NL re-raise rule

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't know about arrogant and condescending, but RR is right. The half-bet rule applies to limit poker, not big bet poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what the "generally accepted rules" are.

But, please explain to me.
Exactly why is it that a half bet (usually) reopens the betting in Limit, but not in No Limit?
I know reopening the betting in NL can have much more of an effect than in Limit, but why allow a half bet to reopen the betting in Limit? If a NL bet of $100 is bumped all-in to $199, why doesn't that reopen the betting but $200 does (ie, please justify the rule, do not just say "it is the rule" ). Is it fundamental to "poker"?

If so, why does a Limit bet of $100 bumped all-in to $150 reopen the betting? Is it fundamental to "poker" that "half" is a concept in Limit, but not in NL?

[ChuckyB]

[ QUOTE ]

But, please explain to me.
Exactly why is it that a half bet (usually) reopens the betting in Limit, but not in No Limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was hoping someone knew.

Obligatory link to Robert's Rules of Poker (emphasis added)

SECTION 14 - NO LIMIT AND POT-LIMIT

NO-LIMIT RULES

3. All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)

[ChuckyB]

[ QUOTE ]
$40 open raises at 1/2 NL?

That's like opening for $200 in 5/10.

cute...lol

[/ QUOTE ]

This was EP leading on the flop for $40 in a good-sized pot.

[bav]

It also might seem silly to quibble over $1, but it's important. We had a raise from $2 to $40 (+$38) and then an all-in for $77 (+$37). He missed a fullsize raise by $1.

But I pay very close attention to these things in NL games and I often carefully size my bets based on what will happen to the betting if a shortstack behind me all-ins to be sure I can raise to isolate if it happens. Or I may call in such a situation knowing the original better can't reraise after a shortstack all-ins. So it would be very unfair to the CO who called to let the original raiser hit the pot again even though we're arguing over $1--it matters.

EP shoulda paid attention to the shortstack behind him and raised to $39 instead of $40. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
It also might seem silly to quibble over $1, but it's important. We had a raise from $2 to $40 (+$38) and then an all-in for $77 (+$37). He missed a fullsize raise by $1.

But I pay very close attention to these things in NL games and I often carefully size my bets based on what will happen to the betting if a shortstack behind me all-ins to be sure I can raise to isolate if it happens. Or I may call in such a situation knowing the original better can't reraise after a shortstack all-ins. So it would be very unfair to the CO who called to let the original raiser hit the pot again even though we're arguing over $1--it matters.

EP shoulda paid attention to the shortstack behind him and raised to $39 instead of $40. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice post showing one of the subtleties of NL holdem that most players don't even think of.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
But, please explain to me.
Exactly why is it that a half bet (usually) reopens the betting in Limit, but not in No Limit?
I know reopening the betting in NL can have much more of an effect than in Limit, but why allow a half bet to reopen the betting in Limit? If a NL bet of $100 is bumped all-in to $199, why doesn't that reopen the betting but $200 does (ie, please justify the rule, do not just say "it is the rule" ). Is it fundamental to "poker"?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know for for sure but I have an opinion on this.

I feel that it is related to the combination of the sizes of the pot, the stacks and the bet sizes.

For example, in Limit you often have a pot of say 20BBs. There is a bet of 1BB. A guy who raises all-in to 1.5BB can now be re-raised to 2.5BB. However, you can see that this raise compaired to the pot size is not that large.

Now take a NL scenario. The pot is 20BB. There is a bet of 20BB. Now a guy raises all-in to 30BB. If a re-raise is allowed, it can essentially be the size of the stack which could be 100BB, 200BB or more.

I would say that effect of re-opening betting in NL is much more significant than in Limit.

[PantsOnFire]

Let me do this with an example.

It's NL, and there is $60 in the pot. On the flop, Player 1 bets $60 with an overpair, Player 2 calls with the nut flush draw, Player 3 moves all-in for his last $100. By the rules, Players 1 and 2 can only call the last $40 to stay in the pot.

So let's now say that this rule is not in place. Player 1 has $1000 behind and Player 2 has $500 behind. Player 1 can now put Player 2 all-in which isn't too unusual for this $220 pot and protecting his overpair. Player 1 can't call now since he has lost his odds.

In scenario 1, Player 2 is protected and can see a turn card for $40 more and Player 1 is not allowed to price Player 2 out of the pot.

In scenario 2, Player 2 can be bet out of this pot by player 1.

So as a poker player, which scenario do you like better? In the first, if you want to be Player 2 and see the turn card, then you need to accept that when you are Player 1's position, you have to call and can't raise. In the second, it's the opposite.

Further, if Player 3 had $61, would you want to allow re-opening the betting? If not, then you need to pick a number.

Personally, I like it the way it is.

[Diana Ross Fan]

[ QUOTE ]

I would say that effect of re-opening betting in NL is much more significant than in Limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best explanation I have read.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The floor is correct in places that don't understand poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who thinks this oft repeated mantra by RR comes across as arrogant and condescending?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about arrogant, but it is condescending. Most rooms that have written rules have copied them from somewhere (in Miss once I saw a set copied from a Vegas room down to the role of Nevada Gaming). These places that have copied rules have the traditional NL rules on the books but have never bothered reading/learning these rules. Places that are responsible that have a rule that is non standard have it posted on the wall. Most of the places that have non standard rules have no idea their rules are non standard; they never sat down and decided they wanted to do it a certain way; some guy that worked there when their room opened thought that was how it was done and that became there rule.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
But, please explain to me.
Exactly why is it that a half bet (usually) reopens the betting in Limit, but not in No Limit?
I know reopening the betting in NL can have much more of an effect than in Limit, but why allow a half bet to reopen the betting in Limit? If a NL bet of $100 is bumped all-in to $199, why doesn't that reopen the betting but $200 does (ie, please justify the rule, do not just say "it is the rule" ). Is it fundamental to "poker"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say it is because in NL increasing a $100 bet to $150 isn't that significant` of an increase because the players are aiming to win entire stacks of chips, but increasing a limit bet by half a bet is large because the players are aiming for a few bets at a time.

Rules like this aren't that big of a deal on there own, it is just that they are symptomatic of a general lack of experience that is going to show if a complex decision comes up. I have never seen a room that used half a bet to reopen in NL that didn't have other really serious problems.

I have no problem with places that make up their own rules, but when I have done this I have made sure that people knew it.