Betting Question

[supersoldier]

4/8 LO8 with a half kill. This is a kill pot, we're using only $2 dollar chips, so this hand is 3 chip / 6 chip. On the turn somebody bets all in for 2 chips, one caller to me, and I say "raise" with the nut low. How many chips do I put in?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
4/8 LO8 with a half kill. This is a kill pot, we're using only $2 dollar chips, so this hand is 3 chip / 6 chip. On the turn somebody bets all in for 2 chips, one caller to me, and I say "raise" with the nut low. How many chips do I put in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Max raise is always 6 more chips than the previous bet. So, in this case, $16 total ($12 raise about the $4 all-in) or eight $2 chips.

Now, if there's a special house rule about picking up the completion bet and then raising, you can raise to a higher total.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4/8 LO8 with a half kill. This is a kill pot, we're using only $2 dollar chips, so this hand is 3 chip / 6 chip. On the turn somebody bets all in for 2 chips, one caller to me, and I say "raise" with the nut low. How many chips do I put in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Max raise is always 6 more chips than the previous bet. So, in this case, $16 total ($12 raise about the $4 all-in) or eight $2 chips.

Now, if there's a special house rule about picking up the completion bet and then raising, you can raise to a higher total.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO.

This game is $6/$12

on the turn first bettor makes it $4 all-in

This is less than 1/2 of the full bet of $12. The following player may complete the bet to $12. The first action is not a bet so you can not raise it, only complete it. The only options here are call $4, complete to $12, or fold)

If he had been all-in for $6, the player following him would have the options to call $6, raise to $18, or fold (note that he would not have the option to complete to $12)

[supersoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4/8 LO8 with a half kill. This is a kill pot, we're using only $2 dollar chips, so this hand is 3 chip / 6 chip. On the turn somebody bets all in for 2 chips, one caller to me, and I say "raise" with the nut low. How many chips do I put in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Max raise is always 6 more chips than the previous bet. So, in this case, $16 total ($12 raise about the $4 all-in) or eight $2 chips.

Now, if there's a special house rule about picking up the completion bet and then raising, you can raise to a higher total.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO.

This game is $6/$12

on the turn first bettor makes it $4 all-in

This is less than 1/2 of the full bet of $12. The following player may complete the bet to $12. The first action is not a bet so you can not raise it, only complete it. The only options here are call $4, complete to $12, or fold)

If he had been all-in for $6, the player following him would have the options to call $6, raise to $18, or fold (note that he would not have the option to complete to $12)

[/ QUOTE ]^ This is how it went. I'm kind of new to limit, so I put out 8 chips ($16). One of the other players in the hand said "You can only complete to $12.", and the dealer agreed, as well as a couple other players. I have never heard anything about this before, so I was a bit upset but I didn't get heated over it, and ended up taking my $4 back. 4 other players called the bet, then another bet by me on the river. MHIG for half. Thanks for clearing up the rule for me.

[Lottery Larry]

"NO.

This game is $6/$12

on the turn first bettor makes it $4 all-in

This is less than 1/2 of the full bet of $12."

Whoops, completely missed the fact that a completion bet was available. However:

" The following player may complete the bet to $12. The first action is not a bet so you can not raise it, only complete it. The only options here are call $4, complete to $12, or fold)

If he had been all-in for $6, the player following him would have the options to call $6, raise to $18, or fold (note that he would not have the option to complete to $12) "

This is what I've always had a problem with, the logic behind the completion/not completion.

In case one, you can only make a $8 "raise" and the betting is open, with the usual $12 in place for someone to reraise to $24, as if there were no short bet involved.

In another case, you can't complete the bet to the normal $12, as if the short bettor wasn't in play. Instead, you can raise to a weird number that doesn't fit in the normal betting structure.

4 players: A, B, C and D. Player A is all-in for $3. Player C could ONLY be in the position to have to call a $12 bet (or $4) and Player D a $24 bet.

Compare that to: Player A all-in for $6. Player D could be facing a $30 bet, over a $2 difference in an all-in.

Player A is now all-in for $11. Now Player C could be faced with a $23 bet and Player D a $35 bet.

I know that a completion bet to $12 doesn't seem to make much sense, but doesn't it make MORE sense than facing an extra $11 that you normally wouldn't have to if the all-in was a little less?

The "reopening the raise" situation is worse. Player A opens for $12, Player B is all in for $17. If everyone calls behind, Player A can't reraise. But if Player B pushed his last $18, Player A can make it $30 to go rather than being forced to call $5.

There may be no "good" way to handle the all-in problem. I personally thought of two ways:

1) Any raise that follows a shorter raise can only complete the betting to the level that the all-in "missed"

Of course, that opens up the "reopening the betting for a $1 raise" problem. Then again, I couldn't think of a situation where the betting would have been closed to anyone if this short completion raise wasn't allowed.

2) The raise after the short all-in has to be made to the next raising level, rather than a completion. This of course results in the $1 all-in lets Player B (or another player behind) raise to $24.
While that seems extreme as well, I think it's more of a penalty on the raiser than those facing the raise. He's investing $24 to win $1. Anyone behind is getting even odds to call, just as they would if the raiser had been the only better at $12.

Anyway, just thinking out loud a bit. I think you either stick with the structured betting or you don't, in both cases (less than half vs. half or more). It seems confusing otherwise.

Anyone have thoughts?

[psandman]

There has to be an arbitrary point somewhere, of course one rule I have seen in some home games is that a players can't bet less than a full bet/raise

so a player with $15 facing a $12 bet only has the option to call the $12 and be all in (his remaining $3 doesn't play) or fold.

For limit play this may make sense in home games (it helps avoid odd amounts in the side pots as well)

But in a No Limit game this may be unfair because a player with $399 facing a $200 bet would be unable to bet his remaining $199.