PLO Opening Bet

[K-Lo]

I'd like to know what the 21k-ers would consider the max opening wager if the BB had the chips to post but there was a dead small blind?  Also 21k?

My feeling is that if in one case the big blind could post the full amount and if in another case the big blind is all-in for less, the maximum raise amount (which is by definition "pot-sized") should not be the same since the amount of chips in the pot is not the same.  That said, I guess I'm just a purist.  One might say it's simply easier for the dealers who are so used to remembering that the first "pot" is 3.5xBB to just treat that as the first-wager maximum, and I suppose that would be fine to make (yet another) exception, but that would be a departure from the traditional approach I think.

[WSOPMcGee]

I'd like to know what the 21k-ers would consider the max opening wager if the BB had the chips to post but there was a dead small blind?  Also 21k?

Yes. It makes no difference. It does not matter what either the SB or BB actually have in chips.

My feeling is that if in one case the big blind could post the full amount and if in another case the big blind is all-in for less, the maximum raise amount (which is by definition "pot-sized") should not be the same since the amount of chips in the pot is not the same.  That said, I guess I'm just a purist.  One might say it's simply easier for the dealers who are so used to remembering that the first "pot" is 3.5xBB to just treat that as the first-wager maximum, and I suppose that would be fine to make (yet another) exception, but that would be a departure from the traditional approach I think.

It has no basis with regard to the dealers.

If you're in the purist camp, then you're in the 21k camp Ken. If you're in the "Name of the game is Pot Limit" camp then you're in the 18k camp.

Points for 21k.

1. First and foremost, you have to protect the right of any player to be able wager the same amount on every table and even when down to 1 table, so the player is able to protect his hand the same as other players where eligible to do in previous hands and will be able to do in future hands.

2. You can't have 6k as an amount to call and then NOT use that amount (6K) when calculating the pot size, when raising.

Points for 18k

1. Pot Limit is the name of the game and that's all you can bet.

2. Its the players tough luck he picked up a good hand when the blinds are short chips.

===========================================================================================================

To further illustrate the point:

Assume that on the previous hand, the player due to be SB is knocked out and the BB is left with 500 chips.

For the 21ker's (Purist), the UTG player is still eligible to bet 21k. Totally logical. It's the same bet everyone else can make on adjacent tables.

For the 18ker's (Name of the Game), the UTG player can only make it 12,500 (Call 6,000 + 500 (BB) + 0 (SB). Totally logical. That's all that is in the pot and that's all he can bet. That's the name of the game and it's his tough luck.
===========================================================================================================

This doesn't happen in No Limit because everyone is playing by the same rules, meaning they can call 6k and raise their entire stack. Pot Limit has betting restrictions, but you still should be able to bet the same amount throughout the tournament.
One could argue that were not changing the rules as were holding everyone to the standard of only being able to bet the pot. But if everyone is not allowed to bet the maximum amount of 21k, then the dynamics of the tournament have changed within the tournament depending on what table you happen to be on.

[Nick C]

You guys are not explaining something correct. In the original post, you asked "what is the maximum opening bet?" You did not ask for the pot size. I said 12000...is that correct, or isn't it

On another note: For those that might not like using fractions to figure bet size, instead of 3.5 times the BB...you might prefer 7 X the SB

[Spence]

On another note: For those that might not like using fractions to figure bet size, instead of 3.5 times the BB...you might prefer 7 X the SB

Nobody knows the 7 times table though.   

[Spence]

After re-reading this thread about 4 times I think I'm following this properly now.  I was confusing the issue with cash games rules because at the time that's what we based our pot limit calculations on.  (All blinds counted as full bets for the purposes of raising.)  If the common rule is to NOT to treat the SB as a full rounded bet then I'm okay with the raise being to 18k.
I'll lobby for implementation in my local casino. (I'm not actually working in a poker room right now) 

[Nick C]

Spence,

Your probably right about the times tables

Spence, here we go again...the unclear answer...you said you're okay with the raise being to 18K. Does it or does it not make the correct answer to the question 12000?

[K-Lo]

Thomas:  I see your points and I have no problem with either "solution" in theory. I can also see that what is the "best" approach can be debated with no end.

I personally like the "name of the game" approach when calculating bet sizes since, hey, it's the name of the game!  Each wager can be broken down and built up using basic arithmetic. There's no need to teach people special exceptions.  We don't need -- e.g. "but if this particular person in this specific position has less than what he should have posted, then we have to make this type of adjustment", and so on.  

If people think there should be a variation for tournaments (just like they round up for convenience in cash games), then you can set a new standard just for tournament play.  If people think that players in an MTT "should have the right to wager the same amount on every table" (while I could buy into this, I don't think is commonly accepted as an established "right"), then sure, make an exception for MTTs.  As for the other argument in favor of 21K, I'm not sure I understand that at all.  It's fine to make 6K the minimum to call and then use the 6K as being part of the pot, and the 18K accounts for that.

But the "core" of a game with a pot-limit betting structure -- setting aside whether we are talking a single table tourney, an MTT, or a cash game -- or even in theory if we were to accommodate games played with a different forced-bet structure (e.g. games that use more or less than merely a SB/BB (eg straddle?) or pot-limit Stud where there could be a different number of players at different tables and thus pots of different initial sizes if for some reason it was played with antes (but usually it is not?), is that a pot-sized raise at any given time = raise that is the size of the pot at that time.  This way of calculating wager sizes based on first principles, is what I meant when I used the term "purist".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't a good basis for making it a 21K minimum for PLO in MTTs.  But then let's just make it clear that it is a "PLO tournament standard/variation" of pot-limit betting, distinguishing it from what (I believe) should be understood as a traditional pot-limit betting structure. At least that way it's more transparent.

[Spence]

Spence,
Your probably right about the times tables
Spence, here we go again...the unclear answer...you said you're okay with the raise being to 18K. Does it or does it not make the correct answer to the question 12000?

I meant raise to18k -  total.  Yes it is a raise of 12k.

[Lado]

if it's a tourney and the words "opening bet" mean "raise the pot" then I say 12K.
if it's a cash game then I allow the small blind to be counted as a complete BB and the half BB as the full BB thus making pot sized raise to 24K.
it's the same as if in a cash game when it's $1/$2 and the UTG raises to $8.

[Brian Vickers]

In limit poker, when a short stack is all-in for 50% or more of a valid bet, this affects the ability of other players to wager the same total bet on that round that they would have otherwise. 

Example of what I mean:
3000-6000 Limit. 
House rule is 3 raises maximum on each street. 
Player A Bets 6000
Player B goes all-in for 10000
Player C raises to 16000
Player A raises to 22000 and betting is capped. 
Had Player B not been all-in for less, then the cap would have been 24000 on this round instead of the 22000 that it ends up being. 

My point being: there is a precedent for it in poker, in existing betting structures, whereby a short-stacked all-in would change the maximum wager on a round of play.


I wonder, if this were to happen post-flop in pot limit would we have the same debate?
Example:
3000-6000 Pot Limit
Three players go to the flop.
18000 in the pot
Player A goes all-in for 3000.
If Player B announces pot, what his total bet?
27000 (a raise of 24000 on top of the 3000 he's facing) would be my answer, what is yours?

[Nick C]

Correct...27000

[Spence]

I wonder, if this were to happen post-flop in pot limit would we have the same debate?
Example:
3000-6000 Pot Limit
Three players go to the flop.
18000 in the pot
Player A goes all-in for 3000.
If Player B announces pot, what his total bet?
27000 (a raise of 24000 on top of the 3000 he's facing) would be my answer, what is yours?

At this point the pot has been established.  I don't think anyone would argue that it's 27,000.  The issue pre-flop is that the pot has yet to be established so the pot calculation can be interpreted differently.
I do agree though that using the 50% rule from limit poker has some precedent...

[WSOPMcGee]

I'll be able to elaborate more on this at a future date. But just to let everyone in the forum know that WSOP (Las Vegas, not necessarily circuit events) the standard was established last year and reaffirmed this year that the maximum opening bet is 21k based on the original post and to be more clear is always based on the current blind structure regardless of actual chips that each blind possesses.

So to recap. If the blinds are 3k-6k, the maximum bet is 21k at the WSOP.

[Nick C]

Thomas:

It makes perfect sense to me. The WSOP is recognizing the big blind in pot limit, the way it is recognized in all other hold'em games. That is: The under the gun player's minimum wager must be at least the size of the big blind. The only exception would be: two players remain, with a dead small and the big blind all-in for less...or only opposing 1 all-in player.

Breaking it down to all possibilities: Blinds 3000/6000...big blind all-in for 3000. The big blind is recognized as 6000. Which is what you stated the WSOP is using.

Same scenario: Blinds 3000/6000...big blind all-in for 3000. The big blind is recognized as 6000...the difference is: the small blind is not considered to have called the big blind, the way it is in many card rooms for cash games.

If the big blind were calculated as the actual all-in amount of 3000...the pot bet would be 12000.

One other thought to add to your answer: the pot size raise amount is 15000.

[K-Lo]

Good to know.