POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Discussion of Rules by Specific Game Types

Controversial ruling in 2-7 NL Single Draw

<< < (2/3) > >>

K-Lo:
Very nice, Mike.  That pretty much sums it up.

I personally think the current language favors the interpretation that the wager is a raise to 1000, although I do support an amendment along the lines that you note, that it should be a call of 800 because that is more likely the intention.

Nick C:
Mike,

 I understand what you are saying but I really think that giving special mention that the current rule does not apply to 2-7 Kansas City Low ball might be a better option. I have played poker many years and have never played the game. The way I see it, not calling a double the bet action a raise will confuse anyone. I would support whatever ruling you decide on, but I think excluding 2-7 is a better idea. A footnote that states the only options offered in 2-7 on the initial betting round is fold or a min raise or, required raise, or something to that effect.

MikeB:

--- Quote from: K-Lo on July 07, 2012, 12:55:50 PM ---Very nice, Mike.  That pretty much sums it up.

I personally think the current language favors the interpretation that the wager is a raise to 1000, although I do support an amendment along the lines that you note, that it should be a call of 800 because that is more likely the intention.
--- End quote ---

A few more thoughts on this issue thread:.....

beyond the semantic issues is a functional issue: Whether the minimum opener is considered a call or a raise, it's functionally beneficial to have the same "call" amount for either an overchip or multiple-chip bettor. TDA Rule 38 currently reads: "Anytime when facing a bet or blind, placing a single oversized chip in the pot is a call if a raise isn’t first verbally declared." If this is applied literally to the lowball opener, overchips of any size will always be considered "calls" since the lowball opener is facing a bet or blind.  BUT... what are they calling?? Certainly not the 400, so they must be calling the 800 minimum opener.  The key for me is that whatever is considered the amount to call for one type of bet (an overchip) should also be the amount to call for another type of bet (2 chips, same denomination). In the example in this case, if the UTG player facing the SB and BB pre-draw in NL Lowball silently tosses in an overchip and is considered to have "called" 800, then 800 should also be the amount to "call" for the player tossing in two 500's... it shouldn't be 800 to call for the overchip guy, but 400 is considered the call amount for the multiple-chip player.

These bet/raise rules were not written specifically with NL lowball (or minimum openers generally) in mind... that's why an amendment or more likely a separate rule on the topic is worth considering....

BTW, does anyone have a clip of this ruling?

Nick C:
Looking at all of the current rules I have to lean in the direction of a bet of 800.

    #3...It is the responsibility of player's to make their intentions clear. Placing two 500 count chips into the pot is unclear.

    #36 Methods of Raising...Verbal declaration of the full amount prior to placing chips into the pot, (and again) Making intentions clear.

    #44 might even be considered, it is unclear, and the lesser amount (even though nothing was said) should be recognized as the intended bet.

Rule #44 even makes me wonder if 1000 should be considered, even if he said raise and tossed in 2 500's. Without saying the amount, it is still unclear, isn't it?

I really see nothing in our rules that would support the intent to raise to 1000.

Very interesting.

I think your idea of an amendment is the best choice.

K-Lo:
I don't disagree with anything that's been said. 

I'm wondering though whether you think it's relevant at all that there are some places, live and online, where they play this game with a structure that does not require players to open with a raise (and thus it is possible to simply call the 400).  In this case, two 500 chips would be considered a raise to 1000.  Do you think it's odd to have the wager mean one thing in one structure and a different thing in another structure for the "same" game? 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page