Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all

[Oddvark]

I like Jasper's suggestions for modifying Rule 31, and I think those modifications do help make the rule clearer and easier to understand.  I don't see things getting worse.

However, I disagree with Jasper about how a check should be treated.  I believe a check is an action and should be treated as the equivalent of a bet of $0.  Then, any subsequent bet would be treated as the equivalent of a raise of the $0 bet.  What that means is that any bet would still have to be a full bet (i.e., a full raise from $0) in order to reopen the betting to the player who checked.

So in Jasper's earlier example:

POST FLOP play (I want to illustrate a guy that checks!)  50/100 blinds

SB - checks
BB- goes all in for 75 (now at this point if it either folded around or there were no other players, SB has two choices, fold or call - no brainer)
1 - calls 75              (player 1 has now established a bet size of 75.  if last to act with players all calling, what does this do for the SB? He has all options open to him, he can fold, call the 75 or raise 100 and put 175 into the pot)
2 - raises to 175      (new bet size established, unchanged minimum raise size - SB now can fold call 175 or reraise 100 to 275.  The minimum raise is the amount of the BB)
3 - all in for 225       (sb now can fold, call 225 or reraise 100 to 325 because this is an all in for less than a legal raise and therefore the minimum raise is still 100: if SB calls then player 2 would NOT be able to raise because when
                               it gets back to him the amount to call does not reach a legal raise:)
4- all in for 400        (SB now can fold, call 400 or raise 175 for a total bet of 575.  Player 2 would also be able to raise as the multiple all ins behind him have reached a minimum raise for him.)

I disagree with the comments about the SB's options following player 1's call of the 75 incomplete bet.  In my opinion, neither the BB's incomplete bet of 75 nor any subsequent calls of that 75 bet would reopen the betting to the SB.  The incomplete bet should be treated as an incomplete raise (from the initial bet of $0), and per Rule 31, that incomplete bet/raise would not reopen the betting to the SB.

[MikeB]

Right now the important thing is to identify topics that may be in need of rules clarification, or new rules... don't worry too much about the exact language at this point....  if you can't agree 100% on the language right now that's normal, the final language drafting can take weeks even once a rough copy is agreed to by the membership.  FWIW, the TDA has always tried to use as few words as possible that will clearly convey the rule.

[Nick C]

Mike,
It's good to hear your take on this. It is also good to know that we directed attention to, possibly rewording a rule or two.

Jasper Too,
I like most of what you are suggesting but, I have to agree with Oddvark on your example regarding the SB. Can you be more specific on your description?


SB - checks
BB- goes all in for 75 (now at this point if it either folded around or there were no other players, SB has two choices, fold or call - no brainer)

   I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR #'s 1, 2, 3 ?  The way I understand the question, the SB can only call because the bet is undersized.

1 - calls 75              (player 1 has now established a bet size of 75.  if last to act with players all calling, what does this do for the SB? He has all options open to him, he can fold, call the 75 or raise 100 and put 175 into the pot)
2 - raises to 175      (new bet size established, unchanged minimum raise size - SB now can fold call 175 or reraise 100 to 275.  The minimum raise is the amount of the BB)
3 - all in for 225       (sb now can fold, call 225 or reraise 100 to 325 because this is an all in for less than a legal raise and therefore the minimum raise is still 100: if SB calls then player 2 would NOT be able to raise because when
                               it gets back to him the amount to call does not reach a legal raise:)
4- all in for 400        (SB now can fold, call 400 or raise 175 for a total bet of 575.  Player 2 would also be able to raise as the multiple all ins behind him have reached a minimum raise for him.)

We have to clarify, and simplify the wording. How can we expect this to be accepted when we don't even understand each other.

I like what Mike says about the TDA always trying to use as few words as possible that will clearly convey the rule. I agree, but I also think that in the case of Rule #31, another sentence, or a few more words, might be all it needs.

[Nick C]

Jasper Too,
Your rewording of Rule #30 has reference to all-in bets, where the original does not. I would like to see all-in's separated and I'll explain my feelings.

Rule #30 Methods of raising

  It is the responsibility of the bettor to make his intentions clear. Therefore, when initiating a bet, calling a bet, or raising, the following methods must be followed. Announce your bet with clarity, or push the correct amount into the betting area in one motion.....( I don't know why no-limit and Pot-limit are singled out).

Rule #31 A raise must be at least the size of the initial full bet, or raise of the current betting round. If a player facing a bet, places the INCORRECT amount into the pot, it shall be adjusted to the proper amount or (based on the 50% rule) what it is closest to.ALSO SEE RULES #32 AND #33.
ONLY AN ALL-IN PLAYER CAN MAKE AN INCOMPLETE BET OR RAISE. therefore, the short all-in bet will not reopen betting in no-limit TO ANY PLAYER THAT BET ON THE CURRENT BETTING ROUND.
*Limit games will recognize an all-in of 50% or more as a legal raise. The raise will be considered in the raise limit for that game.

I have always tried to separate the 50% rule because it is used in limit but many of the rules are mixed up with all-in players and players putting the incorrect amount into the pot.

[JasperToo]

Right now the important thing is to identify topics that may be in need of rules clarification, or new rules... don't worry too much about the exact language at this point..

Thanks Mike, good advise.  So what I want to do is list those topics that I see as the main ones that came from these two threads.  Then I want to address that example I used cause I have to agree that I didn't get it quite right.

a quote from the OP of the original thread should get us started:

cwmiller999 said "There has been some question in my card room as to how to interprate the following first sentence of Rule 31. "A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round.""

So the first issue is:
   1. "How much is a riase?"

Then the next question is:
   2. "How much is a bet?"

Limit and no limit structure clouded the issue immediately which I think is a critical part of the confusion.  I don't happen to think the language of the rule makes a differentiation except in the case of an all in player in no limit play.  So that brings up the next issue or two.

What do you do with all in bets?  And I happen to think that it should be easy to apply the main language to both structures without too much difficulty.  But the one part of the discussion that I thought was cleared up early on was the confusion over the 50% rule

so we have

   1. "How much is a riase?"
   2. "How much is a bet?"

and now:

  3. "How do all-in bets effect the action?"
  4. "What is the meaning of the 50% part of this rule?"

I think that are the 4 major things that came up in this discussion and that need to be addressed in any changes/additions to the rules.

I have to switch computers and settle in to some work but I am going to elaborate on these points in another post as well as that example I used earlier......be right back

[JasperToo]

I really hate when work gets in the way of poker 

So let's take a look at each of the issues that I believed where raised in the discussion and that relate to Rules 30, 31 and maybe one or two others.  And I am going to take the liberty here to rearrange them because I think they can more easily be addressed in a different order:

  1.  "How much is a bet?"
  2.  "How much is a riaise?"
  3. "What is the meaning of the 50% part of this rule?"
  4. "How do all-in bets effect the action?"

So let's look at the new #1. "How much is a bet?" I think it is easier to answer first.  Let's take a look at Rule 31: (original form, without my suggested changes for now)

31. 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 or she must make a full raise.  The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33).  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.

31 addresses the size of a RAISE and does not explicitly say what a bet is, but suggests that a bet is what ever size is established for the "current betting round".  So all of us know that it is established by the blind structure and subsequent raises.  And I will presume that we all understand that post flop in limit play the bet size is the size of the BB or x2BB depending on the round and in no limit the minimum bet is just the BB but that an initial bet for post flop rounds can be anything above the minimum and are considered a bet and not a "raise".  Is that a fair presumption?  Bet sizes can be affected by short all in bets, and I think that is where some of the confusion has come in.  I know it did for me.  This discussion cleared my head over whether you add the short bet to the total bet and then raise or not (RROP 14:4) but this TDA rule doesn't CLEARLY address that. (it can be argued easily that it does vaguely address it by saying "size of the largest previous bet" ) Thus my suggested change:

"An all-in player's bet, if more than the previous bet but less than a legal raise, establishes the current bet size but the minimum raise amount remains unchanged."  It might be said  that this really only addresses a raise in no-limit.  And I know that our 4th question accidentally brings up the "completing the bet" thing for limit structures.  But I don't think this language would have an effect on that: the minimum raise amount never actually changes in a limit structure after all.

Ok, I think the original rule addresses bet size - it would be the "largest previous bet" in every situation. And my suggestion might add more specificity.....

So now question #2.  "How much is a raise?"

That is what Rule 31 is supposed to be all about if its title is "RAISES" and at a minimum, the first sentence of the rule establishes that a raise must be at least the size of the largest previous BET or RAISE.  Does that seem to be a clear distinction between the two as being two separate things.  In other words is it clear in that sentence that you can have a bet size that is different than the raise size?  A raise is a raise and a bet is a bet.  A simple example of a series of minimum raises and re-raises should help.

Post flop player A opens for minimum of 100, for player B the bet is 100 to him.  He raises to 200.  It is now a bet of 200 to player C but what is the "at least" amount he can raise.  The rule as it is now could go two ways for people because it says "largest previous bet OR raise".  So some could interpret it as player C would have to put in 400.  I happen to believe that the minimum raise is still 100 and player C could put in 300 but we can see how it might get misinterpreted.  I think the OR in that sentence actually makes the two exclusive from each other.  But again, my suggested addition might help clear up the ambiguity rather easily.

I think that that first sentence of Rule 31 actually does the job it is meant to and is clear as long as you have a strong foundational understanding of raising rules which most of us thought we did but I for one was stuck on the short all in not being added to the bet size as some others where.  So some clarification there is in order.

[JasperToo]

That last post was silly long but I found myself dissecting the rule more than I intended.  I was trying to establish that Rule 31 does say what a raise and a bet are and that for most instances that should be clear enough regardless of the structure.  And all in that first sentence.  However, there could still be a little room for improvement

Question #3.  What is the meaning of the 50% part of this rule.

Now I thought we managed some consensus on this early in the discussion but something NickC said in a very recent post makes me wonder if that's true. 

I have always tried to separate the 50% rule because it is used in limit but many of the rules are mixed up with all-in players and players putting the incorrect amount into the pot.

The 50% language in rule 31 is NOT the same as the rule used for limit play.  Unless I really misunderstand what the catching point is I believe the 50% rule in limit that keeps getting referred to is where an all-in player in a limit game who puts in 50% or more of the amount for a legal raise gives an option to the next player to COMPLETE the raise and then raise himself.  If an-all in player in a limit structure has less than 50% of the legal raise then the next player can complete but not raise.  The 50% language in this rule is simply about the MECHANICS of raising if you toss in less than 50% all you can do is call, if more than 50% you must raise the minimum.  And that applies to limit, NL, and PL.  This is also why I strongly believe that this portion of Rule 31 should be moved to Rule 30.

Question #4. How do all-in bets effect the action?

Rule 31 only has one answer to that question: " 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."  By itself it is straightforward and shouldn't cause a problem.  And yet it does.  One gentleman already stated a problem with the word "acted" because someone may have checked.  And if you are like me I am sure you would have run into a problem with what was a full raise especially with some all-in bets depending on what your used to.  Therefore, some extra language is needed to help clearly establish the difference between a raise and bet, the minimum raise for a round and how multiple all in bets would affect a particular player.  I think the suggested changes gives us a place to start.  Something that shows a difference between a bet size and the minimum raise size.  And then we have the problem of a player that checked.

Can't tell you why, but I found myself fairly passionate about this at the moment so that's why your getting all this dribble.  Feel free to just skip over it and go on with your day

[JasperToo]

I like Jasper's suggestions for modifying Rule 31, and I think those modifications do help make the rule clearer and easier to understand.  I don't see things getting worse.

However, I disagree with Jasper about how a check should be treated.  I believe a check is an action and should be treated as the equivalent of a bet of $0.  Then, any subsequent bet would be treated as the equivalent of a raise of the $0 bet.  What that means is that any bet would still have to be a full bet (i.e., a full raise from $0) in order to reopen the betting to the player who checked.

From a practical standpoint I don't see a problem with your suggestion that a check be treated as a bet of $0.  Other than the fact that the definition of a check is that a player is waiving his right to initiate betting.  And I think it is actually easier to not count the player that checked as "action" per se.  Because, really, a player that checks is just passing his opportunity for FIRST ACTION and not his opportunity to act if the pot is opened by someone else.  And if it is not action then the part of the rule that says "who has already acted" does not affect the player that checked, just the player that bet.

So in Jasper's earlier example:

POST FLOP play (I want to illustrate a guy that checks!)  50/100 blinds

SB - checks
BB- goes all in for 75 (now at this point if it either folded around or there were no other players, SB has two choices, fold or call - no brainer)
1 - calls 75              (player 1 has now established a bet size of 75.  if last to act with players all calling, what does this do for the SB? He has all options open to him, he can fold, call the 75 or raise 100 and put 175 into the pot)
2 - raises to 175      (new bet size established, unchanged minimum raise size - SB now can fold call 175 or reraise 100 to 275.  The minimum raise is the amount of the BB)
3 - all in for 225       (sb now can fold, call 225 or reraise 100 to 325 because this is an all in for less than a legal raise and therefore the minimum raise is still 100: if SB calls then player 2 would NOT be able to raise because when
                               it gets back to him the amount to call does not reach a legal raise:)
4- all in for 400        (SB now can fold, call 400 or raise 175 for a total bet of 575.  Player 2 would also be able to raise as the multiple all ins behind him have reached a minimum raise for him.)

I disagree with the comments about the SB's options following player 1's call of the 75 incomplete bet.  In my opinion, neither the BB's incomplete bet of 75 nor any subsequent calls of that 75 bet would reopen the betting to the SB.  The incomplete bet should be treated as an incomplete raise (from the initial bet of $0), and per Rule 31, that incomplete bet/raise would not reopen the betting to the SB.

I don't know about that one.  A reread of RROP 14:2 says this: "...At all other times, when someone goes all-in for less than the minimum bet, a player has the option of just calling the all-in amount.  If a player goes all-in for an amount that is less than the minimum bet, a player who wishes to raise must raise at lest the amount of the minimum bet.  For example, if the minimum bet is $100, and a player goes all-in on the flop for $20, a player may fold, call $20, or raise to at least a total of $120"

It seems to me that my explanation of the SB's options is correct in regards to the short bet and any subsequent calls because the SB CHECKED and therefore only waived is right to act first but once action is opened, his options are now open to him.  So I still maintain that a CHECK is not a bet of $0.  A check is not action, IMHO!

[JasperToo]

Jasper Too,
Your rewording of Rule #30 has reference to all-in bets, where the original does not. I would like to see all-in's separated and I'll explain my feelings.

I don't see it NickC, can you point it out?

"30. Methods of Raising
In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by (1) placing the full amount in the pot in one motion; or (2) verbally declaring the full amount prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot; or (3) verbally declaring "raise" prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion.  If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she must make a full raise.  The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33).  It is the player's responsibility to make his intentions clear."

  It is the responsibility of the bettor to make his intentions clear. Therefore, when initiating a bet, calling a bet, or raising, the following methods must be followed. Announce your bet with clarity, or push the correct amount into the betting area in one motion.....( I don't know why no-limit and Pot-limit are singled out).

Well I guess it is because in limit everyone knows what the raise is supposed to be.  The 50% language that is currently in 31 works for either structure to settle short bets of folks that aren't all in.  And what you have done here works great but not everybody is going to do that every time so we need a way to handle those occaisions they don't.

[Nick C]

Jasper Too,

You are correct about your  rule #30. I don't see it either. I guess this is turning into more than I thought. There are only three of us that are participating in this discussion and we can't agree.
I've mentioned numerous times what bothers me about rules pertaining to raising, so I'm not going there again. I would like to add a couple comments about Checking in poker:

#1   Checking is waiving the right to bet-TRUE
#2   I guess you could even define it as a (0) bet -TRUE
#3   Checking in any form of poker, IS acting on your hand-TRUE... This is one area that I totally disagree with Oddvark

Checking in poker, might be feared more by opposing players, than a wager. WHY? because they may get Check-raised.

Check-raise is used in every poker room in the country, (that I know of).

I would like to know how others feel about the changes that I suggested for Rule #30.

                                      Rule #30 Methods of raising

 It is the responsibility of the bettor to make his intentions clear. Therefore, when initiating a bet, calling a bet, or raising, the following rules apply;  Announce your bet with clarity, or push the correct amount into the betting area in one motion.....( I don't know why no-limit and Pot-limit are singled out).

Do we need more? This should be for all poker, not just no-limit.

[Nick C]

This is from an earlier post from March 2010. There were many suggestions, but I thought this was worth looking at again.
MikeB
Administrator
TDA Member & Veteran Poster
Re: Under Raise
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2010, 10:59:42 pm »  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Nick C on March 25, 2010, 11:55:45 am
There are many discussions regarding raises. There was a posting earlier this month that made me realize that rule #31 will have to be addressed at the next meeting. The last sentence; 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. I did forward this to the administration department and it will be addressed. The example that was submitted on March 6, 2010 was a perfect example for explanation. The game is no-limit.
                             Player A checks.... Player B bets $250
                             Player C goes all-in for $490 (less than the required amount to be considered a raise)
The way the rule is written, because player A has acted prior to the bet and all-in raise, he would not be allowed to raise. That is incorrect. Player A will have the right to raise.

Mike B's response;

Actually, in this situation, Player C's bet of $490 is apparently over the minimum bet for this round, that minimum bet being $250 or less (Player B's bet). Either way you look at it, either Player B's bet of $250 OR Player C's total bet of $490 both are by themselves at least minimum bets and enough to re-open the action to A. Since Player A hasn't acted on Player B's full bet of $250, he has a right to act on it, regardless of whether Player C's raise of $240 to 490 total is a full minimum raise.... am I missing something ? Once Player B makes a minimum bet the action is re-opened for A, it doesn't matter IMO what Player C does at that point.... The only situation where Rule 31 would apply here is if Player B checks and Player C is all-in for something less than whatever the minimum for this round is, but that's not the case (unless I'm missing something at 1am cst which is always possible  I agree that Player B cannot raise here if Player A just smooth calls Player C, because C's all-in wager of another 240 doesn't constitute a full raise to B.

To Chet and Mike B

I guess I'm not expressing the situation properly and please, correct me if I'm wrong. Before I try again; the last line in rule #31 is what I question; an all-in wager of less than a full raise (which the $490 wager of player C qualifies as because it would have to be a raise to $500) would not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. When you consider that player A did act first by checking. Why should he not be allowed to raise player B's initial wager of $250?

Mike I really like it when you enter our conversation. Chet, I'm sorry I omitted part of the address....nickscasinopoker@comf5.com...

The confusion that I see is because the ruling should read (IMO): A wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the original bettor.

I think I have a better example;  The game is no-limit player A checks player B bets $100 player C calls, player D calls player E goes all-in for $120...now back to player A. What are his options? he can fold, he can call, or HE CAN RAISE, because he is raising player B and not the all-in player (E). If this example does not contradict rule #31 please explain.  Player A (who started the action with a check, still defined as having acted) has every right to raise in that position. To continue, if player A were to fold or call the $120 all-in wager then player B ( the original bettor) can only call. Chet you are right, we don't need any more examples.

Thanks for your response
Nick C  


Stuart Murray's Reply:
 
Nick,

I see your point regarding the under raise rule, the wording under your interpretation is misleading.  You are correct that the wording needs to be 'cleaned' up a little but even your example: "A wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the original bettor" would be flawed as if with blinds at 50/100 A and B check and then C moves in for 75 the betting is not re-opened to them.

Definitely something that needs to go under scrutiny.  I think everyone is happy with the situations and when betting is open and when it is not, but I do see your point that this rule does require clarity.

Regards
Stuart

[WSOPMcGee]

30. Methods of Raising
In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by (1) placing the full amount in the pot in one motion; or (2) verbally declaring the full amount prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot; or (3) verbally declaring "raise" prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion.  If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she must make a full raise.  The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33).  It is the player's responsibility to make his intentions clear.

I really, really, really, wish this rule was re-worded to state:

30. Methods of Raising
In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by (1) placing the full amount in the pot in one motion; or (2) verbally declaring the full amount prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot; or (3) verbally declaring "raise" prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion.  If a player places chips into the pot that amounts to more than 50% of the previous bet or raise, but less than the minimum raise, then they will be required to make the full minimum raise (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33).  It is the player's responsibility to make his intentions clear.

Forcing people to raise because they accidentally tossed in 3 $25 chips instead of 2 $25 chips is not in the best interest of the game IMO.

[Dave Lamb]

 31. Raises
A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round.  An all-in player's bet, if more than the previous bet but less than a legal raise, establishes the current bet size but the minimum raise amount remains unchanged.  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.  The exception is in the case of multiple all-in bets still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting bet size to a player qualifies as a raise.
I really like incorporating the suggested changes to rule 31. I hope that gets a look at the next TDA meeting.

[chet]

My suggestion to this thread would be that we be consistent in terminology.  For example, in Dave's post below are the terms, "Legal Raise" and "Full Raise", are they not one and the same?  I cannot think of any situation where a "Legal" Raise would not be a "Full" Raise. 

The only reason for having two different terms is if there is a difference.

Hope this helps!!

[Nick C]

Dave,
Rule #31 has always been on the top of my list for discussion. I like the input but I am still having problems with the new suggestion. I feel as though I'm "beating a dead horse," so to speak when I draw attention to the last line of the current rule. This is one of the suggestions I made;
Rule #31 A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round.  An all-in player's bet, if more than the previous bet but less than a legal raise, establishes the current bet size but the minimum raise amount remains unchanged.  In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to the initial bettor.

I hate to say it but, I'm still having a tough time understanding the part about the multiple all-in.