Author Topic: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all  (Read 148027 times)

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #45 on: March 07, 2011, 07:55:33 PM »
Jasper,
 This is fun. A short all-in wager that is not raised, will not reopen betting to any player that checked before them.(it was never closed to them, so they have all options) A full bet by any player that is raised, less than the full amount, will not substantiate the required amount to reopen betting to the player/s that bet before the all-in. However, any player that checked prior to a full bet for that round may fold, call the all-in, or raise when the action returns to them.Yes, exactly

Jasper,
 One more try. Last betting round, 5 players; A bets 100, B calls 100, C calls 100, D calls 100, E calls 100...Showdown, they all acted so A shows down first.It has nothing to do with all acted, it is rule#11 last aggressive action shows first
 Last betting round, 5 players; A checks, B checks, C checks, D checks and E checks....Showdown, they all acted so A shows down first. Still rule 11, if no bet, first player left of the button shows
I could have made it worse........I could have made it ten handed!

I am not sure I understand the purpose or tone of your response in this post.  You seem to refuse to have an actual conversation.  I have asked specific questions and you have been non-responsive.

Or the short version: What?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 09:09:56 PM by JasperToo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3345
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2011, 02:02:58 AM »
Jasper,
 I'm sorry that you feel the way you do. As far as me being non-responsive, I'd say that is a surprise, for someone that has over 500 replies on this Forum, I really don't think it fits. By the way; I think you fixed #31 All we have to do is add; Except a player that checked. I will quote you in part; "we all know that while a check may be action it is a special kind of action that doesn't close his options.".... They are closed, if no one else bets.
 What questions have you asked that you feel I've been non-responsive? I've given you credit for many of your suggestions, If I agreed with what you wrote, I would tell you. I will list your three suggestions along with my answers:
1. Leave it as it is "..does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.   (yes, I know that doesn't make it clearer but I have to include it as I would vote to leave it)
2. drop the already acted part.."...does not reopen the betting."  (this was Oddvarks first suggestion and still works for me)
3. add this ..."...does not reopen the betting to a player 'for whom action is closed'"  (this seems like it would work best.  As he pointed out your suggestion of  "initial bettor" leaves out intervening calls from other players)

#1 If we thought it was acceptable we wouldn't be having this discussion. #2 Is better, but still confusing. #3 I don't care for...'for whom action is closed?' Jasper, I understand the rules. I am only pointing out the rules that need more explaining than others. When I teach student dealers, I have to be certain that they understand exactly what each rule is saying. You stated that Oddvark pointed out my suggestion of "initial bettor" leaves out intervening calls from other players, so put it in.
 My verbage might not be the perfect fix but, like Mike said on an earlier post, this will bring Rule #31 up for further discussion at the next Summit.



WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #47 on: March 08, 2011, 09:56:41 AM »
Since this particular rule is getting so much action  ;)  I'll post my suggestion

Current
31. Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round. If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). 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.

The rewrite of the rewrite
31. Raises
A raise must be  at least  greater than or equal to the size of the largest previous current bet or raise.  of the current betting round.  An all-in player’s bet  , if  that is more than the previous bet, but less than a full legal raise, establishes the current bet. size but However, the minimum raise amount remains unchanged.  In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of that is less than a full bet or raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted unless that player is facing a full raise to their previous action. The exception as is in the case of  Multiple all-in bets still  act as a full raise and reopen the betting if to any previous action when the resulting bet size to a player qualifies as a raise to that action.

Reasons for removing certain language:
  • At least - is a subjective phrase that is conditional and the wording doesn't establish if one can bet any higher amount, where as the phrase Greater Than or Equal To is an absolute statement and has ties to mathematical equations that nearly everyone understands.
  • Largest previous - The word current bet in conjunction with current raise supersedes the wording largest previous.
  • of the current betting round - Is unnecessary. It certainly wouldn't apply to the previous betting round.


For Chet :) and others. Reasons that you use FULL raise vs LEGAL raise: 1) A FULL raise establishes the minimum amount necessary to reopen the betting, 2) A FULL raise is always a legal raise, 3) The 50% rule uses the language of "must make a FULL raise", 4) A LEGAL raise is not always a full raise.

Why isn't a LEGAL raise always a FULL raise? Because in our scenario, we have Player A bet 100 and Player B bet 125. Is a bet of 125 a FULL raise? NO. Is a bet of 125 a LEGAL raise? YES. It's a legal raise because now the next player must call a minimum of 125. Where as if it was not legal, then Player B could not bet 125, they would only be allowed to bet/call 100. Which we all agree would be absurd.
Also in LIMIT poker, using the 50% rule, using the same scenario, Player A bets 100 and Player B bets 125. Is a bet of 125 a FULL raise? NO. Is it a LEGAL raise? YES AND NO. In this instance the amount to make a FULL raise is less than the minimum raise amount. The next player only has to make it 75 more to "complete" the raise to 200. Where as in NO LIMIT poker, the next player has to raise 100 more and make a FULL raise to 225.

This goes to Nick's argument that why aren't the raise requirements the same for both forms using  the 50% rule.  When I started poker, if Player A bet 100 and Player B bet all-in for 125, the bet was treated as if it didn't exist and Player C could raise to 200 if they so desired. But the contention became, "what if" Player B was all-in for 195? That's not a full raise either. Should Player C be allowed to raise to 200 and thus reopen the betting for Player A, which would put in between players at a calling disadvantage and allow Player C to gain information for a minimal amount? So we don't do this in NO LIMIT, we make the player raise the FULL bet. The fact is, they're different games. Same structure and format, but different (should I go here) fundamentals.

If those two concepts are too difficult for new players (and staff for that matter) and are confusing, I'm sorry. But that's why we label them LIMIT and NO LIMIT and have specific rule sections for each game form.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #48 on: March 08, 2011, 09:58:05 AM »
WHY DO WE HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 5000 CHARACTERS RESTRICTED TO OUR POSTS?!? MIKE HELP!

Here's how it reads without all the strikethrough's.
31. Raises
A raise must be  greater than or equal to the size of the previous bet or raise.  An all-in player’s bet  that is more than the previous bet, but less than a full raise, establishes the current bet. However, the minimum raise amount remains unchanged.  In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager that is less than a full bet or raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted unless that player is facing a full raise to their previous action. Multiple all-in bets act as a full raise and reopen the betting to any previous action when the resulting bet size qualifies as a raise to that action. LAST SENTENCE REWRITE Multiple all-in bets that amount in total to a  full raise to any previous action will reopen the betting to that action.

I hope I didn't leave any typo's!
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #49 on: March 08, 2011, 10:46:36 AM »
WHY DO WE HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 5000 CHARACTERS RESTRICTED TO OUR POSTS?!? MIKE HELP!
I adjusted this to 7000.  Which raises an interesting question... on MY computer, I find that once I've reached the bottom of the visible reply box for typing a reply, the box starts "jumping", and makes additional typing difficult... this is way before 5000 characters are reached... anyone else have this problem? I have it on a variety of forums, not just this one, making me think that it might be MSFT OS related?

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2011, 11:28:38 AM »
If you search for "screen jerks when scrolling" on either yahoo or google, you will get a number of replies, most of which suggest the problem is related to out of date drivers for your video card.  I have two desktops, both running win 7 home premium and a notebook running win xp and I don't have the problem you are describing. 

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3345
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2011, 12:47:33 PM »
Mike and Chet,
 Yes I have that problem, too.
Thomas,
 I will quote you......"This goes to Nick's argument that why aren't the raise requirements the same for both forms using  the 50% rule.  When I started poker, if Player A bet 100 and Player B bet all-in for 125, the bet was treated as if it didn't exist and Player C could raise to 200 if they so desired." .....STOP!  THIS IS PERFECT, thank you. As far as your suggestions for rule #31, if I had to choose, I'd leave it the way it is.

 I'm lost on the FULL and LEGAL, too.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 07:41:30 PM by Nick C »

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2011, 10:39:36 PM »
I'm lost on the FULL and LEGAL, too.

 :-\

Just know that it's better to say FULL raise vs LEGAL raise. I try to explain again and hopefully not confuse more.

A LEGAL raise can be different occurrences. Again in our scenarios:

1) In all forms LIMIT, POT LIMIT and NO LIMIT  Player A bets 100 and Player B is all-in for 125. This is a LEGAL raise. But it's not a FULL raise. All bettors must call 125 which is an amount greater than 100. 125 > 100.

2) In LIMIT ONLY Player A bets 100 and Player B is all-in for 150. This is a LEGAL raise. 150 > 100. But it's not a FULL raise. YET it's treated as such and any player behind who wishes to raise must make a FULL raise to 250. The KEY difference here is, the bet of 150 reopens the betting to Player A.

3) In POT LIMIT and NO LIMIT Player A bets 100 and Player B is all-in for 150. This is a LEGAL raise. But it's not a FULL raise. YET the KEY difference in this form, unlike in #2 above, this does not reopen the betting to Player A. It is a not a FULL raise.

4) In LIMIT multiple all-ins that amount to a LEGAL raise need only be 50% of the bet size. Player A bets 100, Player B is all-in for 125, Player C is all-in for 150. This is a LEGAL raise. But it's not a FULL raise. Again the KEY difference here is, the bet of 150 reopens the betting to Player A.

5) In NO LIMIT multiple all-ins that amount to a LEGAL raise must be a FULL raise. Player A bets 100, Player B is all-in for 125, Player C is all-in for 150. This is a LEGAL raise. But it's not a FULL raise and does not reopen the betting to Player A.

All of the examples are LEGAL raises. But none of them are FULL raises. That is why when discussing POT LIMIT and NO LIMIT and asking the question, "What determines if the betting is reopened to someone that has already acted?", it is better to use the phrases FULL bet / raise, which the current rule already refers to.

Perhaps all rule #31 really needs is some descriptive language that tells the reader what game form the rules pertains to. Because it is describing two different game forms leads the reader to believe that both rules are synonymous. Since some here have said they like it as is, how about just some simple word changes and additions.

31. Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the current bet or raise. A player who puts in a bet that amounts to more than  50% of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager that is less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted, unless the action facing that player amounts to a full raise in the case of multiple all-ins. In limit poker only, an all-in wager that is less than 50% of a full raise also does not reopen the betting.

Personally I think the hitch to these rules is, instead of saying what doesn't reopen the betting we should be more focused on what DOES reopen the betting. That is more easily said: In Pot Limit and No limit only a full raise of the previous bet or raise reopens the betting to a player who has already acted. In Limit a legal raise of 50% or more of the previous bet or raise will reopen the betting to player who has already acted.

Notice that I used LEGAL raise in the limit portion because a legal raise is not always a full raise. ;)
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #53 on: March 08, 2011, 11:34:21 PM »
Thanks for chiming in wsopmcgee.  I really like how you explained the difference of the 50% rule in limit and no-limit and the reason behind it.  For me there is a huge difference in no-limit in those situations that would put players at a disadvantage and others at a big advantage just based on the betting structure.  That just doesn't happen at limit.  At least you didn't say "that's just the way it is"!   ;D :-\

You also pretty much said what I was going to say regarding the legal vs full raise.

I like most of what you did with the rewrite of the rewrite but would like to make a few comments just to see where it goes.  I think we could get to a 'final draft' before the summer..  ;D ;D ;D :o

Here's how it reads without all the strikethrough's.
31. Raises
A raise must be  greater than or equal to the size of the previous bet or raise.  An all-in player’s bet  that is more than the previous bet, but less than a full raise, establishes the current bet. However, the minimum raise amount remains unchanged. These are ok changes up to here. I really like the replacement of "full" for legal. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager that is less than a full bet or raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted unless that player is facing a full raise to their previous action. I don't think this extra language adds anything useful and doesn't clear up the problem with the "check is action".  What of the all-in player that is less than a full bet with intervening callers, doesn't the checking player still get to raise? (I have already mentioned that the check is special but no reason to not try and make it work  :D).  I think we just need "full raise" and not "full bet" with it.  the last bit feels like your trying to add something along the lines of the multiple all ins there.. I don't know... Multiple all-in bets act as a full raise and reopen the betting to any previous action when the resulting bet size qualifies as a raise to that action. LAST SENTENCE REWRITE Multiple all-in bets that amount in total to a  full raise to any previous action will reopen the betting to that action. Uhm, yeah, I like the last sentence rewrite better than the first.  this part I am not sure about yet.


It's tough making a rule clear and yet keep it concise when it's a complicated topic. But, hey, I think we might get it eventually....

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3345
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #54 on: March 09, 2011, 03:56:02 PM »
How about; None of the damn all-in's mean "squat" unless one qualifys as a full raise! If Player A bets 100 and Player B goes all-in for 120 and player C goes all-in for 110 and Player D goes all-in for 150 and Player E goes all-in for 180 and Player F calls 180, Player A can still only call, correct?
PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE CHANGED MY MISTAKE, AND CORRECTED THE TWO D'S WITH ONE E.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 12:43:15 PM by Nick C »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3345
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #55 on: March 11, 2011, 05:46:44 AM »
Chet,Thomas, Mike, Stuart, Jasper, anybody just wondering why no one answered my last question?

 I have another suggestion that might help clear up some of the confusion caused by Legal bet and Full bet. Why not use 100% for no-limit instead? We all understand the 50% raise rule for limit, right? So lets look at the difference:
    Limit:
    Player A bets 100,
    Player B goes all-in for a total of 140 (less than 50%)
    Player C may fold, call 140, or complete to 200 (they can not make it 240)

    No-limit:
    Player A bets 100,
    Player B goes all-in for 140
    Player C may fold, call or raise a minimum of 100 for a total of 240.

    One of the problems, IMO comes from calling the short all-in action, instead of a raise.

    No-limit:
    Player A bets 100
    Player B goes all-in for a total of 190
    Player C may fold, call the 190 or raise a minimum of 100 for a total of 290

I know this is a simple explanation, but I'm hoping that it helps others understand.

Back to my question; Does anyone think that 100% is easier to understand? ..As opposed to Full or Legal?

And, I'd still like to hear from someone regarding my last post;  

 If Player A bets 100 and Player B goes all-in for 120 and player C goes all-in for 110 and Player D goes all-in for 150 and Player E goes all-in for 180 and Player F calls 180, Player A can still only call, correct?









« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 12:44:33 PM by Nick C »

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #56 on: March 11, 2011, 09:18:31 AM »
WHY DO WE HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 5000 CHARACTERS RESTRICTED TO OUR POSTS?!? MIKE HELP!
I adjusted this to 7000.  Which raises an interesting question... on MY computer, I find that once I've reached the bottom of the visible reply box for typing a reply, the box starts "jumping", and makes additional typing difficult... this is way before 5000 characters are reached... anyone else have this problem? I have it on a variety of forums, not just this one, making me think that it might be MSFT OS related?

I'm getting this problem too.  Very annoying   :'(

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #57 on: March 11, 2011, 09:20:38 AM »
Nick:

Your game is fouled!!  You need to pull that table out of the room and get a new one.  I don't know of any room in any location that allows two players to sit in the same position and bet different amounts.  Your dealer is an idiot and your floor folks are obviously not with it.  How in the world can you allow your game to continue with two Players identified as "Player D"?

Chet

BTW:  I don't consider myself to be expert on this topic, so that is why I have been staying out of it.  However, assuming this is a legal game, without two Player D's, I would tend to agree that Player A can only call.  Let the flames begin!  :)
« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 09:23:16 AM by chet »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
TEXT JUMPING
« Reply #58 on: March 11, 2011, 10:37:14 AM »
Brian, MikeB, etal:  

This is ONLY a problem in IE8.  It is not a problem in Firefox.  To "fix" the problem with text jumping switch IE8 to use Compatibility View.  You can access this through "Tools" at the top of the page or by clicking on the "Compatibility View" button.  IE8 is supposed to display this button at the end of the URL window in the address bar when a site is not compatible with IE8, but it doesn't always do so.

It looks like a broken sheet of paper with a lightning bolt through the middle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what the Help Page has to say:

Why don't some websites display correctly in Internet Explorer?

Websites designed for earlier versions of Internet Explorer might not display correctly in the current version. Often, you can improve how a website looks in Internet Explorer by using Compatibility View.

When you turn on Compatibility View, the webpage you're viewing—and other webpages within the website's domain—will be displayed as if you were using an earlier version of Internet Explorer.

If Internet Explorer recognizes a webpage that isn't compatible, you'll see the Compatibility View button  on the Address bar.

To turn Compatibility View on or off, click the Compatibility View button, or follow these steps:

Click to open Internet Explorer.

Click the Tools button, and then click Compatibility View.

Notes
The website will be displayed in Compatibility View until you turn it off or the website is updated to display correctly in the current version of Internet Explorer.

Website display problems can also be caused by an interrupted Internet connection, heavy traffic, or issues with the computer code used to create the website.

If a website is compatible with the latest version of Internet Explorer, you might not see the Compatibility View button, or the Compatibility View menu item might not be available.

Article ID: MSW700029


JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all
« Reply #59 on: March 11, 2011, 10:57:55 AM »
funny guy chet...

Wasn't ignoring your post Nick, too danged busy for my own good. The answer to your question is that player A can only call.  Though I am not sure what your point is.  Although, I think you may be touching directly on the point of the multiple all-ins.

The point of that part of rule #31 is to say that while a particular all-in bet may not qualify as a full raise for the current bet amount and round (the bet might be 210  on the 50/100 blind structure against another all-in of 120 and a raise would have to be a bet of 220) but but that 220 does qualify as a raise against the first player that bet 100.  What I think you have been trying to say, in part, is that the intervening all-ins don't really mean anything just the last largest wager that is big enough to count as a raise to a particular player.

"multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount to 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".  That is straight out of RROP and while I think it is a little long winded it says exactly what we need. And it is sort of similar to what thomas rewrote on the rewrite of my rewrite  ??? :o ::)

I will be happy to banter your idea of utilizing the 50% 'complete the bet rule' of limit in no limit but I don't like the idea and I thought Thomas explained the reasoning pretty well.  In no-limit the need to control pot size and pot odds is way more important (and it's a different method of control anyway) than in limit and the ability of one player to gain info on a small wager is huge in no-limit.

I would love if thomas came back in here and explained it a different way.