Strange NL betting rule

[psandman]

Do you guys all have jobs where when you make a single small mistake you get fired?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If hes calling 100 on the turn with FD... He's calling it on the flop... Either way same result [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you come play in my home game? He didn't have a flush draw to call on the flop, he got it on the turn due to OPs inability to drive him out of the pot. Flush draw would not have called on the flop if OP could have bet $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it was okay to call on the turn, getting 2:1 on a 4:1 chance... but there's no way the player is going to call on the flop?

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed- if bec1972 is saying that a short stack can effectively block raising, that's a very unusual rule (though maybe not as unusual as we thought).

[/ QUOTE ]

My experience is that while many home game people may be playing with this rule, it is generally because they misunderstand the rule not because they consciously want to use a non-standard rule. they will swear up and down that all the casinos do it this way.

[ QUOTE ]
In a bit of a seque, I'm been somewhat of an advocate of the "1/2 raise = reopen the betting" concept.... but thinking more of bec1972's example, I'm not sure if I like the "raise so you can reraise yourself" idea. I'll have to think through that one some more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understanding the effect of other people's actions when sizing your bet makes lots of sense (this is true with 1/2 bet or full bet rules). Even with a full bet if you see a short stack who you think will push in response to your bet, and you want to be able to come back over when they do, you make sure that you bet the correct amount. If the short stack has $40, you bet $20 hoping the SS pushes and a few other players call so that you can come back over.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Understanding the effect of other people's actions when sizing your bet makes lots of sense (this is true with 1/2 bet or full bet rules). Even with a full bet if you see a short stack who you think will push in response to your bet, and you want to be able to come back over when they do, you make sure that you bet the correct amount. If the short stack has $40, you bet $20 hoping the SS pushes and a few other players call so that you can come back over.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, for some reason the 1/2 bet rule struck me as a problem, even though it should basically be the same. That's what I want to think through a bit.

[pfapfap]

I'm not a fan of the 1/2 bet rule. You don't even have enough for a legal raise, let alone anything resembling a realistic raise for whatever the situation may be. Either you double the previous raise or betting is closed to the usual suspects.

[Lottery Larry]

just because? Or do you have more of a reason?

[pfapfap]

You only read the first sentence before you reply? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

"You don't even have enough for a legal raise"

It's not a raise.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
You only read the first sentence before you reply? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

"You don't even have enough for a legal raise"

It's not a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I thought I quoted the rules above in this thread, although perhaps I imagined it. to reiterate: the 1/2 bet rule is a limit concept. As Pfapfap says, only a full raise is a raise in NL.

Also, I'm not sure why so many people think that bec1972 has some weird closing the action rule (aside from improperly using the 1/2 bet rule in a NL game). What he's saying is that if you have a short stack in the hand and you'd like to whipsaw the people in between you, make sure to bet small enough that when shorty pushes, it reopens the action to you. Intervening players may not have called a 60 dollar opener, but may well call after your 30 dollar opener and the shorty's push to 45. Then you can ree-rah when it gets back to you to either trap more money in the pot or drive players out leaving their dead money behind.

Given his strategic point, its a bit of a stretch to read into his post (although his post is ambiguous about it) that if shorty's all in is less than 45 (in our example) that the action is closed to the intervening players who haven't acted yet.

--Zetack

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm not sure why so many people think that bec1972 has some weird closing the action rule (aside from improperly using the 1/2 bet rule in a NL game). What he's saying is that if you have a short stack in the hand and you'd like to whipsaw the people in between you, make sure to bet small enough that when shorty pushes, it reopens the action to you. Intervening players may not have called a 60 dollar opener, but may well call after your 30 dollar opener and the shorty's push to 45. Then you can ree-rah when it gets back to you to either trap more money in the pot or drive players out leaving their dead money behind.

Given his strategic point, its a bit of a stretch to read into his post (although his post is ambiguous about it) that if shorty's all in is less than 45 (in our example) that the action is closed to the intervening players who haven't acted yet.

--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what he wrote: "...if original bet was $30, if shortstack goes all in for $15 or more on top of calling the $30 original bet than others can reraise NL, if shortstack can only reraise $14.99 or less ($0.99 is just for exactness)than there can be no reraises."

I can't see how that could be interpreted as a strategy post rather than a rules post.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm not sure why so many people think that bec1972 has some weird closing the action rule (aside from improperly using the 1/2 bet rule in a NL game). What he's saying is that if you have a short stack in the hand and you'd like to whipsaw the people in between you, make sure to bet small enough that when shorty pushes, it reopens the action to you. Intervening players may not have called a 60 dollar opener, but may well call after your 30 dollar opener and the shorty's push to 45. Then you can ree-rah when it gets back to you to either trap more money in the pot or drive players out leaving their dead money behind.

Given his strategic point, its a bit of a stretch to read into his post (although his post is ambiguous about it) that if shorty's all in is less than 45 (in our example) that the action is closed to the intervening players who haven't acted yet.

--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what he wrote: "...if original bet was $30, if shortstack goes all in for $15 or more on top of calling the $30 original bet than others can reraise NL, if shortstack can only reraise $14.99 or less ($0.99 is just for exactness)than there can be no reraises."

I can't see how that could be interpreted as a strategy post rather than a rules post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Rotter, I saw that which is why I said the he was somewhat ambiguous on the point, but I read what followed as his main point being that a half sized bet Re-opens the action which gives you some intersting strategic plays when there's a shorty and other in the hand with you.

In light of my reading of that, I thought it was very likely that his use of the word re-raise was simply imprecision in language referring to the orignal bettor, and re-open was what he meant. However, on a third reading, I will concede that those questioning what his rule actually is are on stronger ground than I, based on the actual language he uses. In other words, I'm probably reading more into it, based on what I perceive as the flavor of what he's saying, than the folks who are holding him to the literal meaning of his words, particularly "re-raise". So I withdraw my earlier criticism. My bad.

...Although I still expect that if he responds to clarify he'll say that the less than half sized bet does not close the action to players who have not acted.