|
|
#21
09-13-2007, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL re-raise rule
This rule may be 50% or more to re-open the betting, or may be 100% to re-open (100% complies with TDA rules). So the ruling was per whatever rules the house uses for your cash game. "WTF?" is not automatic here, depends on hoiuse rules.
I'm not certain of the origin of this rule (or its variations). I've heard a few theories but none convinced me. "To prevent collusion" doesn't convince me at all. 
|
|
#22
09-14-2007, 03:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL re-raise rule
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not certain of the origin of this rule (or its variations). I've heard a few theories but none convinced me. "To prevent collusion" doesn't convince me at all. [/ QUOTE ] How about: "If you let less than a full raise re-open the betting, the terrorists win"?
|
|
#23
09-14-2007, 04:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL re-raise rule
[ QUOTE ]
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? [/ QUOTE ] It's not about "half" being a concept. Half a bet is a realistic cutoff in limit for what constitutes a bet or raise. In no limit half size raises are minuscule relative to the betting (and danger to the existing stacks). So it's reasonable that any raise less than a full raise be counted as "action only" for someone who has already acted on the first real bet or raise. ~ Rick
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
