Strange NL betting rule
 

I ran into this at a casino recently and I still can't seem to get a straight answer from the card room people.

1/2 NL. I am on the button. 6 players see the flop at 10 each. Board comes with a Jh 6s Jd, giving me trips ( J-10). BB bets 15, next player goes all in for 21. I more caller before I raise to 100. But the dealer makes be pull back my bet stating that I can only call since $21 bet since any all in move that equals less than half a raise, i.e., $30, freezes the action for that round meaning that I could only call teh $21 bet. I protest but he holds his ground and makes me take my bet down. The turn is a blank and gets checked to me and I make it a hundred. Get called by the flush draw. And guess what hits the river.

It took me hours to hunt down the answer and although the card room manager finally said the dealer was wrong, several of the dealers still insisted the card room manager was wrong.

Is anyone aware of a general rule where an all in bet which does not amount to a full raise caps the action for that round?

Thanks.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

Hi

I´m not aware of this ruling.

If BB bets 15, you call 15 and player X raises all-in for less than 30 and furthermore there are no more active players, than the BB and you can not re-raise because player X did not complete the bet to 30 and thus his raise is not live.

But ---- you had not yet called the 15 , right ?
Then yes, in every single NL game ( that I know of) you should be able to re-raise as much as you want.

Bashar

EDIT -- I think this thread belongs in the B&M forum.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

Exactly. I had not yet called the bet.

EDIT -- this does belong in the B&M forum. My mistake.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

If hes calling 100 on the turn with FD... He's calling it on the flop... Either way same result [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

yes, the dealer was wrong here.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

The dealer is an idiot and he should be reprimanded. If the Floor and management had any guts he would have been. The rule he was enforcing doesn't take effect until everyone has made some kind of action first - in your case you hadn't.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

The dealer is wrong. All-in bets never close action (unbless they happen to be a cap in a limit game) . The only question is whether an all-in bet reopens action to thjose who have already acted.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
I protest but he holds his ground and makes me take my bet down.

[/ QUOTE ]
At this point, you should stop the action and call the floor.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
If hes calling 100 on the turn with FD... He's calling it on the flop... Either way same result [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Except he picked up the FD on the turn. The flop was rainbow.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

If short-stack had called someone's bigger raise, would it have cut off raising by anyone behind him?

Stupid, STUPID ruling by someone who didn't think about what they were doing.

KITN for several dealers and multiple KITN for whomever trained them...

It wouldn't have changed anything in the hand, since you let them make you take it back. Call the floor right away and hold up action until it gets resolved.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

The dealer is confused. It is the BB who cannot REraise the all-in player, because the all-in player did not raise the BB the full amount. However you can raise the BB as much as you want.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

Thanks for the answers. The more I think about it, the only thing a "half bet" rule in NL can mean is if the all in amount is less than 1.5x the bet, then it is considered a call, if it is more than 1.5x the bet, then it is a raise. So the all in play should be treated as either a call or raise, and everyone else in the hand gets to act accordingly.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

next time something doesnt seem right to you- stop the action and politely insist that the floor be called in for a decision, be calm the whole time and calmly explain your position to the floor manager and abide by his ruling. Unfortunately for you, since the action passed without the floor, the decision couldnt be reversed.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the answers. The more I think about it, the only thing a "half bet" rule in NL can mean is if the all in amount is less than 1.5x the bet, then it is considered a call, if it is more than 1.5x the bet, then it is a raise. So the all in play should be treated as either a call or raise, and everyone else in the hand gets to act accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strat, this is a bit nitty, but so you aren't surprised in a game where folks do follow the rules, the half bet raise idea is a limit concept. In limit, an all-in for over half a legal raise re-opens the action. However, in No Limit, only a full size raise re-opens the action.

See Roberts Rules of Poker, Section 3 (General Rules) #7 under the betting and raising section:

[ QUOTE ]
7. In limit play, an all-in wager of less than half a bet does not reopen the betting for any player who has already acted and is in the pot for all previous bets. A player who has not yet acted (or had the betting reopened to him by another player’s action), facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may fold, call, or complete the wager. An all-in wager of a half a bet or more is treated as a full bet, and a player may fold, call, or make a full raise. (An example of a full raise on a $20 betting round is raising a $15 all-in bet to $35.) Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to individually qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.



[/ QUOTE ]

And this is Rule 3, under section 14, No Limit and Pot Limit:

[ QUOTE ]
3. 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 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or 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.)



[/ QUOTE ]

Link to Robert's Rules of Poker

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the answers. The more I think about it, the only thing a "half bet" rule in NL can mean is if the all in amount is less than 1.5x the bet, then it is considered a call, if it is more than 1.5x the bet, then it is a raise. So the all in play should be treated as either a call or raise, and everyone else in the hand gets to act accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if it's considered a call or not, anyone who hasn't had a chance to act behind that player can still raise any amount. Your right to make a bet or raise cannot be taken away by a player acting before you.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

The dealer is so horrifyingly wrong, he should be fired.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

moronic dealer, call floor over and get his arse fired.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
If hes calling 100 on the turn with FD... He's calling it on the flop... Either way same result [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you come play in my home game? He didn't have a flush draw to call on the flop, he got it on the turn due to OPs inability to drive him out of the pot. Flush draw would not have called on the flop if OP could have bet $100.

My experience, and how we handle this in my home game, is if the raise is for more than half of the original bet, there can be reraises. So if original bet was $30, if shortstack goes all in for $15 or more on top of calling the $30 original bet than others can reraise NL, if shortstack can only reraise $14.99 or less ($0.99 is just for exactness)than there can be no reraises. It is a fair rule, you just need to know it. The beauty is when you are aware of all the stacks at the table and are able to use this rule against others trapping 3 - 4 cally wally's in the middle drawing very thin by betting an amount that if the shortstack wants to push, his raise is just a bit more than half of the original bet. It doesn't happen very often, but it is SUPER FUN when it does.

Sorry OP that it rolled out like that on you, but rules are rules, you just got to know them, which isn't easy if you play in multiple places.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If hes calling 100 on the turn with FD... He's calling it on the flop... Either way same result [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you come play in my home game? He didn't have a flush draw to call on the flop, he got it on the turn due to OPs inability to drive him out of the pot. Flush draw would not have called on the flop if OP could have bet $100.

My experience, and how we handle this in my home game, is if the raise is for more than half of the original bet, there can be reraises. So if original bet was $30, if shortstack goes all in for $15 or more on top of calling the $30 original bet than others can reraise NL, if shortstack can only reraise $14.99 or less ($0.99 is just for exactness)than there can be no reraises. It is a fair rule, you just need to know it. The beauty is when you are aware of all the stacks at the table and are able to use this rule against others trapping 3 - 4 cally wally's in the middle drawing very thin by betting an amount that if the shortstack wants to push, his raise is just a bit more than half of the original bet. It doesn't happen very often, but it is SUPER FUN when it does.

Sorry OP that it rolled out like that on you, but rules are rules, you just got to know them, which isn't easy if you play in multiple places.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see if I understand your "rules." Before any action post flop player A bets $30. Player B only has $14.99 so he calls. Are you saying that players C, D, E, can only call player A's $30? Cuz if you are you have some retarded rules. If you aren't then please clarify?

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you aren't then please clarify?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed- if bec1972 is saying that a short stack can effectively block raising, that's a very unusual rule (though maybe not as unusual as we thought).

Half-bet raise? Cool. Short stack blocking everyone ELSE from raising? Not cool.... even though they are giving themselves (the SS) a big disadvantage by doing so.

In a bit of a seque, I'm been somewhat of an advocate of the "1/2 raise = reopen the betting" concept.... but thinking more of bec1972's example, I'm not sure if I like the "raise so you can reraise yourself" idea. I'll have to think through that one some more.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

Do you guys all have jobs where when you make a single small mistake you get fired?

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If hes calling 100 on the turn with FD... He's calling it on the flop... Either way same result [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you come play in my home game? He didn't have a flush draw to call on the flop, he got it on the turn due to OPs inability to drive him out of the pot. Flush draw would not have called on the flop if OP could have bet $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it was okay to call on the turn, getting 2:1 on a 4:1 chance... but there's no way the player is going to call on the flop?

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed- if bec1972 is saying that a short stack can effectively block raising, that's a very unusual rule (though maybe not as unusual as we thought).

[/ QUOTE ]

My experience is that while many home game people may be playing with this rule, it is generally because they misunderstand the rule not because they consciously want to use a non-standard rule. they will swear up and down that all the casinos do it this way.

[ QUOTE ]
In a bit of a seque, I'm been somewhat of an advocate of the "1/2 raise = reopen the betting" concept.... but thinking more of bec1972's example, I'm not sure if I like the "raise so you can reraise yourself" idea. I'll have to think through that one some more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understanding the effect of other people's actions when sizing your bet makes lots of sense (this is true with 1/2 bet or full bet rules). Even with a full bet if you see a short stack who you think will push in response to your bet, and you want to be able to come back over when they do, you make sure that you bet the correct amount. If the short stack has $40, you bet $20 hoping the SS pushes and a few other players call so that you can come back over.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
Understanding the effect of other people's actions when sizing your bet makes lots of sense (this is true with 1/2 bet or full bet rules). Even with a full bet if you see a short stack who you think will push in response to your bet, and you want to be able to come back over when they do, you make sure that you bet the correct amount. If the short stack has $40, you bet $20 hoping the SS pushes and a few other players call so that you can come back over.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, for some reason the 1/2 bet rule struck me as a problem, even though it should basically be the same. That's what I want to think through a bit.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

I'm not a fan of the 1/2 bet rule. You don't even have enough for a legal raise, let alone anything resembling a realistic raise for whatever the situation may be. Either you double the previous raise or betting is closed to the usual suspects.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

just because? Or do you have more of a reason?

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

You only read the first sentence before you reply? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

"You don't even have enough for a legal raise"

It's not a raise.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
You only read the first sentence before you reply? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

"You don't even have enough for a legal raise"

It's not a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I thought I quoted the rules above in this thread, although perhaps I imagined it. to reiterate: the 1/2 bet rule is a limit concept. As Pfapfap says, only a full raise is a raise in NL.

Also, I'm not sure why so many people think that bec1972 has some weird closing the action rule (aside from improperly using the 1/2 bet rule in a NL game). What he's saying is that if you have a short stack in the hand and you'd like to whipsaw the people in between you, make sure to bet small enough that when shorty pushes, it reopens the action to you. Intervening players may not have called a 60 dollar opener, but may well call after your 30 dollar opener and the shorty's push to 45. Then you can ree-rah when it gets back to you to either trap more money in the pot or drive players out leaving their dead money behind.

Given his strategic point, its a bit of a stretch to read into his post (although his post is ambiguous about it) that if shorty's all in is less than 45 (in our example) that the action is closed to the intervening players who haven't acted yet.

--Zetack

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm not sure why so many people think that bec1972 has some weird closing the action rule (aside from improperly using the 1/2 bet rule in a NL game). What he's saying is that if you have a short stack in the hand and you'd like to whipsaw the people in between you, make sure to bet small enough that when shorty pushes, it reopens the action to you. Intervening players may not have called a 60 dollar opener, but may well call after your 30 dollar opener and the shorty's push to 45. Then you can ree-rah when it gets back to you to either trap more money in the pot or drive players out leaving their dead money behind.

Given his strategic point, its a bit of a stretch to read into his post (although his post is ambiguous about it) that if shorty's all in is less than 45 (in our example) that the action is closed to the intervening players who haven't acted yet.

--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what he wrote: "...if original bet was $30, if shortstack goes all in for $15 or more on top of calling the $30 original bet than others can reraise NL, if shortstack can only reraise $14.99 or less ($0.99 is just for exactness)than there can be no reraises."

I can't see how that could be interpreted as a strategy post rather than a rules post.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm not sure why so many people think that bec1972 has some weird closing the action rule (aside from improperly using the 1/2 bet rule in a NL game). What he's saying is that if you have a short stack in the hand and you'd like to whipsaw the people in between you, make sure to bet small enough that when shorty pushes, it reopens the action to you. Intervening players may not have called a 60 dollar opener, but may well call after your 30 dollar opener and the shorty's push to 45. Then you can ree-rah when it gets back to you to either trap more money in the pot or drive players out leaving their dead money behind.

Given his strategic point, its a bit of a stretch to read into his post (although his post is ambiguous about it) that if shorty's all in is less than 45 (in our example) that the action is closed to the intervening players who haven't acted yet.

--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what he wrote: "...if original bet was $30, if shortstack goes all in for $15 or more on top of calling the $30 original bet than others can reraise NL, if shortstack can only reraise $14.99 or less ($0.99 is just for exactness)than there can be no reraises."

I can't see how that could be interpreted as a strategy post rather than a rules post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Rotter, I saw that which is why I said the he was somewhat ambiguous on the point, but I read what followed as his main point being that a half sized bet Re-opens the action which gives you some intersting strategic plays when there's a shorty and other in the hand with you.

In light of my reading of that, I thought it was very likely that his use of the word re-raise was simply imprecision in language referring to the orignal bettor, and re-open was what he meant. However, on a third reading, I will concede that those questioning what his rule actually is are on stronger ground than I, based on the actual language he uses. In other words, I'm probably reading more into it, based on what I perceive as the flavor of what he's saying, than the folks who are holding him to the literal meaning of his words, particularly "re-raise". So I withdraw my earlier criticism. My bad.

...Although I still expect that if he responds to clarify he'll say that the less than half sized bet does not close the action to players who have not acted.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

You quick replied to someone else, not me, for that prior response, didn't you?

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You only read the first sentence before you reply? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

"You don't even have enough for a legal raise"

It's not a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I thought I quoted the rules above in this thread, although perhaps I imagined it. to reiterate: the 1/2 bet rule is a limit concept. As Pfapfap says, only a full raise is a raise in NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard that some NL games run with a half-raise rule....?

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You only read the first sentence before you reply? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

"You don't even have enough for a legal raise"

It's not a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I thought I quoted the rules above in this thread, although perhaps I imagined it. to reiterate: the 1/2 bet rule is a limit concept. As Pfapfap says, only a full raise is a raise in NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard that some NL games run with a half-raise rule....?

[/ QUOTE ]

True, I was pointing out the standard rule. Home games are welcome to any rule variants they want. I suppose I keep pointing it out, because I believe that a lot of home game players using the 1/2 raise rule for no limit believe it is the standard rule, not a variant.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

Honestly, it sounds like the dealer didn't want to have to take 21 dollars out of your and everyone elses stack of 100 to make a side pot, he wanted to do it the easy way, on the next street.

The dealer is wrong, and lazy imo.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if I understand your "rules." Before any action post flop player A bets $30. Player B only has $14.99 so he calls. Are you saying that players C, D, E, can only call player A's $30? Cuz if you are you have some retarded rules. If you aren't then please clarify?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO! (Clearly I didn't explain this well if this is what derived, I'll try to elaborate better) I am saying, before any action post flop player A bets $30. Player B has $44.99 (or less), if player B raises all in, if other players call the now $44.99 total when it get backs to player A he cannot reraise the raise when the action gets back to him.

IF, here is where it is different, before any action post flop player A bets $30. Player B only has $45 (or more, but less than $60), if player B raises all in, if other players call the now $45 total when it get backs to player A he CAN now reraise the raise when the action gets back to him.

In either case ANY player acting after player B's reraise (no matter how much player B had) and before it gets back to player A can reraise any amount, at which point it DOES reopen the raising ability to player A.

Whether you like what the rule can, in EXTREMELY RARE cases, allow in terms of pot and player manipulation, if the rule is in place and you have the opportunity to take advantage of it and do not, that is your perrogative. I am not an angle shooter, nor do I recommend that others angle shoot (i.e. deliberately acting out of turn, saying one thing and doing another, hiding cards behind chips etc.)

If you have ever **"had"** to play in a game stacked up with calling stations that end up giving EVERYONE the right odds to chase EVERYTHING possible, if you get the opportunity to pull this move off it is (in my best Cartman) . . . . SUPER SWEET! (so long as the draws don't get there)

And by **"had"** . . . 1) I live in an area that does not have card rooms readily available, 2) I do not enjoy, and will not, play cash games with my friends as some cannot afford to lose even at the lowest stakes that would keep the game legit and from a financial standpoint worthwhile, 3) I am unable to travel to areas that have great card rooms, so I "have" to play in the festival, church basement fund raising, and general charity fundraiser arenas. WHICH ARE LOADED with chasers, calling stations, people along for the ride, and players notorious for giving everyone else at the table horrible odds in relation to ANY made hand. (Don't argue this if you haven't played in this environment, because who wants to go all in for $200 on the flop when the pot has $60 in it, because 4 or more players will call a $75 - $100 bet?)

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

Look at it from this example, (and this is PREDOMINANTLY the examples that I have used this to my advantage)

Where: Summer festival in their gambling tent, spreading everything from instants, the money wheel, Blackjack where the dealer takes ties, to poker.

What: $1/$2 no-limit. Buy in rules vary anywhere from min $60 - max $100 upto min $100 - max $300 depending on the festival. With a ridiculous rake that is ALWAYS 10% and can go as high as $50 per hand, again depending on which venue.

Who: 9 players and you, where skill levels of the other 9 really question whether the words "skill" and "level" should be in the same sentence. 7 of the 9 will call almost anything to the turn to see if they can hit either their 4 or 7 for third pair, lookout if they have a gutshot, and four to a 9 high flush OR open ended at the bottom end are (notice sarcasm) VIRTUAL LOCKS!

When: After you have played for quite a while, you notice that the game has digressed to a glorified crap shoot.

You are playing $700+ and are in early position. You are dealt Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], and raise to $20 preflop (because $15 - $25 preflop was getting action, but $30 or more was not) and get called by 5 players, making the preflop pot atleast $125. One of the callers is the player immediately to your left and he, of all the players in this pot, is the shortstack and he has $60 left after calling the $25 preflop.

The flop comes A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

I will often bet $40, praying that the shortstack has an Ace or a hand that he will push either out of desperation, pride or the money in the pot begging him/her. His/her raise of $20 allows me to repop if and when 1, 2, 3, or all 4 of the remaining players just call the shorstack's reraise all in to $20 more on top of the $40 I originally bet. I then raise a large amount (depending on what I think the is needed) hoping that the callers of $60 bail when faced with a reraise that would cost them anything upto $615 more.

Nothing shady has occured here. Poor play, in this case, tight/passive and loose/passive play has been exploited. No rule has been broken. No immoral angle has been shot. If the rule is in place and you don't like the above situation, you probably don't like to check raise and would like to illiminate players ability to check raise you in a tight aggressive game as well! Believe it or not there are players (stereotypically, they are mostly older) that do not like check-raises and actually ban them in their house rules.

If my original post was unclear, I apologize. I was implying what "Zetack" read into my posts, and hope that this and my last post cleared up any ambiguity. For those that do not like the 1.5 raise rule in NL cash play, I would implore you to think about it with an open mind. It presents you with opportunities that less skilled players do not think of, and therefore initially are unable to implement on you (until they learn it from experience). If you know someone is capable of making this move/play you are that much ahead of the competition, or atleast you are able to see into their mind as to "why" they are betting that amount.

Hope I atleast clarified what others misread due to my poor word choices earlier. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hope I atleast clarified what others misread due to my poor word choices earlier. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "clarified" you mean attempted to make a confusing post even more so then yes, you've "clarified" it. But no matter, you play in your tents with your wacked out rules and let the big boys play real poker.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]

Hope I atleast clarified what others misread due to my poor word choices earlier. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you often find that others are misreading your writing? Whatever could be wrong with all those silly people?

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]

and let the big boys play real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this because the average tonage per player in your game pushes 3 bills, or because you play for "big" stakes? If the latter, why don't you continue to add to your image/dillusions of grandeur and impress us all with how "big" you play. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

and let the big boys play real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this because the average tonage per player in your game pushes 3 bills, or because you play for "big" stakes? If the latter, why don't you continue to add to your image/dillusions of grandeur and impress us all with how "big" you play. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because we play poker with rules that actually make sense and not some made up kiddie rules. Go back to your tent.