Raising - Rules 30,31 and 33 - all

[JasperToo]

NickC, MikeB, Stuart and others might appreciate this thread.  For the rest of you that want to catch up: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=259.0

After working through the discussing we thought some kind of clarifying rule change would be very helpful since the rules for raising in NL seem to remain confused for a lot of people. Myself included.

I put this proposed change together after coming to the light and figured I would throw it out there for consideration.  It might mess with some peoples heads because the change moves, what some may believe is, an essential part of Rule 31 into Rule 30.  However, I think that the part I moved (50% part) pertains mostly to HOW to raise and not to how MUCH to raise so that it fits better in 30.  Rule 31 is about how MUCH to raise and that's where I put some, hopefully, clarifying stuff.

Please comment, argue, complain, whatever

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.

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.

33. Multiple Chips
.... by the 50% standard in Rule 30.

[MikeB]

definitely helpful ideas, Jasper, I can see what you're trying to clarify, especially when you write:

"....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....  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...."  

because that's exactly how it works.

[Nick C]

Jasper and Mike,

I like all that is mentioned for Rule 30. Rule 31 is what bothers me: Consider replacing the wording at the end of the first sentence .....player who has already acted. Would you not consider a player first to act, that checks, and then the action continues with a bet and an all-in with less than the full raise. The way rule 31 is worded because the player acted (by checking), it would not allow him to raise and that is incorrect. He has every right to raise the initial bettor. Therefore I suggest that we consider rewording the last part of that sentence to ...the initial bettor on that round.

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.

[JasperToo]

THanks Mike I am glad that it is clear enough to get an "exactly how it works" from you.

NickC: I think your little change is perfect.  I would have said that someone that checks is clearly able to raise if there is any bet behind his initial check, BUT obviously it could cause a problem so your fix is a great addition.

Only because I have recently found a clear understanding of this do I wish I knew how to explain it to you better so that you can understand the multiple all-ins.  I assume another example might work with detailed step by step discussion but tell me what might work and I'll do it.

[Nick C]

Jasper,

No-limit Blinds 50/100 on the turn
Player A bets 100
Player B calls 100
Player C goes all-in for 125
Player D goes all-in for 110
Player E goes all-in for 165
What options are open to Player A
#1 call 65 more or
#2 raise because the total from multiple all-ins equals 100 (enough to raise)

If you can answer this question I will understand

[JasperToo]

Jasper,

No-limit Blinds 50/100 on the turn
Player A bets 100
Player B calls 100
Player C goes all-in for 125
Player D goes all-in for 110
Player E goes all-in for 165
What options are open to Player A
#1 call 65 more or
#2 raise because the total from multiple all-ins equals 100 (enough to raise)

If you can answer this question I will understand

All Player A can do is call 65 or fold.

[Oddvark]

I don't like Nick's proposed language regarding "the initial bettor" because it is no more accurate than "a player who has already acted."  For example, the rule about action being re-opened clearly applies equally to the initial bettor and anyone who called that initial bettor's action.  If anything, the language should be changed to "a player for whom action is closed".

To me, the key word in the rule ("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.") is "reopen."  If that word is properly understood, you could just get rid of "to a player who has already acted" language completely -- i.e., just let the rule state:  "In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting." 

If action is already "open", the rule has no effect -- it does not "close" the action to a player for whom action is already "open" -- i.e., players who have not acted at all during the betting round or players for whom action has already been reopened by a previous complete bet or raise.  The rule only applies if action is currently "closed" to a player, in which case an incomplete raise would not by itself "reopen" the action to that player.

When a betting round begins, betting action is open to all players.  Once a player acts, further betting action is closed to that player.  However, subsequent action can "reopen" that player's betting action.  Subsequent action "reopens" a player's (previously closed) betting action only when any subsequent player makes a full raise* (or if the total wager amount of any player's subsequent action amounts to a full raise* to the player for whom action was previously closed).  Accordingly, "an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting."  Once betting action is opened/reopened to a player, it may not be closed until that player exercises his or her betting action.

*In this context, with respect to players who checked their action on the betting round, substitute "full bet" for "full raise".

[JasperToo]

I don't like Nick's proposed language regarding "the initial bettor" because it is no more accurate than "a player who has already acted."  For example, the rule about action being re-opened clearly applies equally to the initial bettor and anyone who called that initial bettor's action.  If anything, the language should be changed to "a player for whom action is closed".

Oddvark, I happen to agree with what you saying.  I think that it is quite possible to leave "a player who has already acted" or the initial bettor" of the sentence completely out and it would say the same thing.  But my question for you is if "initial bettor is no more accurate than "a player who has already acted" is it any less accurate? 

However, the one part that I have to agree with is that it some instances there could be several players that have bet or called that the action is opened to and not JUST the initial bettor.  So that bit could be a problem.

[Nick C]

Oddvark and Jasper Too,

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.

[Oddvark]

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.

Wrong.  Rule 31 does not say that an incomplete raise "closes" the betting to any player; it says that an incomplete raise "does not reopen" betting.  They are not the same thing.  When player B bets, the betting is reopened for Player A, while betting is then closed to Player B.  Since betting is already open to Player A when the action gets to Player C, it does not need to be "reopened", and nothing in the rules says that Player C's action can "close" any player's options.  With respect to Player B, however, since betting action is closed, Player C's incomplete raise does not "reopen" Player B's options.  (And to go one step further, although Player C's incomplete raise would not reopen Player B's options, if Player A were to check-raise to 225* or more, Player B's options would then be reopened.)

*Technically, if Player A went all-in for 200, Player B's options would be reopened, but since Player A and Player C would already be all-in, there would be no one for Player B to raise at that point.

Don't focus solely on the "a player who has already acted" language.  If you read the Rule 31 as a whole, particularly the word "reopen", I think it pretty accurately states the rule.  That being said, it clearly causes confusion, so rewording would be useful.

[Nick C]

Oddvark,

If everyone had your knowledge of the game, and understood the rules as you do, we wouldn't be having these debates. I would prefer that the rule be reworded so everyone can understand them. I know that the TDA is trying to keep the rules as short as possible, but, I also think that many of the rules need to be "extended" or examples given that would explain specific situations that each rule covers. Chet mentioned on an earlier post that Rule #31 (the main body of the rule, excluding the last sentence) does not pertain to all-in players specifically. That rule applies in all limits and all varieties of poker. If a player makes a bet, and the next player puts in a larger amount (excluding the single chip) the 50% rule is enforced. As far as the last line of Rule #31, it's wrong. Period. The action of the all-in player is insignificant. The all in player has nothing to do with the options open to Player A. Player A can raise because player B bet. When we begin talking about All-in players the rules get confusing. I don't think that we should have to look so deep into a rule to understand it.

Why not a complete section:  RULES FOR ALL-IN PLAYERS

Lets put our heads together and come up with something we all understand.  There has to be a compromise, or a better way to word that rule.

Oddvark, with all due respect your reason for not agreeing with me also has me confused. You said Quote" Rule 31 does not say that an incomplete raise "closes" the betting to any player; it says that an incomplete raise "does not reopen"betting. They are not the same thing." So you are saying that "not reopening" and "closing" the betting are different?

I'll be back later, right now I can't remember what I had for breakfast.

[Oddvark]

... I also think that many of the rules need to be "extended" or examples given that would explain specific situations that each rule covers.

I agree.  It would be great if there were a basic set of "short" rules, with a supplement that had examples to clarify the rule usage in both basic and tricky situations.

Oddvark, with all due respect your reason for not agreeing with me also has me confused. You said Quote" Rule 31 does not say that an incomplete raise "closes" the betting to any player; it says that an incomplete raise "does not reopen"betting. They are not the same thing." So you are saying that "not reopening" and "closing" the betting are different?

Yes, they are different.

[JasperToo]

If I may jump back in here for a bit.  It seems to me that Oddvark touched on the problem you may be having with the rule which seems to be the "player who has acted" language.  Your concern being about the player who has acted by checking.  I looked in the RROP glossary and this is the definition of a check: "to waive the right to initiate betting in a round, but to retain the right to act if another player initiates the betting"  By this definition of a check, a player actually HAS NOT acted by checking (I know that we use checking as significant action in some situations but for the purpose of this rule...).  He retains the right to act if there is betting behind him.

For the checker,  he has simply waived his right to initiate the betting.  The betting is actually still OPEN to him , it just may be that action never gets back to him because if everyone checks behind he has already waived the right to INITIATE betting..  For an initial bettor they CLOSE their action until someone OPENS it by raising.  Yes, NOT REOPENING betting and CLOSING betting are quite different since you actually CLOSE your own betting by actually betting!  Another player has to REOPEN betting to you by raising you.

Let's take a look at Rule 31 again.  I am quoting the rule with my suggested changes here but I think we already agree that the 50% part is not relevant to this discussion. 

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 think this next illustration demonstrates how the proposed language could help make the action clear(with our definition of a check, of course).  it should show how an all in bet establishes the next bet size but leaves the minimum raise amount unchanged.

So let's run through another example of play to illustrate

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.)

Now, all that said, I think that the small changes I've proposed (or something similar) would suffice to make it clear most all of the time and keep the main body of the rules concise.  But perhaps some kind of appendix of examples or supplement as Oddvark suggested would be a great addition.  I DON"T think an actual section in the rules for ALL-IN players is needed as these changes suggested here should actually address most all the issues

Can anyone give me a situation that couldn't be covered by this rule (theoretically, by Rule 31 and an understanding of RROP 14:1-4 but this was meant to clear it up in TDA rulse)?

NickC, does the definition of a check help with the understanding of the rule? 

[Nick C]

Gentlemen,
I will now drop from this discussion. I went through this earlier this year and I wanted to avoid it again. For a while, I thought that I had someone that agreed with me but, that changed. I appreciate all of the time that you have (both) put into this  but, it is only getting worse. I don't see Roberts Rules description fixing the problems with Rule #31. A player that checks acted.

Jasper Too, somewhere along the way, you eliminated one of the main reasons for Rule #31 which has nothing to do with the all-in players.

How about this: leave the rule the way it is and then add this; Any player that checked, prior to a full bet, or an all-in raise, shall have all options open to them.

I understand the rule, I was just trying to make it easier for new poker dealers and the floor.

Thanks for the input.

[JasperToo]

Nick you may not end up answering this if you are looking to drop from the discussion but what part of the rule did I eliminate that you feel was the main reason for the rule?

I am confident there was agreement that the 50% reference in Rule 31 is not about HOW MUCH to raise but rather a rule about the mechanics of raising. And that part was simply moved to rule 30 in my suggestion

The part about all in players was is added as part of the original discussion and there was some concensus that it did actually clear things up.

I don't see Roberts Rules description fixing the problems with Rule #31. A player that checks acted.

Well, perhaps, but not in a way that removes his options and a small change to the last part of of that sentence "a player who has already acted" could be changed to "...has already bet" would help.

Sorry things somehow got more complicated.  I know that both threads served to get me cleared up on a rule I've been stuck on for awhile. 

Sorry we couldn't help.