Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all

[Nick C]

First of all, I'd like to thank Chet for his real classy response to my question. A second grader could have figured out what I was trying to say. The mistake was made on two different posts because I just copied and pasted. An answer to some questions about raising would have been nice instead of instructions on how to post without the lines jumping....but thanks for that.

Jasper,
Thanks for resonding once again.  "multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount to small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise". .....(I WANT TO COME IN RIGHT HERE. WHAT IN THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN?) I will continue here with what you said, Jasper; "That is straight out of RROP and while I think it is a little long winded it says exactly what we need." (REALLY???). ...Jasper again. "And it is sort of similar to what thomas rewrote on the rewrite of my rewrite." I DON'T NEED MORE RULES THROWN AT ME, I JUST WANT SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW MULTIPLE ALL-INS THAT ARE TOO SMALL...BECOME BIG ENOUGH)
I'm sorry, if a wager is too small to qualify as a raise, how does it act as a raise and reopen the betting? Does anyone else have a problem with the wording on these rules?    

[chet]

Nick:  I'm sorry U thought I was being serious.  I thought we needed a little levity around here as this place gets a bit stuffy, at least it seems that way to me   

[Nick C]

Chet,
I'm really glad you cleared up your last comments. I would hate to think that we had another wise ass member. I guess we can't complain, one out of twelve hundred isn't bad. Apology accepted.

[MikeB]

Brian, MikeB, etal:  

This is ONLY a problem in IE8.  It is not a problem in Firefox.  To "fix" the problem with text jumping switch IE8 to use Compatibility View.  You can access this through "Tools" at the top of the page or by clicking on the "Compatibility View" button.  IE8 is supposed to display this button at the end of the URL window in the address bar when a site is not compatible with IE8, but it doesn't always do so.

It looks like a broken sheet of paper with a lightning bolt through the middle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what the Help Page has to say:

Why don't some websites display correctly in Internet Explorer?

Websites designed for earlier versions of Internet Explorer might not display correctly in the current version. Often, you can improve how a website looks in Internet Explorer by using Compatibility View.

When you turn on Compatibility View, the webpage you're viewing—and other webpages within the website's domain—will be displayed as if you were using an earlier version of Internet Explorer.

If Internet Explorer recognizes a webpage that isn't compatible, you'll see the Compatibility View button  on the Address bar.

To turn Compatibility View on or off, click the Compatibility View button, or follow these steps:

Click to open Internet Explorer.

Click the Tools button, and then click Compatibility View.

Notes
The website will be displayed in Compatibility View until you turn it off or the website is updated to display correctly in the current version of Internet Explorer.

Website display problems can also be caused by an interrupted Internet connection, heavy traffic, or issues with the computer code used to create the website.

If a website is compatible with the latest version of Internet Explorer, you might not see the Compatibility View button, or the Compatibility View menu item might not be available.

Article ID: MSW700029

Chet: That sure fixed it. I've been looking for that fix for awhile because that problem has cropped up in alot of situations, most forums. Thanks!

[JasperToo]

Chet I knew you were just being cute.....

[quote author=Nick C link=topic=265.msg2660#msg2660 date=1299874239
...
Jasper,
Thanks for resonding once again.  "multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount to small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise". .....(I WANT TO COME IN RIGHT HERE. WHAT IN THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN?) I will continue here with what you said, Jasper; "That is straight out of RROP and while I think it is a little long winded it says exactly what we need." (REALLY???). ...Well, I thought we were actually trying to write rules that make it so there are fewer misunderstandings and the TD's wouldn't have to make "unsupported" decisions.  And I think that that one is in the rule book for a reason.  It explains it for me.

Jasper again. "And it is sort of similar to what thomas rewrote on the rewrite of my rewrite." I DON'T NEED MORE RULES THROWN AT ME, I JUST WANT SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW MULTIPLE ALL-INS THAT ARE TOO SMALL...BECOME BIG ENOUGH) Are you saying you just don't understand this particular rule therefore you don't need it thrown at you over and over (or some variation of it) but just need it explained to understand it? Cause we are actually at times talking about making and changing more rules in this forum, right?

I'm sorry, if a wager is too small to qualify as a raise, how does it act as a raise and reopen the betting? Does anyone else have a problem with the wording on these rules?   Because it is too small for the CURRENT bet but it is big enough for a previous (initial) bet
[/quote]

I think the reason that the rule is written that way is because if a wager is too small to be a full raise to the CURRENT BET there was probably a misunderstanding or argument in the history of poker where players were saying that if it is not a RAISE OF THE CURRENT BET that the first player should not be able to RERAISE.  So an example of what i mean here:  Let's stick with the usual structure of 50/100 blinds, post flop play.

Player A: Bets 100
Player B: all-in 125  ok, this is too small a wager to be a full raise, but the current bet is now 125. If it were to go back to Player A now he could not re-raise
Player C: all-in for 175 - pretty much the same, not a full raise of the 125  (and still not a raise of the ORIGINAL bet)
Player D: all-in for 210 - again not a full raise of the CURRENT BET (the 175)
Player E: This guy has a full stack as does Player A, he now argues that if he JUST CALLS the 210 that player A cannot raise because there has not been a FULL raise of the CURRENT BET.  

That argument by player E seems a little silly but you see what advantage he believes he has and his justification is that there hasn't been technically a full raise of the CURRENT BET (or perhaps a 'legal' raise).  This may be a little like how players believe that you have to double the previous bet in order to raise.  So in goes the rule to explain it to people that multiple all-ins DO still count as a raise if the amount is enough to qualify as a raise to a particular player.

I think the fact that this language about multiple all-ins is used in RROP in both the limit raising section and the no-limit section supports my idea.  I mean there has to be a reason for it.  Mr. Ciaffone thought it important to keep the language of those rules around.

I have not found a player that has tried this argument.  Perhaps that is because everybody understands the basic part of the rule; that while the minimum bet is increased by the all-ins that at some point a SINGLE bet is a enough to be a raise to the original player.  Perhaps this is what you have been trying to say all along?  

[Nick C]

Jasper,
At least thanks to your explanation I'm starting to get it. Your example D, the all-in for 210 is the only bet that exceeds the initial 100 enough to qualify, but that's not right is it? What you are saying, is that after the all-in of 175 the next player would have had to make it 275 if he had enough. He would not be allowed to make it 210 unless he was all-in, right? So....are you saying that after the initial bet, when a player goes all-in with a short "action" (using your example) the initial 100 plus the all-in total of 125 establishes a new bet amount of 125?
If that is what the rule is saying , then no one said it better than you. If that is correct, I will also say that it is even more ridiculous than I originally thought!

[JasperToo]

Jasper,
At least thanks to your explanation I'm starting to get it. You're welcomeYour example D, the all-in for 210 is the only bet that exceeds the initial 100 enough to qualify, but that's not right is it? Yes, actually that is exactly right.What you are saying, is that after the all-in of 175 the next player would have had to make it 275 if he had enough. He would not be allowed to make it 210 unless he was all-in, right? Again, that is exactly right.  if the player has enough chips and wanted to RAISE it would have to be at least 275. Otherwise just acall of 175. So....are you saying that after the initial bet, when a player goes all-in with a short "action" (using your example) the initial 100 plus the all-in total of 125 establishes a new bet amount of 125? I am getting all tingly cause that is three for three.  except that you said the initial PLUS the all-in makes it 125.  Technically it's just the new all-in of 125 that makes the new bet amount 125.
If that is what the rule is saying , then no one said it better than you. coolIf that is correct, I will also say that it is even more ridiculous than I originally thought!Perhaps, Nick, but I think that is because you seem to have a penchant for the limit structure of betting and raising (all respect here, sir, but that seems how it is) and I think if this explanation is as clear as you indicate above to you then we are on our way to understanding.  This is, I think, one of the essential differences in the betting structure between limit and no limit.

I am glad that I was able to start shedding some light on it for you.  But why do you think it is ridiculous?

[Nick C]

Okay, forget the 50% or 100%. Let's concentrate on the source of the problem; the all-in player. The only player that can make a short raise is the all-in. The difference between limit and no-limit is; in no limit, the all in of any amount alters the size of the bet to the next player, even if it is the smallest allowable chip in play. I'm sorry Mr Ciaffone but RRoP needs to take a serious look at this one again.

Bob C himself questioned the ruling. He too was looking for some logical answer.

That's the way I still see it.

Oh, by the way, where in the hell is that calculator so I can figure out what the next minimum raise has to be. Oh yeah, and don't forget to call "time," this is real important!

[JasperToo]

Okay, forget the 50% or 100%. Let's concentrate on the source of the problem; the all-in player. The only player that can make a short raise is the all-in. Yes, that is true The difference between limit and no-limit is; in no limit, the all in of any amount alters the size of the bet to the next player, even if it is the smallest allowable chip in play.Yes, it does alter the bet size to subsequent players. I'm sorry Mr Ciafone but RRoP needs to take a serious look at this one again.  I don't understand why it is such a problem...

Bob C himself questioned the ruling. He too was looking for some logical answer. Is there a reference that I could read some of his thoughts.

That's the way I still see it.

Oh, by the way, where in the hell is that calculator so I can figure out what the next minimum raise has to be. Oh yeah, and don't forget to call "time," this is real important! actually the minimum raise is very easy to keep track of.  The minimum raise is the size of the minimum bet or the size of the last RAISE.

In case you weren't just being hyperbolic in that post a small example should serve...  Same setup we have been using but let's say now everyone has big stacks..

Player A: bets 100
Player B: Raises - minimum raise is 100 so he puts in 200
Player C: Raises - he would have to put in the 200 (the new bet size) and a minimum of 100 more for the raise - 300
Player D: Raises - he puts in 500 - 300 minimum bet and a 200 raise.  Establishing the new minimum raise amount

Player A: if he wants to re-raise he would have to put in the 500 plus another 200 (this 200 is the new minimum raise established by player D... so he would put in 700 at a minimum..

Don't need a calculator at all but occasionally I have seen dealers split off the bet from the raise to help keep track of it.

[Nick C]

Jasper,
I want to thank you for all of the time that you've spent with me. Truly. Your last example was so simple even I understood it, however I always could follow that example. I will quote part of your last reply:actually the minimum raise is very easy to keep track of.  The minimum raise is the size of the minimum bet or the size of the last RAISE. I'm lost again. Are you calling a short all-in a raise?
This will be my final example:  Player A bets 100, Player B goes all-in for a total of 125, Player C goes all-in for a total of 175 and Player D goes all-in for 150 Player E goes all-in for 200...now Player F calls the 200.
                   What options are open to Player A?
                   What would be the minimum raise to Player F, if he wanted to raise instead of call?
The reference you are looking for is on a prior post. I will look for it later and send it to you.

[JasperToo]

Jasper,
I want to thank you for all of the time that you've spent with me. Truly. Your last example was so simple even I understood it, however I always could follow that example. I will quote part of your last reply:actually the minimum raise is very easy to keep track of.  The minimum raise is the size of the minimum bet or the size of the last RAISE. I'm lost again. Are you calling a short all-in a raise? Sort of, but this goes to that whole discussion about legal and full raises.  It DOES NOT increase the minimum amount needed to RAISE, but it does raise the minimum BET size.

This will be my final example:  Player A bets 100, Player B goes all-in for a total of 125, Player C goes all-in for a total of 175 and Player D goes all-in for 150 Player E goes all-in for 200...now Player F calls the 200.
                   What options are open to Player A?All options are now open to Player A.  He was officially raised because that 4th all-in met the required bet size for a FULL RAISE to player A.  And since Player F seems to have chips Player A can Raise.  A minimum raise here would still be 100 so he would have to put in at least 300(200 current bet + 100 min raise)
                   What would be the minimum raise to Player F, if he wanted to raise instead of call? the minimun raise is 100 so if he wanted to raise when action got to him he would have to put in 200(the current minimum BET) + the minimum raise of 100 for a total bet of 300.  That is just the minimum, of course.
The reference you are looking for is on a prior post. I will look for it later and send it to you. Cool I'll look for it, thanks.

[Nick C]

Jasper,
This is what I was refering to;
Rule #31 Raising Reply #22 Dec. 28, 2010. This was actually a response to a question that you asked Mike B.

Jasper, to get to another issue which may be at the heart of what's causing your frustration with this, there is one "final" issue to these additive all-in bets that makes them quite different from "normal" betting. This issue was actually the subject of one of the slides at the 2009 Rio Summit. Matt Savage had presented this slide based on a question that Bob Ciaffone had posed.

The situation is as follows: Player A bets 100. Player B raises to 200. Player C goes all in for total of 270. Player D goes all in for total of 350.
Now, Ciaffone posed two questions to the membership: 1: does Player D's action re-open the betting to player B? and 2: If so, what is the minimum re-raise that Player B would have to make?
To the first question, there's universal concurrence that the betting is re-opened to B. Simply because B had originally raised for 100 and when the betting comes back to him it's 150 more (350-200 = 150), so the action is clearly re-opened to B.  The somewhat stickier question is what is his minimum re-raise? The answer to that is also 150. The main reason? Frankly because "that's the way it is".

THERE'S MORE IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK.

What I get out of it is, it's been screwed up for so long, it's too late to change. Not putting the all-in players short bet, or short raise into the equation would make this rule a lot easier to understand. There's that answer again; that's the way it is.
Thanks again Jasper

[JasperToo]

I actually did a search when you mentioned it and happened to find that one..  as you said there is more.. specifically this later part...

"I had e-mail correspondence w/ Bob Ciaffone on this illustration after the Summit, and despite the apparent anomaly from one point of view we both agreed that this arrangement is so widely deployed in the poker world that to try to change it would not be worth the confusion, not that he supported changing it. So, "thats the way it is" when we're dealing with additive all-in bets."

When I read that is seems that there is a "point of view" regarding this and it seems that Bob Ciaffone may not support changing it even if it was easy. 

I would love MikeB to share more of that conversation if he can.

I think I will have to tease you in future post simply by jumping in the middle of your threads and yelling "cause that's the way it is"

[Skylight]

wow it's hard to read all this topic.

Some questions from a newbie : who is the GLOSSARY ?

that mean : acting ? fold - check - bet - call - raise - all in ? to a player who has already acted a check is a bet to 0$ (nice concept and easy to assimilate)
then an acting begin and then he finish ?
that mean betting ? betting - reopen the betting - current betting - A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round ?
same word, diffrent meaning, not in the same time     

could i make a bet-check during this current betting and if someone make a bet-raise i can make an other bet-all-in, a have an opportunity because an other player make un other bet that reopen the betting for me ?

its a joke ... (bet sound like bête in french = foolish)( but bet also translate could be a word or a verb in french, and this requires a clarification of the terms.  ) so, please be more specific with words , so it could be use and translate in the whole world and not just in english...

a rule who need explanation is a bad rule.  throw them or change them or split them. it's better to have 5 differents rules in a same topic or not, than one who need a huge study and is all along not clear.

i want to propose some words (and that give sense to me - a newbie) and ask you (challenging you?) to explain me again in 3-4-5 simple separated topics, if it's possible ?

phase betting mean player is making a choice between  : 1. fold - 2. check OR call - 3 raise - 4 all-in. Only 4 choice because a can't check if anyone before me acted. please don't put the word "bet" in the betting phase !
phase acting mean betting during the time allow to the player to make something with these cards, nothing else or or am I wrong?
it's could have a clear begin and end ?
and a suggestion : keep this damn all-in in a separate topic. IMO making all-in put the player out of the current betting round just beacuse he can't act anymore and have no more effect on this game. If he lose, he can't play the next play, why worry about this amount if it not egal to a raise 100% ? treat only player who can continue to act ! it is not simple ? at the next round, if the "all-in" player as won, he can acting again, if not he leave the game.

could this apply on different modus of poker ?

1.topic : how to do a betting phase - what is the previous bet or that is the FIRST  bet  (finding a new word (not the word "bet")), i prefere act ?, call?, check?, could we consider a check to a call to 0$ ?, could we said "raise" to the first action ?

2.topic : how to do a raise ? keep out the all-in.

3.topic : difference for betting phase in no-limit, limit, fixed limit, stud, other possiblilites or just specific to one model and a making a model for each ?

4.topic: about all these all-in situation

it's a lot of question , I know , but just one: in fine, what do you want ? Too simple rules but some rules remain incomprehensible for the majority, or a few more lines, but used anywhere or something else ?

Axel

[JasperToo]

Wow Skylight, that is a lot of questions!  I will try and answer a few for you but I honestly am having a little trouble with the translation and understanding what exactly you are asking.  So forgive me ahead of time if it is not a direct answer.

I am a little confused by your question regarding betting and acting.  the word "Action" and "Acting" are synonymous for our purposes.  While "betting" is "acting", "acting" may not be betting.

Betting: placing chips in the pot when it is your turn to act (generally, being the first to place chips in the pot since it would be a call or raise if someone else bet in front of you)

Betting Round: Preflop, flop, turn and river.  on the flop, turn and river it is possible that nobody actually "bets" but all players "act" (everybody could check)

Check: according to RROP a check means to waive the right to INITIATE betting in a round, but retain the right to act if another player initiates betting.  There is disagreement on the forum about it being a bet of $0.  I don't like it but I might be the minority

So topic 1.  I don't know how you can leave the word "bet" out of any description of a betting phase (betting round??- don't know what phase is translated from)  because except preflop a the first player to put chips in the pot is "betting" and for the next player that "bet" is the "previous bet".  And yes the first bet is really the only bet as the rest are either raises or calls or folds but all subsequent players will "act".  the first action on a betting round is always a "bet" except on the preflop round it would be "raise" or "call" because there is a forced bet out already.

topic 2. you raise by placing twice the amount of the previous bet OR RAISE into the pot when it is your turn to act.  The simple example is a post flop bet by the first player to act of $50, the next player must put $100 in the pot in order to raise.  The third player may re-raise by placing $150 (the initial $50 of the first player, the $50 raise of the second player and another $50, which is double the previous RAISE).  No all-ins here to complicate things!!!

Topic 3.  The betting phases don't change much for NL vs Limit it is just that the amounts for each bet and raise is fixed in limit.  There are a few other differences with the other games becuase of bring ins and the like but generally the process of a betting phase is the same: if not facing a bet you get to check or bet, if facing a bet or raise you get to call raise or fold.

Topic 4.  You may have to go back over this thread again but if it is still confusing I will be glad to take another swing at it for you.


Don't know if this all directly answered your questions but I hope it helped.