Jump to content

Disgusting Debate Over Supposedly Simple Poker Rule


Recommended Posts

So had an issue come up at a tournament last night where blinds were 200/400 and UTG goes all in for 700 and MP asks what is the minimum amount I can raise it to?Let's take out of the equation how retarded of a question that is ....Here were the 4 things people were saying .....1) Since a legal raise of the BB has not been established yet then the first raise must be double the BB which means it can be $800 to go2) The player is all in and raised $300 so the next raise has to be equivalent to the previous raise so has to add $300 to the $700 so $1000 to go3) The minimum raise is the BB which is $400 so $400 must be added to the $700 bet which is $1100 to go4) Player has to double the last bet of $700 which is $700 which is $1400 to go (we will not even entertain this one, but some people were saying this)What was supposed to be a simple ruling started this ridiculous debate amongst was fairly established and 'good' players.I know the correct answer now, but just curious to see the online debate (if there is one) about this. Should be noted this game plays by Roberts Rules of Poker rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

as soon as mp said that i hope everyone started laughing.seriously though, it's C. in no instance that doesn't involve a shove can you ever raise the current bet (700) less than 1 big blind (1,100 total)

Link to post
Share on other sites
as soon as mp said that i hope everyone started laughing.seriously though, it's C. in no instance that doesn't involve a shove can you ever raise the current bet (700) less than 1 big blind (1,100 total)
to say hilarity ensued would be an understatement
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take a shot, but I don't know the rules (even though I should)...Putting in $800 would "complete" the raise, but is technically only a CALL at this point. A Min raise is $400, so $1200 would satisfy MP's desire to raise as little as possible.Edit: <doh>

Link to post
Share on other sites
So had an issue come up at a tournament last night where blinds were 200/400 and UTG goes all in for 700 and MP asks what is the minimum amount I can raise it to?Let's take out of the equation how retarded of a question that is ....Here were the 4 things people were saying .....1) Since a legal raise of the BB has not been established yet then the first raise must be double the BB which means it can be $800 to go2) The player is all in and raised $300 so the next raise has to be equivalent to the previous raise so has to add $300 to the $700 so $1000 to go3) The minimum raise is the BB which is $400 so $400 must be added to the $700 bet which is $1100 to go4) Player has to double the last bet of $700 which is $700 which is $1400 to go (we will not even entertain this one, but some people were saying this)What was supposed to be a simple ruling started this ridiculous debate amongst was fairly established and 'good' players.I know the correct answer now, but just curious to see the online debate (if there is one) about this. Should be noted this game plays by Roberts Rules of Poker rules.
The $700 is more than half of a bet, so it counts as a legal raise. The other players have to put in the $700 to call the raise, but if any players with action pending want to RAISE the $700-all-in-bet, they need to complete the bet and add a bet. $1,200.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The half-bet business is a limit rule.

2. The minimum bet size is the amount of the minimum bring-in, unless the player is going all-in. The minimum bring-in is the size of the big blind unless the structure of the game is preset by the house to some other amount (such as double the big blind). The minimum bet remains the same amount on all betting rounds. If the big blind does not have sufficient chips to post the required amount, a player who enters the pot on the initial betting round is still required to enter for at least the minimum bet (unless going all-in for a lesser sum) and a preflop raiser must at least double the size of the big blind. 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 least 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 $1203. All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 3. A player who has already checked or called may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)
Link to post
Share on other sites
The $700 is more than half of a bet, so it counts as a legal raise. The other players have to put in the $700 to call the raise, but if any players with action pending want to RAISE the $700-all-in-bet, they need to complete the bet and add a bet. $1,200.
Pretty sure this is correct and...
The half-bet business is a limit rule.
This is not true. It applies to NL as well.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty sure this is correct and...This is not true. It applies to NL as well.
Not correct, you're applying the rule where it doesn't apply. In NL the only time this comes into question is if a player bets 1200, a player goes all in for less than a minimum raise, another player calls, and it gets back to the original raiser. The only time betting is opened to the player is if it's a full raise. Limit is the half rule. Back to the original question the answer is C. 700 is a raise, but since it isn't technically a full raise you must add 400 on top of that but if you do you should be punched in the face immediately and asked to never return.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And BTW, i got the answer right. It was confirmed by Matt Savage on Twitter.
Matt Savage once allowed someone to "Call and Raise" me.and I'm not talking about phone sex.Oh wait, this isn't OT. I didn't have to clarify that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll take a shot, but I don't know the rules (even though I should)...Putting in $800 would "complete" the raise, but is technically only a CALL at this point. A Min raise is $400, so $1200 would satisfy MP's desire to raise as little as possible.Edit: <doh>
this explains everything
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not correct, you're applying the rule where it doesn't apply. In NL the only time this comes into question is if a player bets 1200, a player goes all in for less than a minimum raise, another player calls, and it gets back to the original raiser. The only time betting is opened to the player is if it's a full raise. Limit is the half rule. Back to the original question the answer is C. 700 is a raise, but since it isn't technically a full raise you must add 400 on top of that but if you do you should be punched in the face immediately and asked to never return.
I may be confused but how does this relate to this situation. I'm dealt AA UTG in a 7 handed game 1-3 game and raise to 20. Stack ~$450 I get three callers and then the button moves in for 33. BB flats the 33 and It gets around to me and announce a re-raise. The player next to me asks the dealer if I'm allowed to raise and the dealer says since the raise is at least half the initial raise (which was 17) I have the option to raise but if it wasn't I could only call? I'm not arguing. I'm really asking because I'm obviously not comprehending this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be confused but how does this relate to this situation. I'm dealt AA UTG in a 7 handed game 1-3 game and raise to 20. Stack ~$450 I get three callers and then the button moves in for 33. BB flats the 33 and It gets around to me and announce a re-raise. The player next to me asks the dealer if I'm allowed to raise and the dealer says since the raise is at least half the initial raise (which was 17) I have the option to raise but if it wasn't I could only call?
This would not be the correct ruling under Robert's Rules. This is not conceptually difficult. You've been playing in room(s) that either:
  • Don't use Robert's Rules
  • Don't apply Robert's Rules correctly

Lots of places got this wrong. This is why there's an explicit note in the current rules version that says stop applying the rule from limit games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This would not be the correct ruling under Robert's Rules. This is not conceptually difficult. You've been playing in room(s) that either:
  • Don't use Robert's Rules
  • Don't apply Robert's Rules correctly

Lots of places got this wrong. This is why there's an explicit note in the current rules version that says stop applying the rule from limit games.

It would be nice to know what the actual rule is - whether it is "incorrect" or "conceptually difficult" doesn't exactly help to clarify the issue.In all the places I have played, they did have a rule in place that prevented the original raiser from putting in an isolation raise, after a short stack went all in and got a caller.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be confused but how does this relate to this situation. I'm dealt AA UTG in a 7 handed game 1-3 game and raise to 20. Stack ~$450 I get three callers and then the button moves in for 33. BB flats the 33 and It gets around to me and announce a re-raise. The player next to me asks the dealer if I'm allowed to raise and the dealer says since the raise is at least half the initial raise (which was 17) I have the option to raise but if it wasn't I could only call? I'm not arguing. I'm really asking because I'm obviously not comprehending this.
This is a very common confusing point in my league, by RROP you would not be allowed to reraise here.Look @ Rule #4 here, explains it ...A5_pI2CD2uTrH3Cnsp9L.pngProbably the most common thing people get confused about in my league is when someone prematurely exposed the turn card. All hell breaks loose when I put out the river card face down before reshuffling or getting to the turn again.Also explaining to people that a boxed card is basically a piece of paper that gets ignored never goes over well
Link to post
Share on other sites
this explains everything
Hmmm...a more expansive reply would have been helpful. Perhaps too much to ask from El Troll-o.If I'm wrong, I'd like to know and posting what I think might be the right answer indicates a willingness to learn and no fear of being wrong. Trollsky, however, doesn't even seem willing to put his two cets in, even though I suspect his thoughts may be worth more than that.Anyway, lest I be misinterpreted, I am simply curious about his reply and I'm injecting liberal amounts of humour in this post.Edit: ANother thread killer? No replies since mine 3 hours ago...
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 - It would be nice to know what the actual rule is - whether it is "incorrect" or "conceptually difficult" doesn't exactly help to clarify the issue.2 - In all the places I have played, they did have a rule in place that prevented the original raiser from putting in an isolation raise, after a short stack went all in and got a caller.
1 - if it's not a full raise (there is no application of the .5 full bet rule), the betting is not reopened. betting remains open to those who have not yet acted. 2 - this is probably misunderstood as well. usually, if you raised originally and got 3bet (by enough to constitute a full bet) the betting is open when it returns to you. some rooms have a "protect the all-in" rule where you cannot check or call, have someone raise all-in behind you, then yourself raise when it comes back to you (even if the all-in raise was a full bet+) in order to prevent you from "protecting the all-in bettor."your room's rules may differ, may be flat wrong/stupid, or may be misapplied by poorly trained dealers/staff.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to the original question the answer is C. 700 is a raise, but since it isn't technically a full raise you must add 400 on top of that but if you do you should be punched in the face immediately and asked to never return.
:club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm...a more expansive reply would have been helpful. Perhaps too much to ask from El Troll-o.If I'm wrong, I'd like to know and posting what I think might be the right answer indicates a willingness to learn and no fear of being wrong. Trollsky, however, doesn't even seem willing to put his two cets in, even though I suspect his thoughts may be worth more than that.Anyway, lest I be misinterpreted, I am simply curious about his reply and I'm injecting liberal amounts of humour in this post.Edit: ANother thread killer? No replies since mine 3 hours ago...
reading comprehension ftw, question was answered more than once before meand no, posting what you think might be the right answer doesnt indicate a willingness to learn. it indicates a willingness to be an idiot who gets offended when someone calls him an idiot. studying, reading, learning, lurking, and asking well formulated, relevant, and intelligent questions indicate a willingness to learn.also the only HUMOR i found in your post was the useless U in your spelling of that same word, which actually just tilted me because phil does it constantly and i hate british uses of the letter U.
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, bright boy Lurbz...which is the right answer? PS: You really are just a horrible person, aren't you? Derisive, prone to insulting people for no reason other than you didn't like the way they expressed themselves. Pathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, bright boy Lurbz...which is the right answer? PS: You really are just a horrible person, aren't you? Derisive, prone to insulting people for no reason other than you didn't like the way they expressed themselves. Pathetic.
did you not read post #18 or something?i've said it before and i will say it again, if you don't like my opinion of you, you could always improve.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be confused but how does this relate to this situation. I'm dealt AA UTG in a 7 handed game 1-3 game and raise to 20. Stack ~$450 I get three callers and then the button moves in for 33. BB flats the 33 and It gets around to me and announce a re-raise. The player next to me asks the dealer if I'm allowed to raise and the dealer says since the raise is at least half the initial raise (which was 17) I have the option to raise but if it wasn't I could only call? I'm not arguing. I'm really asking because I'm obviously not comprehending this.
Dealers are generally retarded and think that this rule can apply both in limit and no limit when in fact it is just a limit rule. In the above example which is strangely similar to what I posted you would only be able to call since in all reality you would be raising your own raise which is against the rules.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...