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.comTo:
nickscasinopoker@comf5.comSent: 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.