Rule 44: clarifying language needed on short all-ins totalling a full min raise?

[MikeB]

Is any clarifying language to Rule 44 (Re-Opening the Bet) needed to clarify situations where the min raise is reached by multiple short all-ins rather than one single min raise?

Such as:

"In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing a bet amount totaling at least a full raise when the action returns to him. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum".

"In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing a total bet that constitutes at least a full raise when the action returns to him. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum".

or, with more explanatory language in the rule itself:

"In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing at least a full raise when the action returns to him. The full raise may result from of a min raise by a single player or multiple players making short all-in wagers that total a min raise. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum.

[BillM16]

Mike, I suggest wording that states what "does" versus "does not" reopen betting.  For example:

In no-limit and pot limit games, betting is reopened for a player who has already acted provided they are facing a wager that is minimally a full raise over their previous wager.  In limit games, betting is reopened if facing a wager that is minimally 50% of a full raise.  After a player has acted, any wager that is a minimal raise can reopen betting to that player.  This includes multiple short all-in wagers that result in a minimal raise.

[Nick C]

Mike and Bill,

I can't tell you how important a change would be. I like all of the suggestions. however if we could somehow better define that the "short" all-in is NOT a full raise but is recognized as such for all-in players. I prefer this as opposed to our back and forth with the same comments from both sides.

Mike, I'll work on a suggestion or two and pass them along for your input.

Thanks for not dropping this important subject.

[Nick C]

 
Mike I will add my suggestions to your prior post and see what you think. I will highlight my input in green.

"In no-limit and pot limit, an (increased bet) from an all-in (player) of less than a full raise (will) reopen betting for a player who has already acted if the amount equals 100% of the original bet. (A player who has "checked" on his turn to act may participate when action returns to him.) In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum". 

[chet]

I vote for the Mike B's third example.  It is clear, concise and does not introduce any new terms/words that may require clarification.

'nuff said!!

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet,

Forget the enough said. We're finally addressing a subject that has caused more troubling issues than anything on this forum. I also know of some rooms that don't use the TDA rules because of the no limit raise rules. If you don't want to discuss it any further, that's fine, but Mike posted this link specifically for some new suggestions to make our rules easier to understand. Contrary to what you and others may believe, I know exactly what the TDA rules are trying to say. Just trying to help others understand.

We have your vote for Mikes third example.

Chet, I have a question for you. You're first to act post flop...you check...the next player bets 10...the next player goes all-in for 14...action is back to you, what are your options?

[MikeB]

Heres another proposed wording from another poster:

The rule says:
...but when added together they total a full raise and thus re-open the betting to "a player who is facing at least a full raise when the action returns".

Could it be something like:
... "a player who is facing at least the amount of chips which would have been a full raise to his original bet/raise when the action returns".


Yet another proposed wording change:

I recommend that the wording of the rule in 2017 be altered so that it includes the first sentence of RRoP and includes an example that makes it clear as in the case of Rule 44 Example 1 of TDA 2015.

[GreggPath]

Personally, I think that putting it in the perspective of the player with action clarifies it.

"A player may only raise if they have not acted in the betting round yet or when they are faced with a bet that is at least twice the amount of chips they have already bet in the same betting round."

Disregard any mention of how the bet got to that point.

[Nick C]

What's wrong with 100%...we use 50% in the limit games. If the action returns to a player who has already wagered, he may raise if his bet is increased 100%. A player that has checked, prior to any bets is allowed to re-enter the round and even raise provided he is facing a valid bet.

[GreggPath]

I think you're still going to confuse people in multiple all-in situations with that wording. Doesn't specify that the increase can come via multiple all-ins in aggregate. Using "100%" is ok, but I think it works better with my wording.

[BillM16]

Is any clarifying language to Rule 44 (Re-Opening the Bet) needed to clarify situations where the min raise is reached by multiple short all-ins rather than one single min raise?

My vote is a qualified "No"

As seen in the recent thread on this matter, much confusion is ultimately the end result of any rule wording that includes the aspects of multiple short all-ins amounting to a full raise which can reopen the betting.

On the contrary, my vote is a "Yes"

Rule 44 clarifying language in 2017 should be reduced to the core matter of the rule. For example:

For a player who has already acted, when action returns to them, the option to raise exists only when they are facing a bet not less than the minimum or a raise which, in no-limit and pot limit, must be a full-sized raise or larger.  In limit, the raise faced must be at least 50% of a full raise.

As you know, there are several good examples of how the reopening raise can be accomplished. There are also good examples of all-in wagers that do not qualify as reopening raises.  These are best presented in illustrations and not part of the concise wording in the rule.

[BillM16]

I vote for the Mike B's third example.  It is clear, concise and does not introduce any new terms/words that may require clarification.

'nuff said!!

Chet

Here's Mike B's third example.

"In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing at least a full raise when the action returns to him. The full raise may result from of a min raise by a single player or multiple players making short all-in wagers that total a min raise. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum.

Why is it so important to put the aspects of the all-in wagers in the rule?  If we delete that from Mike's example - it makes more sense.

"In no-limit and pot limit, a wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted when the action returns to him. See Addendum."

Let's leave the multiple complications to the multiple examples in the addendum.  Otherwise, a completely different format for the rules/procedures/illustrations may be needed so that everything is covered in one section of the document.

[chet]

Because, I think what we are trying to get clarified, especially to us, "Ol' Folks", is that a series of "short" all-in's NONE of which individually qualify as a Raise (forget the term "legal") may cumulatively qualify as a Raise to a better who has already acted, provided the cumulative total is at least equal to the amount needed for a Raise. 

The key words being "individually" and "cumulatively" in my opinion.

Hence my preference for the 3rd example.

Chet

[BillM16]

Chet, the rule would be accurate in the shortened form.  The multiple short all-in's is one way to create a raise and is important.  Likewise, a single short all-in that does not reopen the betting is important. There are other worthwhile examples which are also important.  But, including this information in the rules section makes it harder to understand.  The Ol' Folks might have to read the Addendum too. 

[GreggPath]

I agree with Bill. I believe it just confuses the matter to mention the short all-in situations, except in the addendum. A general rule that only details under what circumstance a player may raise, regardless of action by previous players will cover all bases. "A player may only raise if it his first action of the betting round or if the bet he is facing is at least double his current bet." Addendum: example of normal situation where all-in is large enough, normal situation where all-in is NOT large enough, example of multiple short all-ins where total bet is large enough, isn't large enough. Maybe you don't need all four, but a rule that is more general like the one I attempted above with specific cases in the addendum should answer all situational questions.