Revision needed to re-opening language?

[MikeB]

An associate submitted the following suggestions on the topic of re-opening the betting:

[begin comments]....

... I need to point this out...someone with less experience than us may interpret [re-opening language] differently (literally) based on the way it is written...

37:   Raises .  A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round.  If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the 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). 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

Ok, so the scenario again is: 1-2 blinds, no-limit game, Player A checks.  Player B bets 25.  Player C goes all-in for 40.  The house rules (incorrectly), that Player A is not allowed to raise because "an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted"

[To avoid this] might it be better if the rule read something to the effect that:... an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted on the last full bet or raise?

Anyway, my concern was, with the hundreds and hundreds of cardrooms out there and dozens more popping up, I have to believe this is not the only one that may find this translation confusing.  But then again, maybe not.  Just a heads up...   KW
[ end comments ]

[Nick C]

Mike,

We have been discussing this one more than any other rule. There are numerous suggestions for changes on past posts. Before the 2011 Summit it was TDA Rule #31, just in case you want to look them up.

 

[MikeB]

An associate submitted the following suggestions on the topic of re-opening the betting:

[begin comments]....

37:   Raises .  A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round.  If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the 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). 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

Ok, so the scenario again is: 1-2 blinds, no-limit game, Player A checks.  Player B bets 25.  Player C goes all-in for 40.  The house rules (incorrectly), that Player A is not allowed to raise because "an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted"

[To avoid this] might it be better if the rule read something to the effect that:... an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted on the last full bet or raise?
[ end comments ]

KW: I like the meaning you're trying to achieve, not necessarily the verbatim language. What about something closer to "... an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted... if the total of all bets and raises back to that player is cumulatively less than a full bet amount...".  I know that lingo would need polishing, but it makes the vital point that regardless whether there's an intervening short all-in, it is the total bet back to the player who has already acted that determines re-opening.  This is important for the same concerns you give in your example, b/c your proposed language does not literally address the impact of an intervening full raise between the short all-in and the already-acted player.... stipulating the total bet back to the already-acted player as the key consideration seems to achieve this.

Food for thought, thanks again for the recs.

[K-Lo]

Nice points.  I do see the point of potential confusion for newbies.

How about just simply:  ".... does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted and is not facing a full raise"?

[Nick C]

Mike,

I like where we are going with this.

I believe adding something like; However, this will not deprive a player from the right to "checkraise" any bet on that round.

There are many suggestions on other posts.

[MikeB]

Nick: you still can't checkraise a short all-in unless there are additional intervening bets to bring the total up to a full bet.

K: That's the essence of what the rule intends.

Almost no matter how you word this there is some, if slight, room for a newbie to get it wrong if they overthink it. Ultimately the best thing may be to create an "illustration addendum" at the END of the rules. The addendum would contain concrete unmistakable illustrations of those few rules that might need it... a seasoned TD would not need to print out the addendum but someone starting out could have it as an additional reference until they develop a strong understanding of the rule. Food for thought.

Here's some related threads:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=526.0

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=736.0

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=568.0

[Nick C]

Mike,

I know it's confusing but, the statement I made about checkraise is correct. The last line of the current rule comes across as not allowing the player that checked, the right to raise a short all-in...In order for an all-in player to make a raise, there had to be an intervening player that bet. Therefore the player that checked is allowed to raise any bet.

I will look at the other links you suggest.

There are also other posts dating back over 2 years ago:

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=21.15

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=105.0

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=259.15

[K-Lo]

Mike,

I know it's confusing but, the statement I made about checkraise is correct. The last line of the current rule comes across as not allowing the player that checked, the right to raise a short all-in...In order for an all-in player to make a raise, there had to be an intervening player that bet. Therefore the player that checked is allowed to raise any bet.

OK... I think both of you are confusing me.

I think Nick's point is that the current rule says "... an all-in wager of less than a full RAISE ..." when it probably should say less than a full-sized wager or something to that effect.  By using the word "raise", this implies there was a bet to be raised, and therefore, the all-in wager could still raise if that original bet was legal.  Am I correct that this is your point Nick?  I do see that the language could be tightened up a bit there.

As to Mike's point, I think his point was (and I agree) that a player who checks initially cannot raise ANY bet when it comes back to him... the checker can only (check-)raise if the amount he needs to call is at least the minimum bet for that round.  If someone checks, and a subsequent player goes all-in for less than the minimum bet, the checker cannot raise if the short all-in is only called and action returns to the checker.  The player that checked is only allowed to raise what amounts to a FULL bet.  I hope you agree with that Nick, because you fought hard for it in this thread with me (and were correct to do so):  http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=515.0

K

[MikeB]

.... the checker can only (check-)raise if the amount he needs to call is at least the minimum bet for that round.  If someone checks, and a subsequent player goes all-in for less than the minimum bet, the checker cannot raise if the short all-in is only called and action returns to the checker.  The player that checked is only allowed to raise what amounts to a FULL bet.  ....

correct...

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

You are correct when you said the checker can not raise a short all-in. Wow, I didn't think I had to mention that. The issue we face is exactly what we've discussed on this Forum for the last 2 and a half years. The rule needs to be fixed because a player that checks can always raise if facing a bet. Two years ago I corresponded with Dave Lamb and Jan Fisher. At that time Jan agreed that something needed to be done with the TDA raise rule (#31 now #37). The issue was to be addressed at the 2011 Summit, but never was.

There are numerous simple "fixes" for the current, incorrect and confusing rule. A few suggestions:

In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a legal amount does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. A player that has already checked on a betting round can not raise the action of a short all-in, unless a legal bet were made prior to the all-in, or by an intervening player.

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 acted with a bet (or check), 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 for that game.

[K-Lo]

K-Lo,

You are correct when you said the checker can not raise a short all-in. Wow, I didn't think I had to mention that. The issue we face is exactly what we've discussed on this Forum for the last 2 and a half years. The rule needs to be fixed because a player that checks can always raise if facing a bet....

I agree with your points.  I was just worried that new visitors to the forum reading the last sentence above would get confused and not realize that you mean a "full" bet.  Good to clarify the record.

[Nick C]

Thanks, K-Lo,

A change is needed and I'm thankful that so many of us finally agree.