|
|
#11
01-25-2007, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Home game All-in Question.
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a good rule of thumb: if you have not acted, nothing a player in front of you can do will close (or limit) the ation to you. When facing a bet (of whatever size) you will always have three possible actions. Fold, call, or raise. [/ QUOTE ] Caveat: This is true of NL poker. In Limit poker there is usually a cap on the number of raises, so actions of players before may preclude you from raising. 
|
|
#12
01-25-2007, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Home game All-in Question.
I'm assuming that this is NL. Here is a handy way of clearing up matters like this.
If you have not yet acted in a betting round, you are free to do what you wish and you are not restricted in any way. If you have already acted in a betting round, you can only act again if you are faced with a full minimum raise or more. If you are faced with less than the minimum raise (i.e. a player in front of you went all-in but couldn't meet the minimum raise), then you can only fold or call.
|
|
#13
01-26-2007, 11:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Home game All-in Question.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming that this is NL. Here is a handy way of clearing up matters like this. If you have not yet acted in a betting round, you are free to do what you wish and you are not restricted in any way. If you have already acted in a betting round, you can only act again if you are faced with a full minimum raise or more. If you are faced with less than the minimum raise (i.e. a player in front of you went all-in but couldn't meet the minimum raise), then you can only fold or call. [/ QUOTE ] No need to assume NL if you read the OP. Blinds 100/200, Player A bets 1000. Obv NL. I don't like the wording of the advice in the second paragraph as it could be read to mean you act, then somebody else makes a full raise, then an intervening player makes a less than full all-in re-raise and then when back on you your action isn't completely open...which obviously is incorrect. Once the action's been re-opened to you (in NL) it can't be closed to you before you act again.
|
|
#14
01-26-2007, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Home game All-in Question.
I am sure that the action contineus as if player B was not even involved. It woudl be a different thing if B(all-in) were last to act. If the all in came from the last positioni, closing out the betting, then all players could call only, and not raise.
|
|
#15
01-26-2007, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Home game All-in Question.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you have already acted in a betting round, you can only act again if you are faced with a full minimum raise or more. If you are faced with less than the minimum raise (i.e. a player in front of you went all-in but couldn't meet the minimum raise), then you can only fold or call. [/ QUOTE ] I don't like the wording of the advice in the second paragraph as it could be read to mean you act, then somebody else makes a full raise, then an intervening player makes a less than full all-in re-raise and then when back on you your action isn't completely open...which obviously is incorrect. Once the action's been re-opened to you (in NL) it can't be closed to you before you act again. [/ QUOTE ] I think the wording could be cleaned up a little ("If you have already acted in a betting round, you can only act again if you are faced with a full minimum raise AMOUNT or more"), but I don't see Pants' statement as leading to your interpretation. ... unless people are so NL clueless as to think that a total amount greater than a min raise could block re-opening action, just because the all-in wasn't a full reraise amount. If that is true, they may never understand the full-bet rule.
|
|
#16
01-26-2007, 03:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Home game All-in Question.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you have already acted in a betting round, you can only act again if you are faced with a full minimum raise or more. If you are faced with less than the minimum raise (i.e. a player in front of you went all-in but couldn't meet the minimum raise), then you can only fold or call. [/ QUOTE ] I don't like the wording of the advice in the second paragraph as it could be read to mean you act, then somebody else makes a full raise, then an intervening player makes a less than full all-in re-raise and then when back on you your action isn't completely open...which obviously is incorrect. Once the action's been re-opened to you (in NL) it can't be closed to you before you act again. [/ QUOTE ] I think the wording could be cleaned up a little ("If you have already acted in a betting round, you can only act again if you are faced with a full minimum raise AMOUNT or more"), but I don't see Pants' statement as leading to your interpretation. ... unless people are so NL clueless as to think that a total amount greater than a min raise could block re-opening action, just because the all-in wasn't a full reraise amount. If that is true, they may never understand the full-bet rule. [/ QUOTE ] Larry, I think any explanation of this rule needs to be incredibly clear, because in my experience many people here and otherwise, don't understand the rule and the various permutations. In fact I remember when the newest update to Robert's Rules came out there was a very long discussion on just that rule with a lot of confusion all around. I did play in a tournament one time where the UTG player went all in for less than the minimum raise. The ruling was that the rest of the table could only call or fold, not raise. Even though I had a folding hand I argued long and hard about this, because the prejudice to a good hand was so obvious. To his credit the host looked up the rule later and sent around an email anouncing the rule change to correspond to the standard rule. My point simply being, somebody who doesn't understand the rule to begin with, could read that language and get the wrong impression. "If you are faced with less than the minimum raise (i.e. a player in front of you went all-in but couldn't meet the minimum raise), then you can only fold or call" I think can easily be misunderstood. If you understand the rule already, I don't think you'll have any problem with it, of course.
|
|
#17
01-26-2007, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Home game All-in Question.
Good counter. I concede the point, Oh Rule Master Supreme :P
|
|
#18
01-26-2007, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Home game All-in Question.
[ QUOTE ]
"If you are faced with less than the minimum raise (i.e. a player in front of you went all-in but couldn't meet the minimum raise), then you can only fold or call" I think can easily be misunderstood. [/ QUOTE ] I prefaced the above statement with "When you have already acted...". I don't see how this is not clear. After you have already acted, you can only act (i.e. raise) again when facing a full legal raise. So in your example, my wording perfectly clear that anyone can raise this UTG all-in because it is their first action.
|
|
#19
01-26-2007, 06:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Home game All-in Question.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the wording of the advice in the second paragraph as it could be read to mean you act, then somebody else makes a full raise, then an intervening player makes a less than full all-in re-raise and then when back on you your action isn't completely open...which obviously is incorrect. Once the action's been re-opened to you (in NL) it can't be closed to you before you act again. [/ QUOTE ] In the case you state, the intervening player who went all-in and could not make a legal minimum raise is irrelevent. I would still be facing that full legal raise from the player in front of all-in guy and my action is not closed. So I basically said you can't reopen the action if you are not faced with a full legal raise. I think that is clear.
|
|
#20
01-29-2007, 12:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Home game All-in Question.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't like the wording of the advice in the second paragraph as it could be read to mean you act, then somebody else makes a full raise, then an intervening player makes a less than full all-in re-raise and then when back on you your action isn't completely open...which obviously is incorrect. Once the action's been re-opened to you (in NL) it can't be closed to you before you act again. [/ QUOTE ] In the case you state, the intervening player who went all-in and could not make a legal minimum raise is irrelevent. I would still be facing that full legal raise from the player in front of all-in guy and my action is not closed. So I basically said you can't reopen the action if you are not faced with a full legal raise. I think that is clear. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I agree on the rule, and I agree on what you said about the intervening player's action being irrelevant. I simply think that your language after where you said "i.e." can be confusing to somebody who doesn't understand the rule. If you make your exact post leaving out the i.e. parenthetical altogether, I'm fine with it. But I have heard or read arguments from several people who actually do believe that an all in raise less than the minimum raise actually does close the action to you, so I don't think this an abstract nitty point to make on the language. It is pontentially confusing. Because we understand the rule, the way you wrote it is pretty clear. But then again, we already understand the rule.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
