Under raise - underbet

[JasperToo]

 Limit poker: 100/200 Blinds 50/100 after the flop, Three Players. Player A (SB) checks, Player B goes all-in for 25, Player C's options: a.) fold...b.) call 25 or c.) complete to 100.
Options to Player A: If Player C calls 25, Player A can: a.) fold or b.) call 25...If Player C complete's the bet to 100, Player A can: a.) fold...b.) call 100, or c.) raise to 200.

Actually, I believe the rule is pretty clear that Player A also has the option to "complete" the bet according to B&R #7. 

I think that rule #7 specifically excludes the check-raiser from the limitation of only being able to call a short all-in (in limit play less than 50%) by the language that says a player that has already acted AND IS IN FOR ALL PREVIOUS BETS.  In other words, if you have already bet and somebody comes in over the top short then the betting is not REOPENED to you.  But for the player that has not yet acted (and of course, this is the sticky point) they can fold, call or "Complete". 

[JasperToo]

I thought it might have mattered whether B flats or B is short all-in, since there are other Rules that place restrictions on actions subsequent to B in different situations depending on whether B has enough chips to open/re-open betting.  Therefore, my immediate impression was that B having over or under a minimum bet amount (or a minimum raise amount) could have mattered to the author of the Rules (but I know you don't think it should for this particular case). 

as you say I don't think it matters for this particular case because if B as enough to just bet the minimum it seems irrelevant that he would be short a full raise beyond that.  But perhaps I missed something.

 B has enough chips to open/re-open betting.  Therefore, my immediate impression was that B having over or under a minimum bet amount (or a minimum raise amount) could have mattered to the author of the Rules (but I know you don't think it should for this particular case). 

No the phrase "that is less then the minimum bet" is not redundant.  By that logic couldn't we simply leave it at "a player that has already acted and is not facing a full size bet may not subsequently raise..."   If Player A bets $75 and is all in (50/100 blinds) and player B just calls, Player C is now all-in for $90 more $165.  When action comes back to Player B he cannot raise because C's bet is "less than the minimum bet" ($100 - for a raise).  Now if A bets $150 and B goes all-in for $275 his "raise" is more than the minimum but "less than the full size of the last bet"

Hmmm... I'm not sure I like this example of a situation involving alternative (1).  Do you have another one?  Notwithstanding the fact that B can't raise because A and C are both all in anyways  (but let's just say there was a further caller D for the sake of argument), I see a clear difference in the Rules between use of the terms "bet" and "raise" (in fact, both terms "bet or raise" are used several times in the same rule). 

Since the rule involving alternative (1) states that "may not raise an all-in BET that is less than the minimum bet", I think the amount of C's all-in 'bet' is the total of $165 not $90, and alternative (1) does not apply.  Alternative (2) may well apply (the all-in bet of $165 is less than the 'full size of the last raise' which needs to be $175). 

both terms bet or raise are used several times and wager is also used just to confuse things more.. but that may be the key to understanding that player C's all-in raise of $90 is not a full size "wager" or is not a "minimum bet" for that round.  I really think that my example is the exact reason the statement "less than the minimum". And the reason that the parenthetical phrase about half size bets is there relates to the "less than full size of the last bet or raise".  Because the difference between Limit and NL is that a short all-in closes the betting for players that have previously bet even if it is short by a dollar. 

rule #5 is there to enforce the fact that if you are going to raise in big bet poker that it would have to be for at least the minimum bet for that round.  in a 50/100 round someone goes all in for 40 you can't put in 60 to make it an even 100.  You have to put in at least 140.  You don't have an option to "complete" as you do in a structured limit game.

I would just add that a checking player in a limit game has the option to "raise" the pot to the first 'limit' which would subsequently reopen the betting to previous players.  So how would that be any different if the checking player and nl was to "raise" a minimum bet? (which, btw, is what I believe rule #3 is all about, how raising in NL is different compared to limit - minimum bet over and above the the short all-in not 'completing" or a short all in of even a dollar can shut it down).

Hmmm... The 'dark side' was tempting, briefly, but I think I heard Spence calling after me to "stay away from the light" so now I'm running back that way. 

Shut up Spence!

After reading our discussion so far I really don't know that we got anywhere one way or the other.  Because if you give in to the interpretation that "acted" would need to be with chips (or that checking is it's own sort of action).  then the reading of rule #3 is easy to see that the checker would be able to raise.  But if that is not accepted at all then an argument for them not being able to raise is difficult to (but not impossible) to debate.

Does Bob Ciaffone still answer his email?
 

[Nick C]

 Limit poker: 100/200 Blinds 50/100 after the flop, Three Players. Player A (SB) checks, Player B goes all-in for 25, Player C's options: a.) fold...b.) call 25 or c.) complete to 100.
Options to Player A: If Player C calls 25, Player A can: a.) fold or b.) call 25...If Player C complete's the bet to 100, Player A can: a.) fold...b.) call 100, or c.) raise to 200.

Actually, I believe the rule is pretty clear that Player A also has the option to "complete" the bet according to B&R #7.  

I think that rule #7 specifically excludes the check-raiser from the limitation of only being able to call a short all-in (in limit play less than 50%) by the language that says a player that has already acted AND IS IN FOR ALL PREVIOUS BETS.  In other words, if you have already bet and somebody comes in over the top short then the betting is not REOPENED to you.  But for the player that has not yet acted (and of course, this is the sticky point) they can fold, call or "Complete".

JasperToo,
 What don't you agree with?
 

  

[JasperToo]

that if player C just calls, Player A has the option of "completing". You said that all he can do is fold or call, that is what I disagree with.

[Spence]

Does Bob Ciaffone still answer his email?

I emailed him a few months back and he got back to me right away. He has a new email for correspondence
bthecoach@att.net

[Nick C]

Jasper,
 You need to be more specific. I gave two different examples. Instead of going back and forth with you, maybe it would be better to fix the meaning of the word acted. How about; when a players turn has come, or a players time to act.

 I've just thought of a different scenario that might open your eyes.
Limit-10 and 20...on the turn, Player A checks, Player B bets 20, Player C goes all-in for 25, options open to Player A:
                    a.) Fold
                    b.) Call 25 or...
                    c.) Raise to a total of 40.

Limit-10 and 20...on the turn, Player A checks, Player B checks, Player C goes all-in for 5, options open to Player's A and B:
                    a.) Fold
                    b.) call 5....
Do you agree that they can not raise? Do you agree that they can not even complete?

[Spence]

Jasper,
 You need to be more specific. I gave two different examples. Instead of going back and forth with you, maybe it would be better to fix the meaning of the word acted. How about; when a players turn has come, or a players time to act.

 I've just thought of a different scenario that might open your eyes.
Limit-10 and 20...on the turn, Player A checks, Player B bets 20, Player C goes all-in for 25, options open to Player A:
                    a.) Fold
                    b.) Call 25 or...
                    c.) Raise to a total of 40.

Limit-10 and 20...on the turn, Player A checks, Player B checks, Player C goes all-in for 5, options open to Player's A and B:
                    a.) Fold
                    b.) call 5....
Do you agree that they can not raise? Do you agree that they can not even complete?

Just for clarities sake Nick, in your first example C should read as "complete" to a total of 40. Right?
I know there has been some argument about about different meanings on Bet, Raise, Complete, and all those so I just want to be clear.

[Nick C]

Spence,
 Take a look at my example. I think calling it a complete could be misleading because the player is raising the original bettor. Player A would be raising Player B's 20, not Player C's 25. To me the short all-in is not recognized as a raise.
I dealt poker for many years and never used the word "complete" or considered it a standard for any poker game. I guess on a technical issue you could say the raiser compleded the short all-in but, I was trying to show that the all-in was not a factor as to whether the player could raise, the raise was possible only because of the full bet of Player B. If the all-in's raise were 50% or more of the full raise, that would have constituted a raise (considered in the raise limit) for that round.

[K-Lo]

Side track:  Has anyone ever heard of the game people play when they read a fortune from a fortune cookie, and everyone adds the words "in bed" after the message?  And it's supposed to really funny?

OK.. back to this thread. 

Jasper,
 You need to be more specific. I gave two different examples. Instead of going back and forth with you, maybe it would be better to fix the meaning of the word acted. >>> How about; when a players turn has come, or a players time to act. <<<

Ack!  At the risk of putting words in Jasper's mouth, that's PRECISELY where he disagrees.  WE ALL (you, Spence, and I) think that the word "acted" in Rule 7 on limit play and Rule 3 on no-limit play means "when a players turn or his time to act has come and gone".  But Jasper is saying, NO, that's not what "acted" means.  He is essentially saying that the words "using chips" should be added after all instances of the word "acted" in those Rules, so while a player who has already acted USING CHIPS and not facing a sufficient wager may not subsequently raise a short all-in, players who have ACTED WITHOUT USING CHIPS ("check") can still raise.

So, the moral of the story is, we will never be able to convince Jasper that a player can still have "acted" without putting chips into the pot, and so we are at an impasse.  We all tried.  Hard.  The dead horse is beaten.  Dead.   

Limit-10 and 20...on the turn, Player A checks, Player B checks, Player C goes all-in for 5, options open to Player's A and B:
                    a.) Fold
                    b.) call 5....
Do you agree that they can not raise? Do you agree that they can not even complete?  <<<

If I were a betting man, I'd BET that Jasper would NOT agree.  He would say that A or B CAN complete to 20 here.  The Limit Rule says that a player who has "not yet acted", facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may complete the wager.  But Jasper will read this as a player who has not yet acted USING CHIPS, facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may complete the wager.  Therefore both A or B can complete, since neither of them have acted USING CHIPS. 

I know you disagree, as do I. But that's his view.  Am I wrong, Jasper?  ;-)

Alas, I think it's time to just agree to disagree, and move on.  Really, it has been a blast.  In bed.

[Nick C]

K-lo,

 Your posts have been great and I want to thank you for your input. I've heard the "beating a dead horse" many times but I do have a problem letting something of this importance go uncorrected. It would be nice to hear from someone on the BOD.

 Jasper Too, When you check on your turn to bet, you have acted...I'm gonna beat the crap right out of the whole damn herd of horses! Like it, or not!  

[JasperToo]

LOL Nick, your making me laugh.  I just wanted to post a quick thanks back to K-lo for his post too.  He seems to pick out the essence quite clearly.  And Nick, right or wrong, your fun too.

I will have another post later to put a really good cap on this subject for you guys but I don't have time now to do it justice...

[Spence]

Spence,
 Take a look at my example. I think calling it a complete could be misleading because the player is raising the original bettor. Player A would be raising Player B's 20, not Player C's 25. To me the short all-in is not recognized as a raise.
I dealt poker for many years and never used the word "complete" or considered it a standard for any poker game. I guess on a technical issue you could say the raiser compleded the short all-in but, I was trying to show that the all-in was not a factor as to whether the player could raise, the raise was possible only because of the full bet of Player B. If the all-in's raise were 50% or more of the full raise, that would have constituted a raise (considered in the raise limit) for that round.

You are very correct. I better understand what you're saying now. Complete does not seem appropriate in this instance.

[Nick C]

Gentlemen,
I've come to the conclusion that the rules are written as they are, just so we can debate what they are really trying to say.

The following should be considered for amending TDA Rule #38 Raises…This would replace the last sentence in the existing rule.
How does this sound?... Check -raise is permitted in all games only  after a complete legal bet has been made on that betting round. Any short all-in bet ( action only), will not reopen betting options to any player that has checked, or bet, prior to the all-in wager.

Once a player has acted by checking or betting, they may not re-open the betting on that round unless another player makes a full bet or raise.

The standard amount considered necessary for an all-in bet to qualify as a full bet will be governed by the limit type for that game.

 limit: The all-in must be at least 50% of the required amount for that round.

No limit: Because there is no fixed amount for any betting round, the required amount necessary to re-open a round of betting must be 100% of the bet or raise.

I am going to use this on a different post covering the same subject.

I'll wait for your feedback.

Oh Jasper, by the way...I can't wait to hear from you again.  

[JasperToo]

K-lo brought up an interesting question.  If we asked 1000 players to read the rules (cause most of them haven't) how would they interpret them in this case?  The answer is, of course, all different.

As I have stated before I like debating the semantics of the rules as an academic exercise as well as obtaining a better or proper understanding of the rules.  The one thing that stands out for me in this example as well as a few others is that poker tradition plays a huge role in how the rules are interpreted.  Actually, I am sure that the rules were written around poker tradition so that a brand new player reading the rules might have a different interpretation than the writer intended.  That's just a long way of saying that I could be wrong about my interpretation.   Of course I am stubborn enough to be glad when other people see things the way I do!! 

So I did a little extra research and found this article over at the Hendon Mob website (http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director3/can_i_raise).  It does two thing for me, first it shows that I am not alone.  Misery and his company.  Two, it demonstrated that I am "wrong" in my interpretation.  Of course, it raised a few other questions regarding limit poker and added juice to the zero bet argument which I still hate but, what can you do.  Actually, I have found that the Hendon Mob doesn't always seem to give a clear answer on those "Your the TD" articles but it helps with the debate.

Alas, I was still willing do hang on to my beliefs a little while longer (oh the things we cling too!!) but then the clouds over Mt. Olympus opened and a voice came down from on high...

On Thursday, December 01, 2011 7:09:48 AM, "Bob Ciaffone" <bthecoach@att.net> wrote:
A bet of less than legal size (it would have to be all-in to be permissible) is not a wager that can be raised, whether or not there are callers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry [mailto:bthurd@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 2:54 AM
To: thecoach@chartermi.net
Subject: Opinion
Hello,
I was hoping I could get some input on a rule in RROP.
I have been having some long discussions about whether a player that
checks, in NL holdem, can raise a short-all in if there are intervening
callers?
seems to me that they should but many don't think so.
Thanks.
Barry

And the follow up:

You checked, then want to raise. The player behind never acted. He deserves a chance to bet, doesn’t he? We do not call his wager a raise, because technically, the undersize wager is not considered a bet.

I will change the email address on my website; thanks.

From: Barry [mailto:bthurd@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 6:14 PM
To: Bob Ciaffone
Subject: Re: wager rule

I guess I don't understand why that is.&nbsp; Afterall, what is a check-raise if not that, -&nbsp; because it is true that a player behind the short all in would be allowed to raise isn't it?.
However, I bow to your expertise and will accept it as stated.&nbsp; I have to go to the TDA forum and tell them how wrong I am now.

And so, there you have it.  I am going to need a cough drop after this but......Nick is right.  I was wrong about this one. 


So does anybody have a shovel?  I have a horse to bury.....

[Nick C]

Jasper Too,

 Please don't feel so bad. If I had a dollar for every bad call I've made or every rule that I got wrong...well let's just say that I'm glad you understand it now so you can make all the right calls.

 This is just one example of the need to make all of the rules for poker easier for all of us to understand.

Do we have to wait another year and a half to fix TDA rule #38?

Here are some suggestions:

A short all-in does not re-open betting to a player that already checked on their turn to act.
                      OR
A player that checked can not bet on the current round unless a player makes a full bet behind him.
                      OR
How about the one right from Bob Ciaffone:  a bet of less than the legal size (it would have to be from an all-in to be permisible) is not a wager that can be raised, whether or not there are callers.

I know with all the great minds out there, we can probably even improve on these.

Jasper Too,
 I would like to say that, it takes a special person to admit when they are wrong... about anything. You showed a lot of class in the way you handled it. I am excited to think that I now have a fierce, and tenacious member of the TDA in my corner ...okay, okay, let's just say that we finally agree on 1 rule for sure.