Raising Rule

[K-Lo]

I can't remember if we talked about this, but I had an interesting question from a student in my dealer training tonight with respect to this rule:

38: Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round.


Simply put, if Player A bets 500, and Player B bets 1000 (essentially a minimum raise), we know that a subsequent player must raise to at least 1500 total for it to be a legal raise, because the largest previous raise amount is 500.  So then I was asked "well isn't the largest 'previous bet' actually the bet of 1000, making the minimum raise amount 1000, to a total of 2000"?

An interesting argument.  I don't think his interpretation is what the rule intends, since we would never then have to consider the amount of the largest "raise" at all because the actual total wager (that he considers the 'previous bet') would always be greater.  What the rule is really saying, I think, is that "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet - if the pot has not yet been legally raised - or the size of the largest previous legal raise - if the pot has been legally raised - of the current betting round".  This is correct, no?  But I can see how there could be some confusion with the current wording.

Thoughts?

[MikeB]

Great question.... IMO no matter how this and several other rules are written, illustration(s) are needed.

Ditto for Rule 37: ".... an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to a player who has already acted..."

We can phrase and re-phrase these things... there will always be newbie questions. Once they see sufficient illustration(s) then the phrasing makes perfect sense every time. There's an excellent chance that the 2013 Summit will produce an illustration addendum for these situations.

[K-Lo]

IMO no matter how this and several other rules are written, illustration(s) are needed.

Great idea!!

[Nick C]

Mike and Ken,

There are numerous posts on the forum with some great suggestions for clarification on Raises. Written example's is a great idea.

The first raise (not all-in) on any betting round, must (at least) equal the size of the bet, therefore, doubling the size of the total amount required to call. However, any player, wishing to raise a valid wager, must raise (at least) the size of the raise amount. Example: Player A bets 100, Player B raises to 200, Player C's minimum raise amount is 100 more for a total of 300.

Limit games will restrict raises to the "fixed amount" for each betting round. i.e. Limit Hold'em 10 & 20; Pre-flop and after the flop, Bet is 10... raises can only be in increments of 10. After the turn and river the bets and raises must be in increments of 20. Exceptions for all-in players may alter the "cap" for any round of betting...

There is more to explain but, I thought I'd put this out for some feedback.

[Tristan]

I like the way Mike described it in another thread. 

Somewhere along the lines of:

A's bet is 500
B is calling/matching the 500 bet and raising 500.

No matter how you look at it, when it is described that way, it seems pretty clear that the largest bet or raise of this round was 500.

[Nick C]

Tristan,

I think a different example might clear it up for those that are having a problem with understanding the minimum raise requirement. The one I used is too simple,. Lets try this:

No Limit: Blinds 100/200    On the turn...Player A bets 300   Player B pushes two 500 count chips into the betting area making the total bet 1000...(a 700 raise). Player C is facing a call amount of 1000. If he raises, his minimum raise is 700 more for a total of 1700. 300+700+700=1700.

Player C does not have to raise the 1000 he faces to 2000. I know this is very basic, and simple for the majority of our members. However, I'm sure there are some new members that might benefit from this example.

[Brian Vickers]

When I teach it, I use the term "last legal increment."  i.e. A raise must be at least the size of the last legal increment that was bet or raised on the current betting round.  I'm sure there would be better way to phrase it, but I like that term.

[Nick C]

Hello Brian,

If "legal increment" works for you, that's fine. I prefer "valid" but...same meaning, and same problem; defining what constitutes the correct minimum wager for each game is the problem. Valid, legal, proper, permissible, allowable, etc., etc....

Mike's suggestion for illustrations should do the job. IMO

[Stuart Murray]

not really,

The rule is already plain English enough IMO "Previous Bet or Raise" IMO it's more peeps lack of understanding what a bet, raise, re-raise is that's at fault.

[Nick C]

Hey Stuart,

Speaking of plain English...

not really,

The rule is already plain English enough IMO "Previous Bet or Raise" IMO it's more peeps lack of understanding what a bet, raise, re-raise is that's at fault.

"Peep?"...hmm, I like it, but others might insist on English only. I looked it up in Webster's and I did see a correlation..."I don't want to hear another "peep" out of you!
Perhaps you have "coined" a new phrase to describe so many of the whining players that frequent our poker rooms.

Yea...we can call the really good ones "peep" shows.

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,
Here in France all the card rooms & casinos use the TWICE THE LAST TOTAL BET rule! 500 1000 2000 etc.
I don't use it and follow the TDA but ... I dream of all the world using it.
WHY? Just because it works, the players like it and it's soooo easier for the floors to calculate the correct amounts when they solve some wrong bets (you don't need anymore to get the TWO previous bets etc.)!
IMHO
GG

[Nick C]

Hello Guillaume,

I recommend that you stay with the TDA rules. Doubling the bet might be easier to figure but, it is incorrect. With proper training and concentration, your dealers will be able  to calculate the proper raise amount.

I'd like to know how they rule when a player goes all-in? We don't need any new raise rules to add to the confusion. That's my opinion.