Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Brick and Mortar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:38 PM
Twistofsin Twistofsin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 181
Default Re: you are right, it\'s a ridiculous arguement

[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

I perused Roberts NL section yesterday to see if I could find something referencing this specific situation but I couldn't.

I give your opinion on NL rulings a lot of respect and if betting rules are the same for NL and FL then you are right here as well.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:26 PM
TMTTR TMTTR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 123 days \'til Pitchers and Catchers
Posts: 2,307
Default Re: management argue

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this moron is telling you (also a moron, possibly?) that you are absolutely wrong. The question is indeed "When was there a raise to 700?" The answer (i.e., "never") makes your answer incorrect.

It is 200 (BB) +600 (Raise) +100 (additional all-in) to the next raiser. The raise is determined by the size of the previous bet or raise in the round NOT by the total action of all previous bets or raises in the round. If the middle player did not go all-in, but made a min-raise of an additional 600, the next min-raise would still be 600 (and a very silly bet).

The question turns on whether the next raise -- which is clearly 600 minimum -- is on top of the current bet-to-call(1500) or do we ignore the all-in (1400). 1600 is not in the conversation.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:49 PM
todd1007 todd1007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 160
Default Re: management argue

i have explained this to you three time. you are wrong
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-30-2007, 04:26 PM
TMTTR TMTTR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 123 days \'til Pitchers and Catchers
Posts: 2,307
Default Re: management argue

[ QUOTE ]
i have explained this to you three time. you are wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

But you have failed to explain it even once using common sense or the rules of poker. In Todd world, you might be correct.

But I will say it one more time for you: The last action that counts was 600. That is the minimum size of the raise. Only question remains is what the raise is added to: the 900 total all-in or the 800 from the initial raiser. I favor adding it to the 900, making the total 1500. There is no support for the Todd rule. Please do not post a one line response; find support for your position or STFU.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-30-2007, 04:32 PM
RR RR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on-line
Posts: 5,113
Default Re: management argue

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i have explained this to you three time. you are wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

But you have failed to explain it even once using common sense or the rules of poker. In Todd world, you might be correct.

But I will say it one more time for you: The last action that counts was 600. That is the minimum size of the raise. Only question remains is what the raise is added to: the 900 total all-in or the 800 from the initial raiser. I favor adding it to the 900, making the total 1500. There is no support for the Todd rule. Please do not post a one line response; find support for your position or STFU.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please let this part if the thread drop. Todd won't be able to answer for a bit.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-30-2007, 04:58 PM
Small Fry Small Fry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 761
Default 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.....
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-30-2007, 05:46 PM
Small Fry Small Fry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 761
Default Re: management argue

Copy of letter sent to Bob Ciaffone. His response is in blue:

Bob,


No limit game. Blinds are 100/200. UTG bets 800 (a 600 raise). Next player, UTG +1, goes all in for 900 total. If the 3rd player wants to raise, what would be his minimum bet and why?

Second part of this is there any specific rule covering this?
<font color="blue">[Bob Ciaffone] not exactly, but the "last previous bet or raise" is the $600 more from the UTG, so he must raise at least 600. The all-in bet is not considered a raise because it is only a $100 increase </font>

There seems to be a disagreement as to whether the total bet needs to be 1400 or 1500. Everyone agrees that the raise amount is 600. Some say that this gets you 600+600+200 = 1400 (or 800+600). I'm of the opinion that he needs to call the 900 and then can add the 600 raise on top. This makes his minimum bet 1500. If 1400 is correct how you can just ignore the extra 100 in the 900 bet? It needs to be acknowledged should anyone just want to call; meaning that a player cannot just call the 800, but need to call 900.
<font color="blue"> [Bob Ciaffone] He needs to increase the wager to him by at least $600 (so $1500 total minimum) </font>
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-30-2007, 09:03 PM
JohnnyGroomsTD JohnnyGroomsTD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 141
Default Re: management argue

Nice hand Bob. Take the pot....
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-30-2007, 09:14 PM
psandman psandman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vegas
Posts: 2,346
Default Re: you are right, it\'s a ridiculous arguement

your wrong about this.

An all-In Raise that is not sufficient to constitute a full raise is not a nullity that didn't occur. Its action. you don't pretned its not there or othjer players wouldn't have to call it to continue in the hand.

Since you reference Robert's rules but were to lazy to look them up (your picking up bad habits) I will

[ QUOTE ]
2. The minimum bet size is the amount of the minimum bring-in, unless the player is going all-in. The minimum bring-in is the size of the big blind unless the structure of the game is preset by the house to some other amount (such as double the big blind). The minimum bet remains the same amount on all betting rounds. If the big blind does not have sufficient chips to post the required amount, a player who enters the pot on the initial betting round is still required to enter for at least the minimum bet (unless going all-in for a lesser sum) and a preflop raiser must at least double the size of the big blind. At all other times, when someone goes all-in for less than the minimum bet, a player has the option of just calling the all-in amount. If a player goes all-in for an amount that is less than the minimum bet, a player who wishes to raise must raise at least the amount of the minimum bet. For example, if the minimum bet is $100, and a player goes all-in on the flop for $20, a player may fold, call $20, or raise to at least a total of $120

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
5. “Completing the bet” is a limit poker wager type only, not allowed at big-bet poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-01-2007, 01:41 AM
Rick Nebiolo Rick Nebiolo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,634
Default Re: management argue

[ QUOTE ]
Copy of letter sent to Bob Ciaffone. His response is in blue:

Bob,


No limit game. Blinds are 100/200. UTG bets 800 (a 600 raise). Next player, UTG +1, goes all in for 900 total. If the 3rd player wants to raise, what would be his minimum bet and why?

Second part of this is there any specific rule covering this?
<font color="blue">[Bob Ciaffone] not exactly, but the "last previous bet or raise" is the $600 more from the UTG, so he must raise at least 600. The all-in bet is not considered a raise because it is only a $100 increase </font>

There seems to be a disagreement as to whether the total bet needs to be 1400 or 1500. Everyone agrees that the raise amount is 600. Some say that this gets you 600+600+200 = 1400 (or 800+600). I'm of the opinion that he needs to call the 900 and then can add the 600 raise on top. This makes his minimum bet 1500. If 1400 is correct how you can just ignore the extra 100 in the 900 bet? It needs to be acknowledged should anyone just want to call; meaning that a player cannot just call the 800, but need to call 900.
<font color="blue"> [Bob Ciaffone] He needs to increase the wager to him by at least $600 (so $1500 total minimum) </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Cliff notes below.

Note that "not exactly" is bolded.

I think the raise should be to $1500 but it certainly isn't clear according to Bob's written rules or the rules used by the biggest cardrooms in the world (i.e. most of the Los Angeles county rooms, which were heavily influenced by Bob's input back in 1997).

Today I spoke with two floor at a Los Angeles card barn and they both said $1400 would be their ruling. I asked them if the allin raise was to $1300 what would be their ruling. They said it would still be $1400 since the $500 raise was "action only". I spoke to one of the floor at length and he agreed it is problematical and the rule should be clarified.

Had I spoken to most of the floor staff in LA I believe it would break about 2 to 1 in favor or $1400 (except at Hawaiian Gardens where they use double the total amount of bets and raises you are facing).

------------

Cliff notes:

The written NL raising rule(s) need to be clarified so that $1500 would clearly be the right answer in the OP.

As an alternative I believe poker rule-makers should consider the HG "double the previous action" rule as being best of all.

~ Rick

PS As an aside some of the posters on this forum need to adopt a more courteous and respectful tone when they disagree.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.