Re: you are right, it\'s a ridiculous arguement
 

Someone rationalize and logically convince me why it's supposed to be 1400.
I want to be enlightened

Re: you are right, it\'s a ridiculous arguement
 

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is so clearly 1400 it's not even funny. 1500? Kick 'em in the nuts. Then let him know that it's ok to sometimes not smoke that stuff on his break.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it so clear?

Everyone agrees he is facing a bet of 900.

Everyone also agrees that the min raise in this situation is 600.

Are you saying that we can now "complete" an all in to a full raise in NL?

Re: you are right, it\'s a ridiculous arguement
 

It's not important that the minium raise is to either 1,400 or 1,500. It's only important that you decide which it is at your casino and enforce it consistently.

Re: management argue
 

Surprised no one said this. The correct answer is clearly whatever your boss says [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the Hawaiian Gardens double the bet rule, which bet are you doubling? The bey, the raise, or the total calling amount?

[/ QUOTE ]

The total calling amount. So the minimum progression (when players are raising and cover all bets) is 1-2-4-8-16.

In the case of the opening post of the thread (repeated for clarity):

"Blinds are 100-200. UTG raises to 800, a raise of 600 units. next player goes all in for 900, one hundred more. The next player wants to raise the minimum. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT THE PLAYER CAN RAISE?"

At Hawaiian Gardens it would be to make it $1800.

~ Rick

Re: you are right, it\'s a ridiculous arguement
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's not important that the minium raise is to either 1,400 or 1,500. It's only important that you decide which it is at your casino and enforce it consistently.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may not be important for these specific raise amounts but let's say Player A bets 200, B raises to 800, C calls 800, D then goes allin for 1300. Do we want Player E to be be able to raise to 1400 and reopen the betting for Players B or C?

This assumes a "half or more" rule doesn't apply to no limit (since it usually doesn't).

~ Rick

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bob Ciaffone actually wrote an article about this, as well as the aggregate total of sevreal all ins that eventually go over the full bet threshhold(which he felt reopened the betting). Wow was that a bunch of unclear crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't that article primarily address limit issues? For example $80 betting round Player A bets 80, B calls, C allin for 100, D allin for 130, A calls, action now reopened for B since the total of both allin raises is greater than half the original bet (which means a full bet in limit).

Of course the same concept could be applied to no limit when two allins amount to a full raise.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

I know because of confusion he does mention in his rules now that a series of all-ins too small to reopen betting will still reopen betting if collectively they add up to a raise. Example: A bets 100, B all-in for 150, C all-in for 200, and D calls 200. The action is open to A even tough nobody made a $100 raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

its because if you have been paying attention, the key question is, WHAT IS THE ACTION TO THIS PLAYER?
so, the action back to A is a min raise, which of course allows A to reraise.

Re: you are right, it\'s a ridiculous arguement
 

It's no different here than it would be in a limit game.

Suppose 3-6 limit on the turn. Player bets 6. Next raises all-in to 7. The dollar doesn't count for squat because it's not enough to qualify as a bet. In limit, it must be half or more to qualify at which point it counts as a full bet. "Complete" is just a word, not some all-binding principle that has far reaching effects.

In no limit, most houses will use the full bet rule (as in tda). Thus any portion less than the amount needed to qualify as a full bet doesn't really matter and does not qualify as a "bet on top." It wouldn't make any difference if the 50% rule was used, same principles would apply.

Take the op's example, assume 100% rule: blind 200, raise to 800. Next raise would be minimim 1400. If some goes all-in for 900, that's only 100 on top, not near enough to qualify as a full bet. But if you forced the next min raise to go to 1500, you have essentially qualified that 100 extra as a full bet. You'd have the blind, the first raise, the extra 100, and the reraise all as separate entities. The extra 100 should merely be absorbed by the reraise, not let stand as another bet on top of the blind and the first raise.

"Complete" essentially means the same as "make another full raise on top of the first raise," thus absorbing the trivial extra amout left dangling by the all-in player.

What I find really odd about this whole situation is that I've never seen anyone argue or do it differently than I'm describing. I suppose for the whole devil's advocate thing it's interesting to present a different spin on what was presumed to be the "only" way to do something.

I'm not sure of whether this exact situation is covered in robert's rules. I'm gonna "pull a sklansky" and let others elaborate (i.e. I'm too dang lazy to do it myself. I should kick myself in the nuts for that one, but I'm too lazy for that today either).

Al

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the correct min raise would be to 1600 (700 + 700 + 200)


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Bold and screaming -- and you are really bad at this. When was there ever a 700 raise to set that as the amount of the min-raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

moron.... it's not, when was there a raise to 700?, it's, what is the action to the player in question? (a raise of 700) please somehow try to manage to get your mind out of the limit gutter

Re: management argue
 

I just can't see how it could not be 1500.

Suppose it goes like this:
A bets $500, B raises to $1000, C goes all-in for $1499 total, D calls $1499.

A now has the option to raise $1? (And in doing so, re-open the betting for D?) Having this weird loophole the minimum betting requirements can't be right.