Robert's Rules? You told Dave "I understand what you are saying about the phrase "less than a full raise" yet you are still satisfied without change.

You also said: would changing it to "less than a full raise or bet" work?" The answer is YES
 And it would be even better if it were "less than a full bet or raise"

[GreggPath]

Nick,

As my last post said I agree with making no changes to the rule other than the word "raise" in that instance. Also, I just realized I called you Dave in that post. My bad. But yeah, I agree with keeping the rule and just change "raise" to "bet or raise" or "raise or bet".

Gregg

[Nick C]

Gregg,

 It would be a small step in the right direction. Still don't know why not one person addressed my earlier posts #'s15 & 16.

[Steff0111]

"full bet" & "full raise" can confuse because different interpretations are possible.
May it helps to find some words like "min. 100% of..." or "amount of chips".