Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all

[JasperToo]

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

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.

That is a minor word change that makes it easy for everybody to understand and I like it. 

NickC, wish i could help you understand it better but I am not sure a better way to 'splain it.  Except that I was thinking about it the other day and realized that the only thing multiple all-ins do is increase the BET amount without there being a LEGAL raise until it gets back to the original bettor who WOULD be facing a legal raise (as it relates to his bet) because at least one of the all-ins was big enough to constitute a legal raise if the all-ins were not involved.  Geez, just reading that sentence now, I am not sure I am helping even though I believe it is correct.

[Nick C]

I have no problem with the multiple chip raise rules, or the 50% rule. My question was about the multiple all-ins. Jasper, on an earlier post, you went from telling me that what I suggested was a perfect fix, and now you are talking about a multiple chip raise?  I see a problem with the last sentence in rule 31. If a player checks...they have acted...so how can it be worded that an all in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted? If a player made a wager, this is true. If the player checked and a bet is made (which is implied), and another player goes all in with (any amount), the betting IS OPEN TO THE PLAYER, OR PLAYERS, that checked prior to the initial proper bet. Therefore the wording has to be corrected. I have no clue what you are trying to 'splain to me about 3 $25 chips instead of 2 $25 chips. Now that you mentioned it, that is why I like the suggestion that Thomas McGee made about increasing it to 51%.
If you want to discuss that, I'm ready.

[WSOPMcGee]

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!!

I do this only for you chet

A legal raise is not necessarily a full raise, but a full raise is always a legal raise.

So yes there's a difference.

[chet]

Thomas:

OK, I must be getting really thick in my old age, would you be so kind as to give me an example of a legal raise that is not a full raise.

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet is right,
Repeating the written rules that we don't understand is not helpful. We need some good examples of real situations where they will apply. I am still waiting for an explanation of how multiple all-ins reopen betting, or qualify as a raise in no-limit and pot-limit?

[JasperToo]

... I have no clue what you are trying to 'splain to me about 3 $25 chips instead of 2 $25 chips. Now that you mentioned it, that is why I like the suggestion that Thomas McGee made about increasing it to 51%.
If you want to discuss that, I'm ready.

Hi NickC, I think you misunderstood the post previous to yours quoted here.  The bit about 3 $25 dollar chips was actually part of the quote from Mcgee that I used in my post to agree with the change of (the now) rule #30 and the "more than 50%" statement.

The part I was trying to "'splain" (and I was not trying to be a smarta&& there at all..) was the all-in players bets and how they effect the action for the raise. 

Chet is right,
... I am still waiting for an explanation of how multiple all-ins reopen betting, or qualify as a raise in no-limit and pot-limit?

Let's set up our players: A,B,C,D.  Let's say that this is post flop play so we don't have to mess with chips already in the pot.  Let's say the blinds are 50/100. This would mean a minimum bet for this round is 100

Player A:  Checks
Player B:  bets 100
Player C:  all-in 125
Player D:  all-in 175

Now the action is back to player A.  (I will reserve the "check is action" discussion for another time)  Player A has the customary choices: fold, call or raise.

  Call: How much does he have to put in to call?  $175 because that is the largest bet back to him is 175 from the all-in player D
  Raise: How much does he have to put in the pot to raise? He has to match the 175 but he only has to raise another 100 because there have been no legal raises (full raises?  ok, we'll leave that till later too ) so 275 goes in.

Is that correct?  Clear? - the minimum raise is only 100 because there has not been a full raise in front of him.

So with those choices (and a hypothetical all-in for player A of some amount) what would the action do for player B? 

  Call: 175 would be the required call for player A so Player B CANNOT RE-raise as the 175 is not a full raise back to him
  Raise: 275 goes in and then the bet back to Player B is obviously a raise to Player B in that player A actually had enough chips to make the minimum raise ABOVE the minimum bet of 175.  And that, I think, may be the sticky   point for some.  It's easy to see here that Player B gets to reraise because player A actually put in a raise.

  All-in for 225: Here is what it means when the rule says multiple all-ins reopen betting to a player that has already acted (bet, whatever).  An all-in here for 225 is not a "FULL" raise in this scenario.  Just as the 175 all-in for player D was not a full raise of the 125 all-in bet of player C which was not a full raise of the minimum 100 bet by player B, Though they were all "raises" of the minimum bet. So they are all-in bets that, in and of themselves, individually, do not constitute a full raise against the previous bet, that last one did AMOUNT to a full raise as far as Player B is concerned and that player can now reraise.

So, Nick, I know that you stated earlier in the thread that you don't see why the all-ins matter and I suppose for the purposes of player B they don't need to be considered because, if they weren't there, player A would have obviously raised player B with his 225 bet.  The key to the rule is that the all-in bets DO INCREASE THE MINIMUM BET to subsequent players but DO NOT INCREASE THE MINIMUM RAISE to subsequent players.

Does that help any?

[Oddvark]

Jasper, one little nit-pick on your last example.  You need to add a Player E who just calls the 175 (and has more than 225 total chips).  Otherwise, in your example, Players A, C, and D would be all-in, so Player B could not re-raise (even when facing a combined full raise amount), because there would be no one left to raise.

[Nick C]

Okay,
Before I go over this again, I'd like to note; If the 50% raise rule were applied to all poker limits whenever a player goes all-in, it would be so simple that anyone could understand it. Is that why we don't use it? Is it too logical? Is it better for poker to complicate a rule by assuming all players have a basic understanding of the different procedures for each game?
We have three pages of posts on this subject, with comments and suggestions from about a half dozen members. If we are confused, do you think that the other 1200+ might have some issues with these rules? I'm going to repeat myself again:
 
Perhaps if I give an example, it will be more clear. Under the current ruling:

Player A checks (acted by checking)
Player B bets 100
Player C all-in for 125

Back to Player A...according to Rule #31..this player can not raise. It should at least be written so it is clear that Player A is raising Player B's initial bet, not the all-in.
The mention of the all-in player raising indicates that a bet had to be made in front of him. If Player A checks and Player B goes all-in for less than a full bet, then Player A can only call, beyond that, all options should be open to Player A.
All of these scenarios take complete focus and concentration. I can't see Rule #31 acceptable, as written.
Oddvark, I am having a tough time understanding what you are saying when referring to a full raise, by an all-in player?
An all-in wager of less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to a player who has already acted, but, the initial bet in front of the all-in player does.

[JasperToo]

Jasper, one little nit-pick on your last example.  You need to add a Player E who just calls the 175 (and has more than 225 total chips).  Otherwise, in your example, Players A, C, and D would be all-in, so Player B could not re-raise (even when facing a combined full raise amount), because there would be no one left to raise.

Actually that makes me laugh a bit.  I thought of that but I was trying to keep it as simple as possible.  The main goal being to demonstrate the increase of minimum bet without increasing the minimum raise and the all-ins

[JasperToo]

Okay,
Before I go over this again, I'd like to note; If the 50% raise rule were applied to all poker limits whenever a player goes all-in, it would be so simple that anyone could understand it. Is that why we don't use it? Is it too logical? Is it better for poker to complicate a rule by assuming all players have a basic understanding of the different procedures for each game?

to quote from RROP 14:5 " 'Completing the bet' is a limit poker wager type only, and not used at big bet poker".  So the short answer to "is that why we don't use it?" is NO.  The answer is because it is designed for limit poker and big bet poker is different.  and yes we can assume a basic understanding of the different procedures for each game.  Stud is crazy different in the way the bring in and deal works so it's not crazy to expect an understanding.  They are different games.  Limit and no-limit poker are really two different games.

We have three pages of posts on this subject, with comments and suggestions from about a half dozen members. If we are confused, do you think that the other 1200+ might have some issues with these rules? I'm going to repeat myself again:

Well, 4 out of 6 of us aren't confused.  but I will concede your point that if there is some confusion it would be better if we find a way to fix it
 
Perhaps if I give an example, it will be more clear. Under the current ruling:

I am a little hurt that you chose not to address my example above for this discussion    I'll get over it

Player A checks (acted by checking)
Player B bets 100
Player C all-in for 125

Back to Player A...according to Rule #31..this player can not raise. It should at least be written so it is clear that Player A is raising Player B's initial bet, not the all-in.

I think I know your answer here but I am going to make you say it before I go off on a rant about it....How does rule #31 prevent Player A from raising???

The mention of the all-in player raising indicates that a bet had to be made in front of him. If Player A checks and Player B goes all-in for less than a full bet, then Player A can only call, beyond that, all options should be open to Player A.
Ok, I can agree on the first sentence, in order for there to be a raise there has to be a bet first...  However I do not agree with your second sentence...if player A checks and player B goes all-in for less then why can't player A raise? (as Oddvark will point out we would need intervening players who only call in this scenario to make the discussion pertinent, otherwise he can't raise simply because there is nobody to raise)

All of these scenarios take complete focus and concentration. I can't see Rule #31 acceptable, as written.
Oddvark, I am having a tough time understanding what you are saying when referring to a full raise, by an all-in player?
An all-in wager of less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to a player who has already acted, but, the initial bet in front of the all-in player does. [Sort of

I want to hear your answer to the question I asked above before I go on.

[Nick C]

Jasper too,
I should have used your example...sorry about that. I will quote what you said on your most recent post:

"Ok, I can agree on the first sentence, in order for there to be a raise there has to be a bet first...  However I do not agree with your second sentence...if player A checks and player B goes all-in for less then why can't player A raise?" I NEVER SAID THAT, so maybe that is why you are not agreeing with me. Take another look at my post that you are refering to. Posted at 7:43 am.

Jasper I know that stud is different from hold'em, and no-limit is different from limit but, that does not answer my question of why the raising is not the same when it could simplify everything. I really don't need to hear any more comments like; "Hey, that's just the way it is!" Because the way it is, is "messed up."

When I say the rules are confusing, don't think that I don't know what they are trying to convey, I do. The wording needs to be corrected and I know it is easier said than done.

[JasperToo]

"Ok, I can agree on the first sentence, in order for there to be a raise there has to be a bet first...  However I do not agree with your second sentence...if player A checks and player B goes all-in for less then why can't player A raise?" I NEVER SAID THAT, so maybe that is why you are not agreeing with me. Take another look at my post that you are refering to. Posted at 7:43 am.

Well I am going to re-quote the post that I directly responded to....

Perhaps if I give an example, it will be more clear. Under the current ruling:

Player A checks (acted by checking)
Player B bets 100
Player C all-in for 125

Back to Player A...according to Rule #31..this player can not raise. ......  It's right here.. you say "according to Rule #31...this player can not raise.....It should at least be written so it is clear that Player A is raising Player B's initial bet, not the all-in.

And I do understand that the "that's the way it is" answer bugs you, wasn't really doing it on purpose.  The point is that they are different games.  I believe your point is: Why can't we make the raising rule the same for both(all) to simplify things.  I protest that it feels to me like we are working on two different things though and it might continue to stay confusing.  But on the other hand I can see how you may think they are directly related.  If the 50% thing - specifically: "Completing the bet" were implemented for no-limit as well as limit it would "simplify" things.  If that were the case then you wouldn't have to worry about how all-ins effect a previous player.

I think the answer is that it just doesn't work in no-limit.  I can't even figure out how it might.   I guess I would be interested in seeing how you think it would work.

So let's see if we can keep things organized.  I asked a question in the previous post which you didn't answer because you didn't think you made the statement.  So if my re-quote above rings true somehow i would love an answer to the question "why can't player A raise here?" 

Second, I was trying to demonstrate how multiple all-ins effect the options to a player who has acted (bet, whatever) because you claimed that you still didn't understand it.  Should we continue on that one or wait till after the discussion on the 50% thing?

[Nick C]

Jasper,
You can't quote me and not understand what I'm saying. I've been preaching that the way the rule is written it says that the player can't bet, when we all know that he can. As far as giving an example here it is:
No-limit blinds 100/200, after the flop Player A  acts on his hand by Checking
                                                  Player B also checks
                                                  Player C goes all-in for 300
                                                  Player D calls 300
                                                  Player E goes all-in for 325 This is where the last sentence of TDA Rule #31 IMO, needs to be        reworded. In no limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise (PLAYER E's 325) does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. There are a couple of changes that can make it right; either change an all-in wager of less than a full raise, to less than a FULL BET or, change the last part to a player who has already bet instead of acted.
It's late and I'm packing it in for tonight. Tomorrow, I'll give you some nice examples of how the 50% can work in no-limit...

[JasperToo]

Jasper,
You can't quote me and not understand what I'm saying. I've been preaching that the way the rule is written it says that the player can't bet, when we all know that he can. ...

Oh now, come on NickC, of course I understood what you were saying.  I will apologize for trying to make you say it straight out one more time just to segue back to a discussion of "check is action".  It was a bit petty and baiting, sorry.

Now that we are there  ...  This is obviously the central rub for you and when you made a suggestion early in the thread I thought it would work well.  However, Oddvark actually had a slightly better suggestion that I didn't grab onto until further consideration.  Actually, he had two and one was to just leave the sentence in the rule to read "...doesn't reopen the betting".  I actually think that is the simplest and I have to say that you actually make that point for us in the quote above where you say "...player can't bet, when we all know that he can".  We all know that he can because we all know that while a check may be action it is a special kind of action that doesn't close his options.  To demonstrate that again I went to the glossary of RROP and looked up "Action" and "Check":

Action: a fold, call, bet or raise....(it goes on a bit but...)  -  Check: To waive the right to INITIATE the betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates betting.

So I fully concede that checking is action which is your solid position, however, I argue wholeheartedly that it is a SPECIAL KIND OF ACTION that we are all aware of and so it should be clear. (an argument that you don't exactly disagree with but you like very specific rule language so nobody has room for confusion, am I right?) In fact, I know you sort of agree with me on this as is suggested in this quote of you from another thread...

... There are many procedures that are listed under Conduct, House Policy,and Etiquette that are not defined by a specific rule, yet they are comon knowledge to anyone that plays the game.
 ...

It seems common knowledge that a player who checks still has his options.

PPLLLEASE don't get me wrong here.  I think i understand your position perfectly.  You like specific rules for clarity's sake.  That's well and good.  In this case I just don't think that all but a very few would have trouble with the CURRENT language of that part of rule #31.  I do agree, though, that if there is a way to make it clearer that isn't too verbose we should try to find that way.  And so, as far as this part of the rule is concerned I would gladly vote for one of these three options:

1. Leave it as it is "..does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.   (yes, I know that doesn't make it clearer but I have to include it as I would vote to leave it)
2. drop the already acted part.."...does not reopen the betting."  (this was Oddvarks first suggestion and still works for me)
3. add this ..."...does not reopen the betting to a player 'for whom action is closed'"  (this seems like it would work best.  As he pointed out your suggestion of  "initial bettor" leaves out intervening calls from other players)

So what do you think of #3?  I think it covers your concerns pretty well and is simple.

[Nick C]

Jasper,
This is fun. A short all-in wager that is not raised, will not reopen betting to any player that checked before them. A full bet by any player that is raised, less than the full amount, will not substantiate the required amount to reopen betting to the player/s that bet before the all-in. However, any player that checked prior to a full bet for that round may fold, call the all-in, or raise when the action returns to them.

Jasper,
One more try. Last betting round, 5 players; A bets 100, B calls 100, C calls 100, D calls 100, E calls 100...Showdown, they all acted so A shows down first.
Last betting round, 5 players; A checks, B checks, C checks, D checks and E checks....Showdown, they all acted so A shows down first.
I could have made it worse........I could have made it ten handed!