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.
