Author Topic: Under raise - underbet  (Read 39945 times)

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #45 on: November 26, 2011, 04:33:25 PM »
Happy Thanksgiving!   First, I apologize for using the word “angle”, as that might have suggested that I, personally, feel strongly that the action we are debating should not be allowed.  It is obvious to me from the tone of Jasper’s replies that he feels very strongly in his view, and I am not going to minimize that. Frankly, I don’t really care either way and am happy to enforce either interpretation.  I would just prefer that the rule be clear – one way or the other.  The fact that the rules are NOT clear as they stand, is something I believe there is agreement on.  Second, I apologize for the long post.  I had time off today. ☺

As Jasper noted, the current definition of “check” says the right to initiate the betting is waived, and the right to “act” is retained.  I believe he is arguing that, based on the definition of “action”, all acts including raise must therefore be available.  On the other hand, Rule 3 of Section 14 of RROP that deals specifically with No-Limit raising explicitly states that 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.  It is argued that the plain meaning of “acted” includes check, and in any event, the definition of “action” recites check.

Assuming that this correctly summarizes the viewpoints thus far, my point was that I doubt that when Rule 3 was codified, that the author took into account the definition of “action”, reconciled it with the definition of “check”, and then left it up to the readers to deduce that, specifically for Rule 3, a “check” should not count as an action or that the definition of “check” should override all other rules.  I believe it is reasonable to assume that when Rule 3 was drafted, it was inserted as a standalone provision, and I feel that when the Rule is read in isolation, its meaning and intent are plainly clear. 

Of course, we can't prove what was in the author’s mind when drafting the rules, and therein lies the ambiguity.  The reason I brought up the “I bet zero” argument (again apparently, I’m sorry for not having noticed) is that I verily believe that this has historical basis, and it is common when interpreting rules (or at least laws I suppose), to give some consideration to pre-rule history in trying to resolve ambiguity.  But as I conceded, I can’t prove this, so I’m not willing to die by this sword.

That being said, I am very open to being persuaded to accept Jasper’s interpretation.  If it is correct, I think Rule 3 has to be clarified because I am guessing that the “average” player reading that Rule would not immediately appreciate the nuances of “acted” not including a check.   I’m not sure I am convinced yet though.  For example, I’m not sure the analogy with the Limit Hold’em of Rule #7 is persuasive.   

Quote from: JasperToo
Take a look at RROP Betting & Raising #7.  it says that an all in wager of less than half a bet does not open the betting to a player who has previously acted AND is all in for all previous bets.   Granted, this particular rule says it is specific to limit play but I think it sort of demonstrates the concept I have been trying to argue.  That is: the rule about not reopening the betting would only apply to a player that has already put chips in the pot BEFORE the short bet.

I agree that this excerpted part of Rule #7 regarding limit play does suggest that the betting is not reopened where a player has previously acted AND is all in for previous bets.  But it wouldn't necessarily follow that the betting is not reopened only under that specified circumstance, and not under any others.  That reads the word “only” into the Rule where it does not appear. In fact, the next sentence of Rule #7 deals specifically with the situation when a player has not yet acted, and if it is being argued that “check”=”not yet acted”, then it is this part of Rule #7 that is most analogous to our situation.  It states that a player who has not yet acted… facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may fold, call or complete the wager.  But if the all-in wager is more than a half bet, than a player may fold, call, or make a full raise. 

I think it is instructive to note that in the short all-in situation, there is no mention of “full raise” being an option.  The Rule could have been written as: “A player who has not yet acted… facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may fold, call, complete the wager, or make a full raise” – but that last option is clearly missing, despite it being recited explicitly as an option in the other case.  Since there is no such thing as “complete” in NL, I think I would be more persuaded by an argument that Rule #7 would suggest that an analogous NL situation does not allow a full raise, only fold or call, since only those two options in the list make sense in NL.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #46 on: November 26, 2011, 04:34:16 PM »
Quote from: JasperToo
Isn't the relative bet amount the same for a check-raiser when players simply limp in with a minimum bet for the round?

I apologize if I wasn’t clear.  I was referring to the relative difference between the wager made by the short stack, and the initial wager of the player who is considering raising. E.g.:

Scenario #1:

NL – Blinds 0.50/$1, 3 players see the flop
Player A (UTG) has $1000
Player B (cutoff) has $1.25
Player C (button) has $1000

A bets $1.  B raises all-in to $1.25.  C calls $1.25.


It is clear that A cannot raise, he must call the difference of 25c (or fold).

Scenario #2:

NL – Blinds 0.50/$1, 3 players see the flop
Player A (UTG) has $1000
Player B (cutoff) has $0.25
Player C (button) has $1000

A checks.  B goes all-in for $0.25.   C calls $0.25.  Player goes all in for $1000…?


It seems strange to me that in addition to the options of folding, and calling the same difference of 25c, that A would be permitted to, say, raise all-in here.  In both scenarios, it is only 25c more than A’s previous investment in the pot thus far on that round to call.   Yet, by checking rather than betting $1, A can now raise to any amount between $1.25 and $1000, significantly expanding his range of available options.  By allowing A to check-raise in this case seems to make the differences in options between the two similar scenarios very lopsided.  I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be allowed, I am just pointing out that allowing a check-raise here appears to create a very unbalanced situation.

Quote from: JasperToo
A player that has placed chips in the pot has exercised his right to aggression to which all other players have the opportunity to respond.  If he subsequently faces a shot all-in he can't raise.  I think that is the key difference.

By phrasing the problem in terms of whether a player has placed chips in the pot and therefore “has exercised his right to aggression” is much more persuasive to me than all of the other arguments based on the one-line definition of “Check” in RROP, which may be flawed and which we have analyzed more rigorously than the original author probably ever did.  I can definitely appreciate this perspective, and if accepted, would certainly give more of an advantage to OOP players over their late position opponents in pots where at least one player was very short (<1BB).  This affects the dynamic immensely since, in Scenario #2 above, C can do nothing to prevent A from raising other than folding to a miniscule all-in from B, and therefore A “earns” the button simply by knowing enough to check. 

But here’s a counter-argument: why phrase the problem in terms of exercising a right to aggression rather than surrendering it?  When a player faces no bet, he only has 2 options other than fold:  a passive option “check” and an aggressive option “bet”.  Similarly, when a player faces a bet, he also has 2 options other than fold:  a passive option “call” and an aggressive option “raise”.  There is an inherent and wonderful symmetry here.  Would it not make more sense, for consistency, to rule that whenever a player chooses a passive option, he is relinquishing his right to be aggressive unless another player re-opens the betting?  If it's true for “call”, then why shouldn't it also be for “check” where “call” is not an option? 

It appears that the only reason why there is “debate” is because the one-sentence definition of CHECK currently in RROP is lacking clarity.  I think we need to amend the definition to say “… but to retain the right to act (but not necessarily to raise)” or conversely, “… but to retain the right to act including the option to raise”, which would end the debate.  But if we’re going to disagree, I still think it should be the former.  ☺

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2011, 09:40:17 AM »
K-Lo, first of all, happy Thanksgiving to you as well.  Secondly, OMG! OMG! what an absolutely coherent, cogent statement of the argument and rebuttal.  Wow, I try hard to be clear but I know sometimes I ramble.  Thanks for having the day off!!

You have made fairly good arguments regarding your point of view but I will try to reduce it to some of the essentials.  For the record, while I might be fairly passionate about my position on this, I too am happy to let either interpretation of this play stand and wouldn't give a TD any argument.  I am just one of the guys that tries to take the rules at their face and understand them and apply them.  Debating the nuance is half the fun.

Don't apologize for using the word "angle" because I actually think that is at the heart of this particular problem and I will try to show you why later on.

Regarding paragraph 2 & 3 of the first post: you did summarize the viewpoint thus far very well.  However, I am going to have to disagree that RROP Rule 3's meaning and intent is plainly clear because as you previously stated there is no way we can determine what was in Bob's mind when he codified it and I still happen to believe that there is "action" and then there is "ACTION" (with chips, specifically).

As to the "I bet zero" statement.  It is just an idea that has been presented several times in regards to this argument, and again, no need for apology.  I would be interested in the historical basis you mention.  While we all seem to agree that there is some ambiguity as to the meaning of action here I think the definition of "Check" is clear enough to exclude a "BET" of zero simply because it states: the player waives the right to initiate "betting" in a round.  So you can't be betting zero if you can't initiate betting.  No falling on swords here and I may have said this in previous posts but it bears repeating because this idea of a zero bet, if allowed, gives weight to the idea that a player that checked has acted in the same way that a player has acted who placed chips in the pot. 

Thanks for taking the time to discuss the Rule #7 analogy.  I realized it might not be a strong one but after reviewing your answer I actually think it may be a bit better.  :)  You state that the second part of rule 7 deals specifically with a player that has not yet acted and that this would be most analogous to our situation.  I think you may be correct. And I think you make the point well.  But I would like to respond by stating that the second part does give the option to that player of raising the short all-in up to a "complete" bet or "complete and raise" depending on the size of the short all-in.  It's a "raise" in either case, but this is limit so, well, you are limited :) :) And if you go back to Rule #3 under NL it specifically states the way you raise a short all-in in NL.  Of course, my real point of using rule#7 as an example is because I think it demonstrated the concept that "action" for this purpose involved already being in the pot with chips. 


JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #48 on: November 27, 2011, 09:47:59 AM »
Your second post seems to poke at the heart of the problem for me and why the word angle is apt.  There seems to be a sense among the proponents of not allowing the checker to raise that he is somehow "angling" or taking advantage of the other players by raising this poor short stack bastard to his left.  Let me demonstrate with some of your statements.
You state "By allowing A to check-raise in this case seems to make the differences in options between the two similar scenarios very lopsided".  And then "...allowing a check-raise here appears to create a very unbalanced situation."  Lopsided and unbalanced.  Further, you state "I...would certainly give more of an advantage to OOP players over their late position opponents in pots where at least one player was very short."  you stipulated that you would do that only if you accepted my aggression argument so the inference is that you feel it is "taking advantage".  And this: "in Scenario #2 above, C can do nothing to PREVENT A from raising other than folding to a miniscule all-in from B, therefore A "earns" the button simply by knowing enough to check".  I infer from this that you feel A is somehow angling and that it is unacceptable and somehow unethical.   Let's look at the example you posed:

Scenario #2:

NL – Blinds 0.50/$1, 3 players see the flop
Player A (UTG) has $1000
Player B (cutoff) has $0.25
Player C (button) has $1000

A checks.  B goes all-in for $0.25.   C calls $0.25.  Player goes all in for $1000…?

My question to you here is if the blinds are .50 and $1 what's the difference if player B flats and C calls and A over-bets the pot for $1000?  I just don't see one.  Could be my myopia but I just don't get the difference.  And how does C protect himself from A raising if all he does is flat call?  He runs the same risk of being raised by limping to a full bet as he does to a limping against a short all-in.

Another telling statement regarding the sentiment of an angle shoot or taking advantage is when you pose the counter-argument: "Why phrase the problem in terms of exercising a right to aggression rather than SURRENDERING it?"  Your thoughts on passive/aggressive options are wonderfully symmetrical but the reality is that our central debate is whether or not a check is a "passive" action in the same sense that a "call" is passive.  I don't think it is.  (as a side note, I find it telling that there is a definition of aggressive action in RROP glossary but not a definition of passive action.  Just sayin')

It comes down to a one question for me I guess: What the hell is a check-raise?  I guess you could say that it is the only codified "angle shoot" in the game :)  This is where the poor shmuck in his disadvantaged first position gets to set up his opponents for a killing blow.  He runs the risk of checking his pocket Aces and having nobody open the pot for him to be able to strike.  But if someone is silly enough to open the pot by betting, then he gets to strike.  So why is it so wrong for him to do it when the bettor is a short all-in??  There can't be anything ethically or morally wrong, check-raising is in the rules as a codified angle shoot (ok don't beat me up for overusing that, I like it) so what is the essential difference between check raise of a full bet and a short bet?   None, I say, at it's foundation.  None at all.

Again, I say there is none.  But I have a more important question: Why is it ok for player C in our scenarios to be able to raise that short all-in bet?  NL Rule#3 states that he has that option and spells out how he must go about doing it.  So, clearly there is nothing wrong with raising this short stack, none at all.  There is nothing wrong with raising the short all-in if you are player C only if you are player A and have checked???? 

Do you see anything in the definition of a Check-Raise in the rules that suggest it somehow has limited options?  I don't.  So we get right back to the debate over what "action" checking actually is.  Or perhaps it is more apt to debate what "action" is as it relates to NL Rule#3?  Since it is this rule that seems to be getting people stuck.  I say "action" there must mean aggressive action (having previously placed chips in the pot) - I lightly reference B&R #7 - NL Rule #2 & #4 (and #3 itself) and glossary definitions of check and check-raise and aggressive action to suggest that there is much LESS in the rules to suggest that Player A cannot raise and much MORE in the rules to suggest that he can.

 Thanks again K-lo for your post, frikkin great.  I wonder if I am able to persuade you yet to my way of thinking??   :o ::) ;D


Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #49 on: November 27, 2011, 09:55:43 PM »
I looked in the R.O.P.E. and didn't find anything fir passive action either. Perhaps Tom could chime in here? Or add something to the ROPE? I think defining passive action is the answer. (Though I am still against raising a short all-in)
http://www.pokertps.com/intro.php

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #50 on: November 28, 2011, 08:32:53 AM »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #51 on: November 28, 2011, 09:59:01 AM »
Thanks, Jasper.  I don't have the day off today, so I'll have to be brief and probably not as coherent.  ;-)   I do understand your points of view, and I do feel that I could be persuaded to accept that Rule 3 at least should be amended in the way that you suggest.

The problem with Rule #3 as it stands now is that it (currently) doesn't say "initiated an action involving chips", it just says "acted".  Would you agree that if we were to take a poll of say 1000 non-TD poker players, and quoted the Rule alone without also showing them the definition of "check", most of them would understand "acted" to include "check" for that particular rule?  If so, then this is a problem.  I would be persuaded by the argument that "acted" for Rule 3 currently includes "check" just because that's how most players reading the rule in isolation would interpret it.  But I can also appreciate the position that possibly everyone could be "wrong" because they really ought to be considering how all the Rules work together, and that Rule 3 should be clarified accordingly.  ;-)  

So I am slowly moving towards the "dark side"... (just kidding).  Perhaps a few more clarifications of your position?

Quote
My question to you here is if the blinds are .50 and $1 what's the difference if player B flats and C calls and A over-bets the pot for $1000?  I just don't see one.  Could be my myopia but I just don't get the difference.  And how does C protect himself from A raising if all he does is flat call?  He runs the same risk of being raised by limping to a full bet as he does to a limping against a short all-in.

When you say B "flats", I'm assuming you mean "bet minimum" since A has checked.  I think the difference here might be that B has enough chips to open the betting.  Do you think that this should make a difference?  It appears that the Rules generally treat wagers that are not enough to open or re-open the betting differently, and limit options available to subsequent players.

Quote
Rule #3 (excerpt):
A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is (1) less than the minimum bet or (2) less than the full size of the last bet or raise.

(1),(2): my emphasis

If "already acted" does not include a check, then wouldn't the phrase "that is less than the minimum bet" be redundant?  I'm trying to think of a situation where there would be a reason to cite two alternatives if "already acted" always involves an action involving chips.  If "already acted" = "already performed an action involving chips", then I think the rest of Rule could have simply read: "... may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise".  If we are to give meaning to the part of the Rule that says "that is less than the minimum bet", wouldn't "already acted" have to include check?  What situations are (1) supposed to address in contrast to the situations (2) are supposed to address?
    
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 10:00:44 AM by K-Lo »

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #52 on: November 28, 2011, 07:33:50 PM »
.
(Though I am still against raising a short all-in)

http://www.pokertps.com/intro.php

Why?
I feel it is against my interpretation of the rules

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #53 on: November 29, 2011, 01:13:16 AM »

...Would you agree that if we were to take a poll of say 1000 non-TD poker players, and quoted the Rule alone without also showing them the definition of "check", most of them would understand "acted" to include "check" for that particular rule?


Unfortunately for my side I would have to agree that there are far fewer folks that interpret things the way I do in this case.  But we could have a similar lengthy thread on whether or not a bet of chips that is half or more of a raise in NL poker should be considered a raise, yet 1000 non-TD poker players would tell you that even if it is a dollar short of a raise it is just a call.  (actually, I think I have a stronger argument for this and would have less resistance )
Point being, that tradition and misunderstanding play a big roll.  My fun here is taking the rule set at it's face and making it work properly (mmmm,,, well, the why I think it is properly)

While we could perhaps clarify rule #3 somehow, moving everybody to the dark side by an understanding of "action" could work too.

So I am slowly moving towards the "dark side"... (just kidding).  Perhaps a few more clarifications of your position?

Feel the force young K-lo.  Let it overtake you!


When you say B "flats", I'm assuming you mean "bet minimum" since A has checked.  I think the difference here might be that B has enough chips to open the betting.  Do you think that this should make a difference?  It appears that the Rules generally treat wagers that are not enough to open or re-open the betting differently, and limit options available to subsequent players.


Yes, B just bets the minimum and I don't think it should make a difference because we were comparing the relative difference in the check-raiser raising a short all-in by some margin compared to someone who just limped.  Honestly, I wasn't positive what your point really was.  But it seemed to be about there being some overly lopsided advantage for A coming over the top of that all-in player.  I was just comparing the same play against a limper and don't see how it matters.  Perhaps I should ask you why you think it might matter?



(1),(2): my emphasis

If "already acted" does not include a check, then wouldn't the phrase "that is less than the minimum bet" be redundant?  I'm trying to think of a situation where there would be a reason to cite two alternatives if "already acted" always involves an action involving chips.  If "already acted" = "already performed an action involving chips", then I think the rest of Rule could have simply read: "... may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise".  If we are to give meaning to the part of the Rule that says "that is less than the minimum bet", wouldn't "already acted" have to include check?  What situations are (1) supposed to address in contrast to the situations (2) are supposed to address?


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"



JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #54 on: November 29, 2011, 01:17:35 AM »
.
(Though I am still against raising a short all-in)

http://www.pokertps.com/intro.php

Why?
I feel it is against my interpretation of the rules

Ok, that's cool.  I was just checking if there was anything else a about it that you thought was a problem.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #55 on: November 29, 2011, 01:46:39 AM »
K-lo, as a follow up...

I can't help but compare Rule #7 with NL #3 for several of reasons, the first is that Rule #7 is actually specifically referenced in Rule #3.  The parenthetical phrase at the end of rule #3 is a direct reference to the rule.  While rule #7 speaks to the technicalities of raises in limit poker, rule #3 distinguishes the differences in NL.  (mind you, that could include not raising a short all-in but I will not concede that).  The second reason is that in the introductory paragraph of section 14 it says that all the rules of limit play apply except where specified in this section.

So if you spend some time looking at the two side by side I think you may see that rule #3 is merely distinguishing the fact that in order to raise in NL you have to put in the amount of the last bet plus at least the minimum bet or more depending on the circumstance.  The size of the all in does not effect the amount of the minimum raise as it can in limit.

One other note... rule #2 talks about what happens when a player "bets" a short all-in.  "if a player wishes to raise must raise at least the minimum bet"  Wouldn't this be the spot to say something like "except a player that already acted?  Actually, this is exactly the scenario that describes a check and then several flat calls of a short all-in don't you think? 

just spit balling here a bit but I think it fits.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #56 on: November 29, 2011, 09:08:52 AM »
When you say B "flats", I'm assuming you mean "bet minimum" since A has checked.  I think the difference here might be that B has enough chips to open the betting.  Do you think that this should make a difference?  It appears that the Rules generally treat wagers that are not enough to open or re-open the betting differently, and limit options available to subsequent players.

Yes, B just bets the minimum and I don't think it should make a difference because we were comparing the relative difference in the check-raiser raising a short all-in by some margin compared to someone who just limped.  Honestly, I wasn't positive what your point really was.  But it seemed to be about there being some overly lopsided advantage for A coming over the top of that all-in player.  I was just comparing the same play against a limper and don't see how it matters.  Perhaps I should ask you why you think it might matter?

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).  

Rule #3 (excerpt):
A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is (1) less than the minimum bet or (2) less than the full size of the last bet or raise.

If "already acted" does not include a check, then wouldn't the phrase "that is less than the minimum bet" be redundant?  ...

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  :P (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).  

I'm still trying to come up with a situation where a player who has already acted is facing an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet, to give meaning to alternative (1), but does not fall under the 'full size of the last raise' scenario of alternative (2).

Quote
I can't help but compare Rule #7 with NL #3 for several of reasons, the first is that Rule #7 is actually specifically referenced in Rule #3.  The parenthetical phrase at the end of rule #3 is a direct reference to the rule.  While rule #7 speaks to the technicalities of raises in limit poker, rule #3 distinguishes the differences in NL.  (mind you, that could include not raising a short all-in but I will not concede that).  The second reason is that in the introductory paragraph of section 14 it says that all the rules of limit play apply except where specified in this section.

I noted earlier that the option to raise in the corresponding scenario identified in Rule #7 was specifically left out of NL #3.  Only "complete" was an option in that scenario.  But "Completing the bet" is not used at big-bet poker (explicitly exempted by NL #5).  So therefore, if 'all rules of limit play apply except as specified', the only options left in the relevant scenario are fold or call.  Now, I understand your point that "completing" is indicative of some raise, and perhaps that has some merit, but reference to section 14 does not help you here.  I think it is very telling that "raise" was explicitly left out of the scenario in Rule #7 that we were discussing.  

Now, on the other hand, if you think that NL #3 should be amended to allow a check raise of a short all-in, not to any amount, but to the minimum bet amount (like a 'complete'), that would certainly be worth considering and makes a lot more sense to me.  I would back that 100%.


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.  ::)

« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 11:25:29 AM by K-Lo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3269
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #57 on: November 29, 2011, 02:10:52 PM »
K-Lo,
 I have quietly sat back and witnessed Jasper Too take you off your original (and correct) assessment of the proper raise rule for no limit hold'em. Your original post was probably the best one that I've seen in about a year. Here's the way it is:

 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.

 Same game: after the flop: Player A checks, Player B goes All-in for 75, Player C's options: a.) fold...b.) call 75..or c.) raise to 175.
If Player C calls 75, the options to Player A are: a.) fold...b. call 75, or c.) raise to 175.
If Player C raises the all-in bet of Player B to 175, the options to Player A are: fold...b.) call...or c.) raise to 275.

In No Limit there is no half the bet rule. Therefore, the only way to re-open the betting to a player who has already acted by checking, is to initiate a bet of a 100% minimum required. In other words; because it is not a structured game, the all-in must equal at least the minimum bet (the size of the Big Blind) or an intervening player must make a full (100%) bet, in order to re-open the betting.

 The player that checked initially could have gone all-in, but opted to check. It is not like he or she, was deprived the oportunity to bet. It is not much different than playing in a game and checking a nut hand, with the hope that another player will bet, so you can raise. When the others check, you have to settle for a no bet round.

 In no limit poker, every player has the opportunity to go all-in on every betting round, so what's the problem?

I'd like to see the half the bet rule used in all forms of poker, because it is so simple. That's probably why it will never happen.

I thought this would be a good time for my milestone post number 1,000!

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #58 on: November 29, 2011, 03:55:44 PM »
I thought this would be a good time for my milestone post number 1,000!

Congrats!   ;D

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Under raise - underbet
« Reply #59 on: November 30, 2011, 11:27:32 PM »
Congrats NIck!  Nice job.  I am glad your 1000th post was in response to my constant dribble!!!