Rule debate on NL pot capping (AP implemented wrong?)

[dealace1]

The following thread contains a HH from an Absolute Poker NL hand where a pot is capped by an allin even though the allin amount exceeded the previous raise.

The BB was 100 and an EP put in 300 to the pot, a subsequent player shoved in his remaining 513 and that capped the pot.

If the original raise is considered 200, as would be my understanding, then the shove of 513 should keep the pot open since the raise is greater than the previous raise of 200 chips.

I guess if the original raise is considered 300 chips as the HH verbage states then the capping is correct.

Would appreciate a clarification on this. Do all sites handle this situations the same way? Does AP have it wrong?

Hand History:

Stage #928484573 Tourney ID 1888549 Holdem Single Tournament No Limit $100 - 2007-10-02 23:32:06 (ET)
Table: 16730573 (Real Money) Seat #7 is the dealer
Seat 1 - IYAOYAS53 ($1215 in chips)
Seat 2 - KARENJOII ($513.34 in chips)
Seat 3 - POLKBOY ($2103.33 in chips)
Seat 6 - LODO420 ($1960 in chips)
Seat 7 - WIDERGLIDE ($1225 in chips)
Seat 8 - ANDYBBALLA ($4293.33 in chips)
Seat 9 - PEPPERPOKER1 ($2190 in chips)
ANDYBBALLA - Posts small blind $50
PEPPERPOKER1 - Posts big blind $100
*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to IYAOYAS53 [Jc Jh]
IYAOYAS53 - Raises $300 to $300
KARENJOII - All-In(Raise) $513.34 to $513.34
POLKBOY - Calls $513.34
LODO420 - Folds
WIDERGLIDE - Folds
ANDYBBALLA - Folds
PEPPERPOKER1 - Folds
IYAOYAS53 - Calls $213.34

(pot was capped, no raising allowed)


http://forum.absolutepoker.com/index...t=0#entry74717

I had originally posted this in the 'Beginners' forum but was advised that it wouldn't get the responses there.

[Jauron]

Most places I know call it a raise if you are all-in for more than half the previous raise and this is clearly a raise by any standard given you raised $200.

I'd contact their support via email.

[SlackerMcFly]

AP has "Capped Tables" where a set amount can be wagered up to an all-in. Once a player is all-in, then no wagering above that is allowed if the pot has reached the cap.

If this wasn't a capped table, then you have a real solid complaint IMHO. Slacka

[Josem]

AP can't correctly order the winning hands on razz; i don't think they're likely to comprehend the correct rules on this either.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Most places I know call it a raise if you are all-in for more than half the previous raise and this is clearly a raise by any standard given you raised $200.

I'd contact their support via email.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're referring to the limit rule. In NL only a full size raise re-opens the betting. But, since we had a full size raise here, betting should be re-opened.

[spence79]

wow - this is almost as awesome as the razz debacle.

AP really needs to hire someone who actually plays poker to work with their programming team. Applicant would probably also need to be fluent in the programmers native language of monkeyese

[Jauron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most places I know call it a raise if you are all-in for more than half the previous raise and this is clearly a raise by any standard given you raised $200.

I'd contact their support via email.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're referring to the limit rule. In NL only a full size raise re-opens the betting. But, since we had a full size raise here, betting should be re-opened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know your right by Robert's rules but most live places I play at have the half raise rule...dunno why. Maybe they are confusing limit vs NL or maybe they just make up their own rules?