Question about rules #29 and 31

[Nick C]

To all
At some point in this heated discussion we shifted from Rule #29 over to rule #31. Perhaps we can separate the two especially with the title; Question about Rule 29

[NupZ_FTAG]

All clear. ;-)

I've also been through the other topic 'Under Raise' that helped a lot.

Thank you so much,
Cheers,
NupZ..

[Lushin]

hi all
first of all i apologize for my bad english.
short summary:
nl, sb 200, bb 400.
utg 2 announces raise but utg 1 hasnt act.
so utg 1 all in with 700.
a) ut2 has still to raise because it wasnt a full raise from utg1, seems clear to me
b) is a little tricky for me. whats the minimum raise from utg 2. 800, 1100, 1400...
hm, i think minimum raise is  1100.

thx for answers

[Stuart Murray]

Lushin,

I make the presumption that we are pre-flop and action has just started on the hand.

In this situation UTG1 was facing a forced bet of 400 (the BB) so the minimum raise would be 400 to 800 total.
UTG+2 announced raise before UTG+1 acted on his hand, since UTG+2 has acted out of turn and the action has not changed (700 all-in from +1 is action only and does not change the action) he must now complete his verbal declaration by raising.

The minimum he must raise in your scenario is as follows:
BB 400 + all-in 300 + Minimum riase again of 400 = 1,100 total, as you thought.

Had UTG+1 had enough for a full raise UTG+2 could of retracted his raise statement and re-considered his actions as the action had changed to him.

I quote:
29.   Verbal Declarations / Acting in Turn
Verbal declarations in turn are binding.  Players are required to act in turn.  Action out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed.  A check, call or fold is not considered action changing.

IMO Given the previous discussions we have held the action has not changed by going all-in for 700 total.

Hope this helps

Stuart

[Nick C]

Stuamurr,

  This is where I get real confused. I agree completely until you get to the part about the action not changing to UTG 2. Obviously he was not aware of UTG 1 being in the hand. I will now Quote rule #29 in part; Action out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call or fold is not considered action changing.
  I can only assume that the other two options would change the action, right? Eliminate check, call and fold and we have a bet or a raise. In this case I consider the action did change to UTG 2 and he should have the option to just call. In fact, I would allow him to call or make his original minimal raise of $400 to a total bet of $800. In that example, it could be possible that the UTG 2 might not be obligated to his raise when UTG 1 goes in for $700. He might even have the right to fold. Why did the player skip the player in front of him? We have to consider the intent of the UTG 2; Intentional (according to Webster;done with intention, or on purpose). Give him a warning and if he does it again he will be subjected to any consequences of his out of turn action. 

That's how I see it.
Nick Ciavarella

[chet]

Nick:  I happen to agree with you on this one.  I really need someone to explain why the all-in of 700, which is more than a call, but less than a full raise, does not change the action.  I could understand if the all-in was for 300 total, which would be less than a call, but not when the total amount of the all-in is more than a call. 

My position is that UTG2 can 'raise' to 800 total, which would at that point in time create a side pot of 100.  The next player can call the 800, 700 of which goes into the main pot, fold or raise (the minimum raise would be another 400 to 1200).

Since no player "officially" acted prior to the all-in by UTG1, I do not believe rule 31 applies to this example.

As Nick said, I would give UTG2 a warning, etc.

Stuart:  I really would like to know your thoughts on why the minimum raise would be to 1100 and not 800.  For that matter, I would like to know the BOD position also.

Chet

[Stuart Murray]

wow this really is a can of worms this subject!  Ok here we go remember as always the expressions and comments I make are not those of the TDA and may differ from other TD's interpretations.

In my reply I use rules 29 and 31 as reference points:

Action Changed: Given the previous discussions we have had most of you have already accepted that during a betting round: 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.  So we have already accepted thats the case during a round of betting for a player going all-in with less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to players whom have already acted right? and that this all-in is classed as action only right? We have all agreed on this.  So logically speaking this is not a full raise pre-plop and action only so has the action changed any different from the player who made the same all-in movement for 700 post-flop facing a bet off 400.  The original bettor in that situation is faced with action only and therefore in order to not be contradictory so is UTG+2 in this situation.

Whilst I can see Chet's and Nick's argument that the action HAS changed to UTG+2, in order for me to be most consistent I must rule the 700 as non-action changing

The Minimum raise of UTG+2:  utg+2 (providing you have accepted the action has not changed) must make a full raise on on top of the TOTAL bet (not raise) of which he is facing so he is facing 700 with a minimum full raise required of 400 to 1100 (A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round)  I would refer anyone with uncertainty to MikeB and my own replies to the under raise and rule 31 thread about action-only.


Best Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

Chet, Stuart and anyone else out there that is having issues with the raise rule.


                                                                                                   POT-LIMIT
   
Consider this: Pot-limit is the only poker game that could dictate a different maximum bet or raise to every player on every betting round.

The number of bets combined with varied amounts alter the allowable wager, even when the bets are equal. Example; Pot size $100
Player A bets $50, Player B calls $50, Player C calls $50, Player D calls $50, etc. With each call the maximum bet and raise option changes
to each new bettor. This makes the undersized bets and raises of all-in players a relevant part of the allowable bets, because it alters the size of the pot. I would accept this as a very logical and understandable ruling for pot-limit.
Example; The accumulation of  wagers including those of multiple all-in players with differing amounts will be considered when compiling a full raise amount for that round of betting.
                                       
                                                     NO-LIMIT


Unlike pot-limit: Example; blinds 10/20, pot size (irrelevant) Player A bets $50, player B calls $50 player C calls $50 and player D calls $50 etc.
The number of players should not dictate any change in options to players that follow on that round of betting, unless a full raise is made.
                                       
Any undersized bet by an all-in player shall be recognized as action only . Any undersized raise can never reopen a re-raise to the player that
initiated the first full bet for that round of betting. Any player that checked prior to a full bet followed by an all-in raise, or a full raise by an  intervening player will have every option, including a re-raise.

I think we need to separate  the two

Nick C

[shimi664]

Hi There
Another question about acting out of turn:
If player A (never mind how many people are in the hand) said in his turn: "Raise" and before he had the chance of stating to how much he is raising the player behind him (B) said: "call".
Does player B obligated to call any amount? Even All-in or is he obligate to call only minimum raise?

Thanks

[Stuart Murray]

By the book yes, he is obligated however it would be determined for me by a number of factors,  if it was someone who thought it was a small raise going in but then the player moved all-in and I believed their was a gross misunderstanding as-to the total bet then i would consider releasing the player from their verbal declaration, but I would need to be satisfied that it was in the best interests of the game.

Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

To shimi664,
  I agree with Stuart. Player B, by his quick reaction, would be an indication to me that he wants in, no matter what the bet is. Stuart also goes on to say that; "unless it was a gross misunderstanding as to the total bet then I would consider releasing the player from their verbal declaration, but I would need to be satisfied that it is in the best interest of the game." This is very important. We always have to consider the intent of the player. A new player or an inexperienced player might make a mistake that others would not, however once they are reprimanded for their out of turn action, it should be enough to get the message across. Any player that intentionally continues to "walk the grey line" on any house rules has no re-dress (re-dress according to Webster; relief from wrong or injury, to adjust evenly again) and will be subjected to the consiquences of his actions. It has been my experience through many years of being around poker games (in casinos and house games), that any player that breaks the rules consistantly is probably someone that you don't need in your card room.
Shimi664, I feel that your example got your message across. I will also assume that this is preflop and Player A is raising the big blind.I also want you to know that other players being in the hand could have a profound effect on making the correct decision. A good example, I think, would be if after B said call (prematurely) and player C followed with "all-in" raise of his own, then player B might have no way out of his verbal out of turn action. This is what keeps us sharp!...This is how we make the right call every time (ha, ha,), right? I like to throw in a little humor when I think it fits. I hope you don't mind. I assure you, I take this Discussion Forum very serious.

Thanks for listening.
Nick C