[EWillers]

The math is definately easier on the modified rule.

As was stated earlier, I am also worried about what reopens the betting. 100/200 blinds, Player A makes it 400, B raises to 800, and C goes all-in for 1500. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a rule that closes out B at this point if there are no other raises.

[ QUOTE ]
This business about raising at least half the pot protects a player form being between two people that decide to min raise until they get all the money in the center.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never been in an actual situation where this business about capping raises in a NL game has come up. I have learned that a couple of places do maintain the rule in their NL games is a bet and 3 (or 4) raises is a cap.

I never understood the argument for protecting a player in a NL game. In limit, a player has a reasonable expectation of seeing the next card without having to risk all his chips (it's the nature of limit, and it's also the rule--the raise cap in a multi-way pot). The NL player has no right to such an expectation. That is the nature of NL--one might have to make a decision for all of one's chips on any given betting round.

I understand that it would be most dishonest for two players (playing together) to minraise each other (and the bystandard) until either all-in or the bystandard goes away. But the idea of restricting a player's ability to raise the bet in NL just doesn't sit well at all with me.

That idea of making a raise (after the 3rd or 4th) be at least 1/2 the pot would seem to accomodate both positions (though it is quite cumbersome and given the infrequency with which the situation arises it is succeptable to misapplication.)