Re: you are right, it\'s a ridiculous arguement
[quote}
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 <u>extra 100 should merely be absorbed</u> by the reraise, <u>not let stand as another bet</u> 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.
Al
[/ QUOTE ]
I find your argument interesting. But isn't the extra 100 an amount that does need to be acknowledged. It is seperate. So while technically not a bet, it is still a wager that needs to be recognized. No player, wanting to just call, can put in 800. They must put in 900.
The amount is not enough to effect the action of the original bettor such that it reopens betting to him, he can only call or fold. But any player left to act behind must acknowledge this amount in their action, as must the original bettor should he want to continue in the hand.
Another scenario would be UTG bets 800, player A all in for 900. Everyone folds. Back to UTG. Does he not have to put in another 100 to stay in the hand? Yes he does. It stands as a legitamate wager. On it's own.
And shouldn't complete mean to either bet a full, correct amount, or bring the bet up to the full correct amount. For The third player to merely complete the bet here he needs to put in 900. To make a complete raise then would be to add 600 to this.
But lets assume you're correct. I'm lost on how you can ignore this additional 100 when considering a raise but include it for a call? Other than "absorbtion" factor. For the call it appears you acknowledge it's existance as a seperate bet but if raising you ignore it.
ps, can someone please ban that Tod guy.
edit - looks like that was taken care of.....
|