|
|
|
|
#1
11-30-2007, 09:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: you are right, it\'s a ridiculous arguement
your wrong about this.
An all-In Raise that is not sufficient to constitute a full raise is not a nullity that didn't occur. Its action. you don't pretned its not there or othjer players wouldn't have to call it to continue in the hand. Since you reference Robert's rules but were to lazy to look them up (your picking up bad habits) I will [ QUOTE ] 2. The minimum bet size is the amount of the minimum bring-in, unless the player is going all-in. The minimum bring-in is the size of the big blind unless the structure of the game is preset by the house to some other amount (such as double the big blind). The minimum bet remains the same amount on all betting rounds. If the big blind does not have sufficient chips to post the required amount, a player who enters the pot on the initial betting round is still required to enter for at least the minimum bet (unless going all-in for a lesser sum) and a preflop raiser must at least double the size of the big blind. At all other times, when someone goes all-in for less than the minimum bet, a player has the option of just calling the all-in amount. If a player goes all-in for an amount that is less than the minimum bet, a player who wishes to raise must raise at least the amount of the minimum bet. For example, if the minimum bet is $100, and a player goes all-in on the flop for $20, a player may fold, call $20, or raise to at least a total of $120 [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 5. “Completing the bet” is a limit poker wager type only, not allowed at big-bet poker. [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#3
11-30-2007, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: management argue
Copy of letter sent to Bob Ciaffone. His response is in blue:
Bob, No limit game. Blinds are 100/200. UTG bets 800 (a 600 raise). Next player, UTG +1, goes all in for 900 total. If the 3rd player wants to raise, what would be his minimum bet and why? Second part of this is there any specific rule covering this? <font color="blue">[Bob Ciaffone] not exactly, but the "last previous bet or raise" is the $600 more from the UTG, so he must raise at least 600. The all-in bet is not considered a raise because it is only a $100 increase </font> There seems to be a disagreement as to whether the total bet needs to be 1400 or 1500. Everyone agrees that the raise amount is 600. Some say that this gets you 600+600+200 = 1400 (or 800+600). I'm of the opinion that he needs to call the 900 and then can add the 600 raise on top. This makes his minimum bet 1500. If 1400 is correct how you can just ignore the extra 100 in the 900 bet? It needs to be acknowledged should anyone just want to call; meaning that a player cannot just call the 800, but need to call 900. <font color="blue"> [Bob Ciaffone] He needs to increase the wager to him by at least $600 (so $1500 total minimum) </font>
|
|
#4
11-30-2007, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: management argue
Nice hand Bob. Take the pot....
|
|
#5
12-01-2007, 01:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: management argue
[ QUOTE ]
Copy of letter sent to Bob Ciaffone. His response is in blue: Bob, No limit game. Blinds are 100/200. UTG bets 800 (a 600 raise). Next player, UTG +1, goes all in for 900 total. If the 3rd player wants to raise, what would be his minimum bet and why? Second part of this is there any specific rule covering this? <font color="blue">[Bob Ciaffone] not exactly, but the "last previous bet or raise" is the $600 more from the UTG, so he must raise at least 600. The all-in bet is not considered a raise because it is only a $100 increase </font> There seems to be a disagreement as to whether the total bet needs to be 1400 or 1500. Everyone agrees that the raise amount is 600. Some say that this gets you 600+600+200 = 1400 (or 800+600). I'm of the opinion that he needs to call the 900 and then can add the 600 raise on top. This makes his minimum bet 1500. If 1400 is correct how you can just ignore the extra 100 in the 900 bet? It needs to be acknowledged should anyone just want to call; meaning that a player cannot just call the 800, but need to call 900. <font color="blue"> [Bob Ciaffone] He needs to increase the wager to him by at least $600 (so $1500 total minimum) </font> [/ QUOTE ] Cliff notes below. Note that "not exactly" is bolded. I think the raise should be to $1500 but it certainly isn't clear according to Bob's written rules or the rules used by the biggest cardrooms in the world (i.e. most of the Los Angeles county rooms, which were heavily influenced by Bob's input back in 1997). Today I spoke with two floor at a Los Angeles card barn and they both said $1400 would be their ruling. I asked them if the allin raise was to $1300 what would be their ruling. They said it would still be $1400 since the $500 raise was "action only". I spoke to one of the floor at length and he agreed it is problematical and the rule should be clarified. Had I spoken to most of the floor staff in LA I believe it would break about 2 to 1 in favor or $1400 (except at Hawaiian Gardens where they use double the total amount of bets and raises you are facing). ------------ Cliff notes: The written NL raising rule(s) need to be clarified so that $1500 would clearly be the right answer in the OP. As an alternative I believe poker rule-makers should consider the HG "double the previous action" rule as being best of all. ~ Rick PS As an aside some of the posters on this forum need to adopt a more courteous and respectful tone when they disagree.
|
|
#6
12-01-2007, 11:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: management argue
With all due respect to the card barns, I feel that they are wrong. I think the Hawaiin Gardens rule is better, but problematic as well.
The "double the bet rule" has merits, but takes away from some strategy aspects of the game. If the bet must be at least double the prvious bet, does this apply from one betting street to the next? For example, 100-200 blinds,if a player raises to 600 pre flop, and gets reraised to 1200, does that mean the minimum post flop bet is 200, or 1200? Also, by forcing players to double the previous bet, it changes the strategy, in that a plyer is prohibited from making a bet that comes closer to the "perfect bet" principle(a bet that gives the opponent incorrect calling odds, but small enough that the opponent will stil call).
|
|
#7
12-01-2007, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: management argue
Also,
The fact that some decision makers felt that an all-in raise of 1300 could then be "rased" to 1400 was asinine to me. I have no idea how to justify that decision.
|
|
#8
12-01-2007, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: management argue
[ QUOTE ]
Also, The fact that some decision makers felt that an all-in raise of 1300 could then be "rased" to 1400 was asinine to me. I have no idea how to justify that decision. [/ QUOTE ] They in fact used the word "completed" (a limit concept I know) since the $500 raise to $1300 was less than a full raise and "action only". Had this been limit it would be treated as a full raise since it was more than half. The floor I spoke with at length aggreed it would be problematic and seems to realize that the rules he has to work with don't work all that well for no limit. ~ Rick
|
|
#9
12-01-2007, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: management argue
[ QUOTE ]
With all due respect to the card barns, I feel that they are wrong. I think the Hawaiin Gardens rule is better, but problematic as well. The "double the bet rule" has merits, but takes away from some strategy aspects of the game. If the bet must be at least double the prvious bet, does this apply from one betting street to the next? For example, 100-200 blinds,if a player raises to 600 pre flop, and gets reraised to 1200, does that mean the minimum post flop bet is 200, or 1200? [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps I'm using the wrong wording (and don't have a copy of HG's wording; they keep hard copies of their rules close to the vest). By "double the bet" I mean you must raise at least double the amount of action you are facing. For example Player A lead bets for $20, Player B calls $20, Player C raises $60 more making it $80. The next minimum raise would have to make it $160 (i.e., doubling $80). This has no impact on the minimum required lead bet (which remains the size of the big blind on all rounds). [ QUOTE ] Also, by forcing players to double the previous bet, it changes the strategy, in that a plyer is prohibited from making a bet that comes closer to the "perfect bet" principle(a bet that gives the opponent incorrect calling odds, but small enough that the opponent will stil call). [/ QUOTE ] As noted above HG is not forcing players to double the previous bet; rather they want a minimum raise to be double the previous action on that round. ~ Rick
|
|
#10
12-01-2007, 02:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: management argue
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Copy of letter sent to Bob Ciaffone. His response is in blue: Bob, No limit game. Blinds are 100/200. UTG bets 800 (a 600 raise). Next player, UTG +1, goes all in for 900 total. If the 3rd player wants to raise, what would be his minimum bet and why? Second part of this is there any specific rule covering this? <font color="blue">[Bob Ciaffone] not exactly, but the "last previous bet or raise" is the $600 more from the UTG, so he must raise at least 600. The all-in bet is not considered a raise because it is only a $100 increase </font> There seems to be a disagreement as to whether the total bet needs to be 1400 or 1500. Everyone agrees that the raise amount is 600. Some say that this gets you 600+600+200 = 1400 (or 800+600). I'm of the opinion that he needs to call the 900 and then can add the 600 raise on top. This makes his minimum bet 1500. If 1400 is correct how you can just ignore the extra 100 in the 900 bet? It needs to be acknowledged should anyone just want to call; meaning that a player cannot just call the 800, but need to call 900. <font color="blue"> [Bob Ciaffone] He needs to increase the wager to him by at least $600 (so $1500 total minimum) </font> [/ QUOTE ] Cliff notes below. Note that "not exactly" is bolded. I think the raise should be to $1500 but it certainly isn't clear according to Bob's written rules or the rules used by the biggest cardrooms in the world (i.e. most of the Los Angeles county rooms, which were heavily influenced by Bob's input back in 1997). Today I spoke with two floor at a Los Angeles card barn and they both said $1400 would be their ruling. I asked them if the allin raise was to $1300 what would be their ruling. They said it would still be $1400 since the $500 raise was "action only". I spoke to one of the floor at length and he agreed it is problematical and the rule should be clarified. Had I spoken to most of the floor staff in LA I believe it would break about 2 to 1 in favor or $1400 (except at Hawaiian Gardens where they use double the total amount of bets and raises you are facing). ------------ Cliff notes: The written NL raising rule(s) need to be clarified so that $1500 would clearly be the right answer in the OP. As an alternative I believe poker rule-makers should consider the HG "double the previous action" rule as being best of all. ~ Rick PS As an aside some of the posters on this forum need to adopt a more courteous and respectful tone when they disagree. [/ QUOTE ] the "not exactly" is in reference to the question about a specific rule governing this situation, not about what the bet amount should be. But as Bob points out the player must increase the wager "to him" (his emphasis, not mine) so this clearly makes the bet 1500. As numerous posters have already pointed out though, one may experience different results in different cardrooms.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
