Disgusting Debate Over Supposedly Simple Poker Rule

[DCJ001 0]

I've slimmed through the answers and, as far as I can tell, no one has answered op's question correctly.The answer is:3) The minimum raise is the BB which is $400 so $400 must be added to the $700 bet which is $1100 to goThe correct answer is not "c" because "c" was not included as an acceptable answer in the op.Here's a slide from a TDA presentation that covers the op's question:

[DCJ001 0]

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.

RaisesA raise must be at least the size of the previous raise. If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she will be required to make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in bet of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.

[speedz99 145]

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's not conceptually difficult, but loads of places get it wrong and there's even a special note about it in the rulebook. That's even more difficult to understand, conceptually.

[BaseJester 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.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Do you want me to drive to your house and read it aloud? Or perhaps express the true meaning of the rule through interpretive dance?

[GWCGWC 83]

Either of those two options would be awesome but the first one would be the awesomest. Please do this and make sure to give trip updates along the way. If you don't have a camera with video, get one and record the entire interaction with CoolHand or the interpretative dance.

[CoolHandKai 0]

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Do you want me to drive to your house and read it aloud? Or perhaps express the true meaning of the rule through interpretive dance?

Yes, please. Are you free on Friday?

[BaseJester 1]

Yes, please. Are you free on Friday?

Friday . . . Friday . . . Nope. Friday, I'm performing Leviticus as a puppet show for brvheart.

[GetSprung 0]

I've slimmed through the answers and, as far as I can tell, no one has answered op's question correctly.The answer is:3) The minimum raise is the BB which is $400 so $400 must be added to the $700 bet which is $1100 to goThe correct answer is not "c" because "c" was not included as an acceptable answer in the op.Here's a slide from a TDA presentation that covers the op's question:

And you wonder why no one respects you. You should try reading once in a while instead of formulating the snarkiest comment and then posting it immediately. ZOMG YOU POSTED C INSTEAD OF 3!! YOU GOT IT WRONG!!! NO WAI!!

[DCJ001 0]

... but if you do you should be punched in the face immediately and asked to never return.

Dealers are generally retarded...

And you wonder why no one respects you. You should try reading once in a while instead of formulating the snarkiest comment and then posting it immediately. ZOMG YOU POSTED C INSTEAD OF 3!! YOU GOT IT WRONG!!! NO WAI!!

I'll do my best to reply in a language that you'll understand:afaik fwiw ya your prolly right or could of been tho imo

[wsox8 10]

I'll do my best to reply in a language that you'll understand:afaik fwiw ya your prolly right or could of been tho imo

now this is something I can understand!

[GetSprung 0]

I'll do my best to reply in a language that you'll understand:afaik fwiw ya your prolly right or could of been tho imo

Must be lonely making love to your computer.

[Dratj 0]

This is my answer:Since the all in is not a full raise, all others may only call the $700. I think DCJ001 is right. Someone explain and correct me if i'm wrong?

[GetSprung 0]

This is my answer:Since the all in is not a full raise, all others may only call the $700. I think DCJ001 is right. Someone explain and correct me if i'm wrong?

Lol...wow. That isn't even what he said. The correct answer has been mentioned several times.

[FARGOpokerND 22]

The responses in this thread hurt my head

[GetSprung 0]

The responses in this thread hurt my head

It's ok....one day you'll get there.

[sandwedge 30]

This is my answer:Since the all in is not a full raise, all others may only call the $700. I think DCJ001 is right. Someone explain and correct me if i'm wrong?

This is actually a common mistake. I've seen it in my own room on occasion (and wanted to beat my head against a wall). It also happened to a buddy of mine about a month ago at the Hard Rock in Tampa.If you haven't acted yet, you have every right to raise the all-in bet. If you have already acted, the action is reopened to you ONLY if the all in bet is at least a full raise.The reason, Dratj, is this: Let's say you are third to act, postflop, in a NL game. UTG bets $40, and then the next player goes all in for $70. Why shouldn't you be able to go all in (or any other raise)? You would definitely have that right had the all in guy folded to the $40 bet.The problem is that people misinterpret the terminology. An All-in that is less than a full raise does not "re-open" the action. That means that UTG, who bet $40, has already had action and therefore cannot reraise. However, everyone else hasn't acted -- the action is still open to them. Some dealers and floorpersons misinterpret the "does not re-open the action" as meaning "closing the action".edit: and because many of these dealers have bigger breasts than me, they make LOTS more money than me.

[Dratj 0]

This is actually a common mistake. I've seen it in my own room on occasion (and wanted to beat my head against a wall). It also happened to a buddy of mine about a month ago at the Hard Rock in Tampa.If you haven't acted yet, you have every right to raise the all-in bet. If you have already acted, the action is reopened to you ONLY if the all in bet is at least a full raise.The reason, Dratj, is this: Let's say you are third to act, postflop, in a NL game. UTG bets $40, and then the next player goes all in for $70. Why shouldn't you be able to go all in (or any other raise)? You would definitely have that right had the all in guy folded to the $40 bet.The problem is that people misinterpret the terminology. An All-in that is less than a full raise does not "re-open" the action. That means that UTG, who bet $40, has already had action and therefore cannot reraise. However, everyone else hasn't acted -- the action is still open to them. Some dealers and floorpersons misinterpret the "does not re-open the action" as meaning "closing the action".edit: and because many of these dealers have bigger breasts than me, they make LOTS more money than me.

Thx sandwedge, its a good explanation, hopefully i've understood it correctly. So, is the correct answer $1100 then? 700 + 400? Not 1200, right?Now, say the all in guy had 800 making it a full raise and a few people called this raise, as the original better of 400, are u allowed to reraise or just call?

[dna4ever 2]

Thx sandwedge, its a good explanation, hopefully i've understood it correctly. So, is the correct answer $1100 then? 700 + 400? Not 1200, right?Now, say the all in guy had 800 making it a full raise and a few people called this raise, as the original better of 400, are u allowed to reraise or just call?

if everyone made legal raises/calls such as what you just described you most certainly can reraise when the action is back to you. RROP actually states "The number of raises in any betting round is unlimited"and yes the correct answer is $1100 to go ($400 is the actual raise amount)

[Dratj 0]

if everyone made legal raises/calls such as what you just described you most certainly can reraise when the action is back to you. RROP actually states "The number of raises in any betting round is unlimited"and yes the correct answer is $1100 to go ($400 is the actual raise amount)

thx dna.if that's the case then I think the existing rule is stupid. Whether it's 700 or 800 doesn't really make much of a difference but if it's 800 then the original better gets a chance to reraise and possibly protect his hand or whatnot and force the limpers to call or give up their hand.

[sandwedge 30]

thx dna.if that's the case then I think the existing rule is stupid. Whether it's 700 or 800 doesn't really make much of a difference but if it's 800 then the original better gets a chance to reraise and possibly protect his hand or whatnot and force the limpers to call or give up their hand.

Consider it this way:You place the original bet. If every player in the hand calls you, and it gets back to you, it would definitely be unfair for you to raise (you would be raising yourself).Now lets say that you bet and get raised by someone. The nature of the game is that you can reraise them back. Let's say that you bet, get 8 callers, and the ninth person raises you. You can (and should be able to) still reraise him. This is definitely fair, and yes, it punishes the people who simply called your bet (with people behind them still waiting to act).Considering the two concepts above, we have to have criteria for what is a raise. In no-limit, for a bet to be considered a raise, it HAS TO be equal to a full raise. True - there's not much difference between 700 and 800, but there has to be a point at which the all-in bet is considered a raise.Consider it this way -- In no limit unless an all-in bet is AT LEAST a full raise, then it's a CALL.In limit holdem, however, we allow an all-in in be a raise if it is at least half the size of a full raise.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Consider it this way -- In no limit unless an all-in bet is AT LEAST a full raise, then it's a CALL.

and then the original bettor doesn't have to put in any more money to match the caller's all-in raise. got it.

[Dratj 0]

Consider it this way:You place the original bet. If every player in the hand calls you, and it gets back to you, it would definitely be unfair for you to raise (you would be raising yourself).Now lets say that you bet and get raised by someone. The nature of the game is that you can reraise them back. Let's say that you bet, get 8 callers, and the ninth person raises you. You can (and should be able to) still reraise him. This is definitely fair, and yes, it punishes the people who simply called your bet (with people behind them still waiting to act).Considering the two concepts above, we have to have criteria for what is a raise. In no-limit, for a bet to be considered a raise, it HAS TO be equal to a full raise. True - there's not much difference between 700 and 800, but there has to be a point at which the all-in bet is considered a raise.Consider it this way -- In no limit unless an all-in bet is AT LEAST a full raise, then it's a CALL.In limit holdem, however, we allow an all-in in be a raise if it is at least half the size of a full raise.

Thx again sandwedge, well put. Now, i'm gonna drive u more crazy here lol. How about if the rules were changed such that as long as the amount is more than the regular calling amount, it's a raise? That would be the other extreme for no limit i guess. However, if i could pick a rule, i would like to see the limit rule applied to no limit, seems to make more sense. It's in between the current rule and the one I just proposed.

[Mercury69 3]

Friday . . . Friday . . . Nope. Friday, I'm performing Leviticus as a puppet show for brvheart.

omfg, I hope you're podcasting this!!! Please tell me you're performing a Claymation version of Sister Carrie next!!!And thanks to everyone, except for Lurbz the Grouch, for providing some conclusive, educational discussion on this matter of import.

[sandwedge 30]

Thx again sandwedge, well put. Now, i'm gonna drive u more crazy here lol. How about if the rules were changed such that as long as the amount is more than the regular calling amount, it's a raise? That would be the other extreme for no limit i guess. However, if i could pick a rule, i would like to see the limit rule applied to no limit, seems to make more sense. It's in between the current rule and the one I just proposed.

That wouldn't work very well. Let's use my example of utg betting $40. If the next player went all-in for $41, then the action would be re-opened. I think we'd all agree that wouldn't be fair.I can understand why you'd propose the limit rule being applied. In fact, I've seen a lot of dealers/floors make the mistake of doing that. Basically, they remember the limit rule, and apply it in a no-limit situation. I saw this once at a table where I was playing. The dealer, another dealer who was playing, AND the floor (after I had called for him) all got it wrong.Quick Edit: The more I work in the poker industry, the more I realize that I'm not perfect. I've made incorrect calls, and probably will again in the future. I guess what I'm saying is that I hope I'm not coming across as an arrogant "know-it-all".

[sandwedge 30]

and then the original bettor doesn't have to put in any more money to match the caller's all-in raise. got it.

LOL. I like how you're getting things stirred up.Of course, we all know it's not a "call" since it's more money. But it's not a "raise" either, since it's not a full raise. We need a new term to define it.