Re-Opening the Bet Examples... for the 2013 Illustration Addendum

[MikeB]

Ladies & Gents:

Your assistance in drafting 2 or 3 concrete examples of the "re-opening the bet" language would be tremendously welcome.  Here's how the proposed language now reads:

37:  Raises.  
A: A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round.  If a player raises 50% or more of the previous bet but less than a minimum raise, he must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips in Rule 39).

B: In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting to a player who has already acted and is not facing at least a full raise when the action returns to him. See Illustration Addendum.
  
C: In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. (wsop). See Illustration Addendum.


SO, if you are going to provide 2 or 3 examples ("illustrations") to a newbie that unmistakably convey the intention of, especially 37-B, what would they be? We need examples of both when the bet is re-opened and when it is not.

Thanks alot!

[Nick C]

Hello Mike,

 I'm looking back at some of the earlier posts. I'll send this out for now: The current rule seems to apply only after a legal size bet has been made, otherwise no raise is possible? A player that checks in turn; can re-enter the betting round if another player opens that round, and will have every option open to them, including a raise.

 A brief explanation at the end of the rule would be enough. Any player, who has acted by checking in turn, is allowed to re-enter that round of betting with all options open to them.

  I'm trying to say that; the current rule does not apply to any player that has checked in turn prior to the bet and short all-in that followed. Whew! 

 The rule could actually apply to all games, limit included, if we changed some wording. Example: An all-in raise must qualify as the required legal amount, in order to reopen betting.

NO-LIMIT & POT LIMIT

 Any Player that has checked on his turn to act, is allowed to raise if a subsequent player makes a legal bet. A legal bet must fulfill the minimum requirement, which is at least the size of the big blind.

[MikeB]

Looking more for examples, not text.

Such as:

Example 1: Blinds 200-400. Postflop A opens for 400, B calls, C goes all-in for 799 total. D has all options open, because D has not yet acted. If D smooth calls the 799, then it is 399 to A and B who have both acted. Since 399 is less than a full raise (400), A and B can only call or fold. If D raises the 799 by 400 to 1199, then it is 799 to A. Since 799 is more than a full minimum raise to A, the betting is re-opened and A can call, fold, or raise.

There are also numerous links to re-opening the bet threads here:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=823.0

Do any of those contain examples you particularly like?

[Tristan]

That one looks good to me.

[RockyPhillips]

Recommended change in RED Add words at least would not come out in red??

Example 1: Blinds 200-400. Postflop A opens for 400, B calls, C goes all-in for 799 total. D has all options open, because D has not yet acted. If D smooth calls the 799, then it is 399 to A and B who have both acted. Since 399 is less than a full raise (400), A and B can only call or fold. If D raises the 799 by at least 400 to 1199, then it is 799 to A. Since 799 is more than a full minimum raise to A, the betting is re-opened and A can call, fold, or raise.

[MikeB]

Rocky: Thanks, changes noted. This is a pretty good example, really, because it shows two alternative outcomes.

I also went through the betting and raising consolidated archives and pulled several good examples from there:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=823.0

.... So the Illustration Addendum will have multiple good examples to answer just about any situation.

[Nick C]

Mike,

 The TDA makes use of percentages on many raise rules...why not use 100% as an example for a qualified amount? The example you gave is fine for most but, the amount (399) might confuse some.

[MikeB]

Right, good point, need to add it for clarification...