management argue
 

Simple stupid argument. I have over 10 years as a poker floor/manager. I am an assistant mgr in a room and during a dealer meeting my boss and I disagreed with a situation that was questioned. I could be wrong, he could be wrong. Please let me know what those of you with experience in the business think. I think this is really simple and silly....No Limit tournament. 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? 1.) raise to 1400? 2.) raise to 1500?

Re: management argue
 

amount of the last raise is 600, 800 is the total 600+800=1400. If you say the amount of the bet must be doubled then it would be 1600, but 1500 is clearly wrong.

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT THE PLAYER CAN RAISE? 1.) raise to 1400? 2.) raise to 1500?

[/ QUOTE ]

On a side note, players min raising or even worrying what a min raise is after a bet/raise/mini all in, would raise a flag about collusion to me.

Re: management argue
 

an all in for 100 more than a 600 raise does not qualify as a raise, only as a call as far as betting action goes so the minimum the next player can raise should be 1400.

Re: management argue
 

This came up a couple of years ago. There were a lot of very experienced people on both sides of this. I have always ruled 600 more from the current bet (making it 1500), but there are a number of people whose opinion I value on this that tell me it should be 600 than the previous raise. I think they are wrong as completing the bet is strictly a limit concept.

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
completing the bet is strictly a limit concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go again, making distinctions between limit and no-limit rules.

Poker has been homogenized. Get with the times.

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
completing the bet is strictly a limit concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go again, making distinctions between limit and no-limit rules.

Poker has been homogenized. Get with the times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing some training in about Feb I had a dealer basically tell me that (in a serious manner) when I was explaining what is and isn't a string bet. he said something to the effect that I was being dumb that it either is or isn't a string bet.

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
an all in for 100 more than a 600 raise does not qualify as a raise, only as a call as far as betting action goes so the minimum the next player can raise should be 1400.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. The min. raise would come to a total of 1400. 200 blind, raise 600 more to 800. Min raise would be 600+600+200.

Re: management argue
 

Thank you for your responses. It is my belief, that the players raise all in for 100 more is action only and does not count as a bet or a raise, so the minimum raise of 600 units still applies. 1400 was my answer.

Re: management argue
 

I say 1500. Although the 100 does not count as a "raise", any raise must be at least the size of the previous raise. Would the situation be different if the player went all in for 1075? It changes the dynamics of the hand.

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.

Re: management argue
 

I also think that most software in online poker would make the min-raise 1400. This is why so many people are of the opinion that the min raise is 1400

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
I say 1500. Although the 100 does not count as a "raise", any raise must be at least the size of the previous raise. Would the situation be different if the player went all in for 1075? It changes the dynamics of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it should be a 600 unit raise over the current 900 to call, to a total of 1,500 to be put in by the raiser.

(And I'm not just saying this because I'll probably be asking Johnny for a job soon.)

Re: management argue
 

This question has problems either way you answer it. It's a rare situation, and I can't fault anybody for ruling either way. Both views make sense.

Me, I like to include the all-in as the baseline for a new raise, but the minimum raise amount stays the same.

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably be asking Johnny for a job soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get in line, pal.

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
I say 1500. Although the 100 does not count as a "raise", any raise must be at least the size of the previous raise. Would the situation be different if the player went all in for 1075? It changes the dynamics of the hand.

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 ]

I just woke up thinking about this. The 1500 had to be right. I mean I don't think anyone would be arguing for the 1400 if the all-in had been to 1300 and there is no difference in NL between a raise to 900 and a raise to 1300.

Re: management argue
 

1500 has to be right because the all-in rules protect players against colluders reopening the betting for paltry amounts.

If you allow players to complete the bet, then they could complete the bet to 1400 after an underraise to 1350 and 8 calls, reopening the betting. Clealy a situation that should not be allowed. The minimum raise then would be 600 more to 1950.

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT THE PLAYER CAN RAISE? 1.) raise to 1400? 2.) raise to 1500?

[/ QUOTE ]

On a side note, players min raising or even worrying what a min raise is after a bet/raise/mini all in, would raise a flag about collusion to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on Photoc, You know there are lots of players out there who really don't get it, and just always make the minimum raise unles sthey are pushing all-in

Re: management argue
 

the action to the player in question is 900 to go
... a raise of 700.

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

the initial raiser's action is void because the raise of the all in player is greater.

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
an all in for 100 more than a 600 raise does not qualify as a raise, only as a call as far as betting action goes so the minimum the next player can raise should be 1400.

[/ QUOTE ]

fail

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
the action to the player in question is 900 to go
... a raise of 700.

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

the initial raiser's action is void because the raise of the all in player is greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

The all in player didn't raise. He went all in for less then a full raise, so his action is treated as a call. This closes the action if no one else raises behind him and players who have already acted can only call the all in or fold.

Re: management argue
 

Isn't this really a two part question?

1.) what is the minimum the player can raise?

The answer here is clearly 600.

2.) What is the players minimum bet, chould he chose to raise?

IMO, I don't see how the answer could be anything other than 1500. If he just wants to call how much does he need to put out? 900 right? So adding the minimum raise of 600 to that = 1500.

So a minimum bet is 1500 but the raise amount is only 600.

Feel free to correct.

ps. If we look at it from a side pot point of veiw and assume three players. Ignore blinds. Main pot should be 2700. All in of 900 plus the two callers. With two raises of 600 for two players side pot should be 1200. If we allow second player to only bet 1400 and initial raiser to call this well have 1400 + 1400 + 900. Side pot ends up only being 1000.

Or am I wrong here too?

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
amount of the last raise is 600, 800 is the total 600+800=1400. If you say the amount of the bet must be doubled then it would be 1600, but 1500 is clearly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

As the other posters have mentioned under "current rules" 1500 is NOT "clearly wrong". OTOH, I'm not sure it's clearly right either. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

But I do think this problem illustrates that the "double the bet" rule used at Hawaiian Gardens might be the best rule for modern no limit.

~ Rick

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the action to the player in question is 900 to go
... a raise of 700.

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

the initial raiser's action is void because the raise of the all in player is greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

The all in player didn't raise. He went all in for less then a full raise, so his action is treated as a call. This closes the action if no one else raises behind him and players who have already acted can only call the all in or fold.

[/ QUOTE ]


NO NO NO NO

the question is not what action did the all in player take? (in limit this would be considered a call and the only action the the next proceeding player could take would be to complete the bet, but this is NL, completely different),

the question is... what is the action to the player in question (the player who wants to min raise)?

THE ACTION TO THIS PLAYER IS....

a raise of 700 to 900. so,

900 to call

700 to raise

yes i know that much of the software online would consider the minraises to be 1400

Re: management argue
 

[ 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

Re: management argue
 

As Randy and others have mentioned the answer seems to be in dispute (and I've heard it both ways over the years).

Here's the applicable written rule from an LA rulebook (Ciaffone's is similar).

"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. A player who has already checked or called may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the amount of the last bet or raise. For example: Player A bets $100. Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn’t fully raised. However, Player A can raise — after Player C goes all in — because he was fully raised by Player B. If Player A does raise, then the betting is reopened, and Player B can raise again."

IMO the written rule is unclear. But if rewritten I'd prefer the raise to be to $1500 unless you want to go to the "double the bet you are facing" approach in which case it would be to $1600.

~ Rick

Edit to say this thread would be better (easier to find) with a more descriptive title (e.g., "Min reraise after short allin raise").

Re: management argue
 

[ 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.

Re: management argue
 

[ 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?

Re: management argue
 

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

you are right, it\'s a ridiculous arguement
 

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

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

How much does it cost the player to call? 900
What is the minimum raise? 600 +
________________________________________________
1,500


class dismissed
LOL

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.