management argue

[Small Fry]

[ QUOTE ]



Meanwhile I'd add that one is likely to experience different results within a cardroom.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to phrase my initial statement that way but didn't want to be to presumptuous. I can't come close to the experience or expertise that you, and others, have with live play. I mostly try to work from common sense, something that, far to often, seems to be in short supply too... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

I look forward to your additional scenarios.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



Meanwhile I'd add that one is likely to experience different results within a cardroom.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to phrase my initial statement that way but didn't want to be to presumptuous. I can't come close to the experience or expertise that you, and others, have with live play. I mostly try to work from common sense, something that, far to often, seems to be in short supply too... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

I look forward to your additional scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's draft one of something that could be posted on the various NL forums and/or I (or we) could ask some floor we know in our local areas.

It contains the two primary problem scenarios with a caller thrown in and the amounts reduced ten times to those typically faced by mid level floor staff. I added the caller to strengthen the case for making a full raise when the all-in raise is close to the full raise. One option in both scenarious accounts for HG's "at least double the previous action" rule."

It might be a better question with a raise and reraise before the all-in raise. I think I've played in one place where the minimum raise must be greater than the total of all previous raises (but not the bet as in HG).


No Limit Holdem Minimum Allowed Raise

Note 1 In both scenarios assume everyone but Player D has plenty of chips.

Note 2 If player A folds or calls assume the minimum allowable raise reopens the betting for Players B and C.


First scenario:

Player A Bets $20. Player B raises $60 more to $80.
Player C calls $80. Player D goes all-in for $90.
Action now on Player E.

In your cardroom what is the minimum allowable raise for Player E?

a) Raise to $140 ($50 more than all-in player)
b) Raise to $150 ($60 more than all-in player)
c) Raise to $180 ($90 more than all-in player)
d) other

If your cardroom rules were rewritten what do you think the minimum allowable raise should be?

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

Second scenario:

Player A Bets $20. Player B raises $60 more to $80.
Player C calls $80. Player D goes all-in for $130.
Action now on Player E.

In your cardroom what is the minimum allowable raise for Player E?

a) Raise to $140 ($10 more than all-in player)
b) Raise to $190 ($60 more than all-in player)
c) Raise to $260 ($130 more than all-in player)
d) other

If your cardroom rules were rewritten what do you think the minimum allowable raise should be?

Comments, corrections appreciated. I might take version one out for a spin tonight.

~ Rick

[Small Fry]

Rick,

Looks good. Have a thought and I'm not sure how it effects the scenario.

What if you put a caller in after the all in player then have the next player do the min raise.

So to use the first scenario for example. Player E calls the all in and now action is to player F. What is his total wager amount assuming he raises the minimum?

Maybe this could be an additional new scenario? It would be very interesting if the two scenarios, one with the raiser directly following the all in and one with a caller between the all in and the raiser, resulted in different answers.

good luck