Question regarding the Double The Raise rule...

[pfapfap]

[ QUOTE ]
I know a couple of places that use it. I have never worked with it, but someone whose opinion on these things I trust told me it is the better rule and I should consider switching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did they give reasons?

Surely it's easier (math is hard!), but it can really screw things up if you're trying to get a shorty to push after you so that you can re-raise. But in most cases, a min re-raise makes no sense anyway.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know a couple of places that use it. I have never worked with it, but someone whose opinion on these things I trust told me it is the better rule and I should consider switching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did they give reasons?

Surely it's easier (math is hard!), but it can really screw things up if you're trying to get a shorty to push after you so that you can re-raise. But in most cases, a min re-raise makes no sense anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

This discussion was years ago and might be different today as the game has changed quite a bit. The math is easier and it keeps the game moving. There is another rule (that I never seen mentioned anymore) is that all raises after the third (sometimes 4th) raise must be at least half the pot. Doing double the total bet removes this issue. This business about raising at least half the pot protects a player form being between two people that decide to min raise until they get all the money in the center.

[leprous_hand]

[ QUOTE ]
The first raise was $150 (BB/$100 + $150 = $250). Therefore, the next raise must be $150 or more. If the next player raises to $750, he has made a raise of $500. In order to raise (ignoring for the moment a player with fewer chips going all in), the next player must raise by at least $500. The total bet therefore would be at least $1250.

[/ QUOTE ]

winnar!

[EWillers]

The math is definately easier on the modified rule.

As was stated earlier, I am also worried about what reopens the betting. 100/200 blinds, Player A makes it 400, B raises to 800, and C goes all-in for 1500. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a rule that closes out B at this point if there are no other raises.

[ QUOTE ]
This business about raising at least half the pot protects a player form being between two people that decide to min raise until they get all the money in the center.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never been in an actual situation where this business about capping raises in a NL game has come up. I have learned that a couple of places do maintain the rule in their NL games is a bet and 3 (or 4) raises is a cap.

I never understood the argument for protecting a player in a NL game. In limit, a player has a reasonable expectation of seeing the next card without having to risk all his chips (it's the nature of limit, and it's also the rule--the raise cap in a multi-way pot). The NL player has no right to such an expectation. That is the nature of NL--one might have to make a decision for all of one's chips on any given betting round.

I understand that it would be most dishonest for two players (playing together) to minraise each other (and the bystandard) until either all-in or the bystandard goes away. But the idea of restricting a player's ability to raise the bet in NL just doesn't sit well at all with me.

That idea of making a raise (after the 3rd or 4th) be at least 1/2 the pot would seem to accomodate both positions (though it is quite cumbersome and given the infrequency with which the situation arises it is succeptable to misapplication.)

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
That idea of making a raise (after the 3rd or 4th) be at least 1/2 the pot would seem to accomodate both positions (though it is quite cumbersome and given the infrequency with which the situation arises it is succeptable to misapplication.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never seen this rule come up in actual play. It would be really rare to see a situation where players are making many raises on one street without someone deciding to push all-in.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
For better or worse, Planet Hollywood has adopted a seemingly insane rule that states the raise must be double the previous bet.

So a player bets 100 on the flop and the next player raises to 250. A player wanting to raise the bet of 250 must make it a minimum of 500 (not 400).

Strange but true. (at least as of a couple months ago)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this "seemingly insane" or even strange?

Note that Hawaiian Gardens uses this method.

~ Rick

[EWillers]

I used the term "seemingly insane" for a few reasons.

It's the first I've ever played (or even heard of) with such a rule in place.

While I understand that limit and NL are two very different games, the definition of a raise in limit is an amount equal to the amount of the previous bet or raise.

At a certain level almost any rule can be justified. This is after all simply a game. What are the goals of a game?

A house could start dealing counterclockwise and running the action backwards. I would call this "seemingly insane" too, but at a certain level it's just a change in the way things have always been done.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

This was not the case when the room first opened a few years ago (back when it was still aladdin). Minimum reraise was simply that the last bet or raise had to be matched, not the entire amount doubled. The doubling rule is just plain silly, a rule adapted to account for th fact that dealers and players don't have a clue and don't want to get one either. I'm actually quite surprised that planet hollywood's staff would change this rule. Most of the staff hasn't changed and they all had no problem with it before.

Al

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
This was not the case when the room first opened a few years ago (back when it was still aladdin). Minimum reraise was simply that the last bet or raise had to be matched, not the entire amount doubled. The doubling rule is just plain silly, a rule adapted to account for th fact that dealers and players don't have a clue and don't want to get one either. I'm actually quite surprised that planet hollywood's staff would change this rule. Most of the staff hasn't changed and they all had no problem with it before.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are mistaken as to the reason for the rule. FOr as long as I can remember the current manager of the room has told me he thinks its a better rule because he believes that ist un fair to allow players to keep making a small raise back and forth to catch a player between them, not that his dealers can't figure out how to work the more standard rule.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
FOr as long as I can remember the current manager of the room has told me he thinks its a better rule because he believes that ist un fair to allow players to keep making a small raise back and forth to catch a player between them, not that his dealers can't figure out how to work the more standard rule.

[/ QUOTE ]
How 'bout just enforcing 4 raises when it's a multi-way pot?