Raise, All-in & Call...

[tiktak]

@Lloyd,

question sir, when i bet 5k, and the one next to me who is short stack goes all in for 9k, is that action not consider a raise to me?

No it's not. Because all legit raises have to be double the amount of a legit bet or raise. In your case the proper raise is suppose to be 10K.

but he is short stack with 9k total. i have to add 4k more to see the next street. right? so technically he is raising me 4k more.

[MinsoonLim]

I think some of the readers misunderstood its preflop with the bb 1k.
Its on the flop, playerA lead 5k so a complete raise is 10k

[tiktak]

I think some of the readers misunderstood its preflop with the bb 1k.
Its on the flop, playerA lead 5k so a complete raise is 10k

thanks sir Minsoon, but still, even it's not a complete raise, it's  still a raise to me. coz i have to add more chips to stay in the pot.  in any street.

but there are rules in poker, and different rules in the floor,  so i have to follow. just my own thinking. 

[LloydFontillas]

I think some of the readers misunderstood its preflop with the bb 1k.
Its on the flop, playerA lead 5k so a complete raise is 10k

thanks sir Minsoon, but still, even it's not a complete raise, it's  still a raise to me. coz i have to add more chips to stay in the pot.  in any street.

but there are rules in poker, and different rules in the floor,  so i have to follow. just my own thinking. 

I understand where you are coming from when it comes to adding more chips to make a call can seem like you have been raised. But, there are to many factors that unless there is a complete raise (at least double the amount of the last bet that has been made) you will not be able to raise. Unless there are 2 or more all-ins in the pot, according to the WSOP. Hahaha! Now I am confused how to explain it correctly.

Let me give you an example that is easier:

(You are Player A)
You  Bet 100,000
Player B goes all-in for 100,100 (100 more all-in)
Player C flat call the 100,100
Action back to you. Do you think you deserve to raise the pot?

[tiktak]

I think some of the readers misunderstood its preflop with the bb 1k.
Its on the flop, playerA lead 5k so a complete raise is 10k

thanks sir Minsoon, but still, even it's not a complete raise, it's  still a raise to me. coz i have to add more chips to stay in the pot.  in any street.

but there are rules in poker, and different rules in the floor,  so i have to follow. just my own thinking. 

I understand where you are coming from when it comes to adding more chips to make a call can seem like you have been raised. But, there are to many factors that unless there is a complete raise (at least double the amount of the last bet that has been made) you will not be able to raise. Unless there are 2 or more all-ins in the pot, according to the WSOP. Hahaha! Now I am confused how to explain it correctly.

Let me give you an example that is easier:

(You are Player A)
You  Bet 100,000
Player B goes all-in for 100,100 (100 more all-in)
Player C flat call the 100,100
Action back to you. Do you think you deserve to raise the pot?

hahaha 

i don't deserve it, coz of the raise is not enough for me to re -raise it.   

[MinsoonLim]

Imo, rules are there to have a consistent application but when rules contravene the principles/common sense, the  rules-making ppl should take a 2nd look at it. It probably got overlooked bcos there are other worse rules around and e scenario may have happened without us noticing.

Its true people who know the rules application well can exploit it (in time of need). That is bcos 99% (w common sense) may not comprehend it. There is a good reason why ppl answered 17k (in scenario 1qn2)  is the right raise amount bcos common sense dictates since he opens the action, he should be the 'raiser'. (but of course we know why 4k cannot be the min raise amt), if we work along this line, we can appreciate why the exception of 2 consecutive under raises > min raise opening action is a good one but the min raise amount didnt make sense. (already over-discussed).  If technically the 2nd all in has opened  action, he should be deemed as the raiser. The deemed raised amount is (13-5)=8, ie player d can raise to 21k. This makes a lot of sense as player c is deemed last raiser to player a's last legi bet. (player b merely called).

One point i didnt quite agree is in your scenario 2's proposal is player A can raise to 29k. I understand ur logic but technically speaking, the last legi raise is up to 10k (player b), we should now already discarded player A's raise. Based on the deemed last raiser as player d and last legi raiser player B. the raised amount be up to 24k. (17+7).

Another way to look at it, no all in situation flop 3 handed. Player A bet 5k, Player B raise to 12k, player C raise to 25k. Back to player A, the min raise would bring him to 38k and not 45k. My thought is on consistency.. Then again, im not the TD and my thots can be flawed.

One thing for sure wsop ruling on this one doesnt make sense. Well, even though i made the 'correct answer' based on the rule interpretation. Im not convinced at all.. . In e end of the day, if we want more chips in play and more exciting poker,  e min raise amt must grow larger right?  

[MinsoonLim]

I think some of the readers misunderstood its preflop with the bb 1k.
Its on the flop, playerA lead 5k so a complete raise is 10k

thanks sir Minsoon, but still, even it's not a complete raise, it's  still a raise to me. coz i have to add more chips to stay in the pot.  in any street.

but there are rules in poker, and different rules in the floor,  so i have to follow. just my own thinking. 

I understand where you are coming from when it comes to adding more chips to make a call can seem like you have been raised. But, there are to many factors that unless there is a complete raise (at least double the amount of the last bet that has been made) you will not be able to raise. Unless there are 2 or more all-ins in the pot, according to the WSOP. Hahaha! Now I am confused how to explain it correctly.

Let me give you an example that is easier:

(You are Player A)
You  Bet 100,000
Player B goes all-in for 100,100 (100 more all-in)
Player C flat call the 100,100
Action back to you. Do you think you deserve to raise the pot?

hahaha 

i don't deserve it, coz of the raise is not enough for me to re -raise it.   

lol, u answered Lloyd's question. How much is enough and how much is a complete raise.
Thats why 4k not enough.. Same as above example 100 raise also not enough.

[tiktak]

I think some of the readers misunderstood its preflop with the bb 1k.
Its on the flop, playerA lead 5k so a complete raise is 10k

thanks sir Minsoon, but still, even it's not a complete raise, it's  still a raise to me. coz i have to add more chips to stay in the pot.  in any street.

but there are rules in poker, and different rules in the floor,  so i have to follow. just my own thinking. 

I understand where you are coming from when it comes to adding more chips to make a call can seem like you have been raised. But, there are to many factors that unless there is a complete raise (at least double the amount of the last bet that has been made) you will not be able to raise. Unless there are 2 or more all-ins in the pot, according to the WSOP. Hahaha! Now I am confused how to explain it correctly.

Let me give you an example that is easier:

(You are Player A)
You  Bet 100,000
Player B goes all-in for 100,100 (100 more all-in)
Player C flat call the 100,100
Action back to you. Do you think you deserve to raise the pot?

hahaha 

i don't deserve it, coz of the raise is not enough for me to re -raise it.   

lol, u answered Lloyd's question. How much is enough and how much is a complete raise.
Thats why 4k not enough.. Same as above example 100 raise also not enough.

 

sir minsoon, 50%     

Imo, rules are there to have a consistent application but when rules contravene the principles/common sense, the  rules-making ppl should take a 2nd look at it. It probably got overlooked bcos there are other worse rules around and e scenario may have happened without us noticing.

Its true people who know the rules application well can exploit it (in time of need). That is bcos 99% (w common sense) may not comprehend it. There is a good reason why ppl answered 17k (in scenario 1qn2)  is the right raise amount bcos common sense dictates since he opens the action, he should be the 'raiser'. (but of course we know why 4k cannot be the min raise amt), if we work along this line, we can appreciate why the exception of 2 consecutive under raises > min raise opening action is a good one but the min raise amount didnt make sense. (already over-discussed).  If technically the 2nd all in has opened  action, he should be deemed as the raiser. The deemed raised amount is (13-5)=8, ie player d can raise to 21k. This makes a lot of sense as player c is deemed last raiser to player a's last legi bet. (player b merely called).

One point i didnt quite agree is in your scenario 2's proposal is player A can raise to 29k. I understand ur logic but technically speaking, the last legi raise is up to 10k (player b), we should now already discarded player A's raise. Based on the deemed last raiser as player d and last legi raiser player B. the raised amount be up to 24k. (17+7).

Another way to look at it, no all in situation flop 3 handed. Player A bet 5k, Player B raise to 12k, player C raise to 25k. Back to player A, the min raise would bring him to 38k and not 45k. My thought is on consistency.. Then again, im not the TD and my thots can be flawed.

One thing for sure wsop ruling on this one doesnt make sense. Well, even though i made the 'correct answer' based on the rule interpretation. Im not convinced at all.. . In e end of the day, if we want more chips in play and more exciting poker,  e min raise amt must grow larger right? 

 

[LloydFontillas]

I think some of the readers misunderstood its preflop with the bb 1k.
Its on the flop, playerA lead 5k so a complete raise is 10k

thanks sir Minsoon, but still, even it's not a complete raise, it's  still a raise to me. coz i have to add more chips to stay in the pot.  in any street.

but there are rules in poker, and different rules in the floor,  so i have to follow. just my own thinking. 

I understand where you are coming from when it comes to adding more chips to make a call can seem like you have been raised. But, there are to many factors that unless there is a complete raise (at least double the amount of the last bet that has been made) you will not be able to raise. Unless there are 2 or more all-ins in the pot, according to the WSOP. Hahaha! Now I am confused how to explain it correctly.

Let me give you an example that is easier:

(You are Player A)
You  Bet 100,000
Player B goes all-in for 100,100 (100 more all-in)
Player C flat call the 100,100
Action back to you. Do you think you deserve to raise the pot?

hahaha 

i don't deserve it, coz of the raise is not enough for me to re -raise it.   

lol, u answered Lloyd's question. How much is enough and how much is a complete raise.
Thats why 4k not enough.. Same as above example 100 raise also not enough.

 

sir minsoon, 50%     

Imo, rules are there to have a consistent application but when rules contravene the principles/common sense, the  rules-making ppl should take a 2nd look at it. It probably got overlooked bcos there are other worse rules around and e scenario may have happened without us noticing.

Its true people who know the rules application well can exploit it (in time of need). That is bcos 99% (w common sense) may not comprehend it. There is a good reason why ppl answered 17k (in scenario 1qn2)  is the right raise amount bcos common sense dictates since he opens the action, he should be the 'raiser'. (but of course we know why 4k cannot be the min raise amt), if we work along this line, we can appreciate why the exception of 2 consecutive under raises > min raise opening action is a good one but the min raise amount didnt make sense. (already over-discussed).  If technically the 2nd all in has opened  action, he should be deemed as the raiser. The deemed raised amount is (13-5)=8, ie player d can raise to 21k. This makes a lot of sense as player c is deemed last raiser to player a's last legi bet. (player b merely called).

One point i didnt quite agree is in your scenario 2's proposal is player A can raise to 29k. I understand ur logic but technically speaking, the last legi raise is up to 10k (player b), we should now already discarded player A's raise. Based on the deemed last raiser as player d and last legi raiser player B. the raised amount be up to 24k. (17+7).

Another way to look at it, no all in situation flop 3 handed. Player A bet 5k, Player B raise to 12k, player C raise to 25k. Back to player A, the min raise would bring him to 38k and not 45k. My thought is on consistency.. Then again, im not the TD and my thots can be flawed.

One thing for sure wsop ruling on this one doesnt make sense. Well, even though i made the 'correct answer' based on the rule interpretation. Im not convinced at all.. . In e end of the day, if we want more chips in play and more exciting poker,  e min raise amt must grow larger right? 

 

There is a rule in NLH that there is a no 50% rule unlike Limit Holdem that opens up the betting. Plus the fact that there is no completion in NLH as well, unlike Limit Holdem.

I come from years of Limit Holdem and here is an example of a completion bet in Limit Holdem:

Blinds 100-200, on the turn card

Player A bets 200
Player B goes all-in for 275
Player C calls the 275
Player D now completes the bet to 400

In NLH Player D can't complete the bet if he had chips. If he decided to min raise, he would have to make it 475 because you can never disregard a amount you are facing and again, you always have to double the amount of the last legit bet. Which is this example is 200.

[LloydFontillas]

Imo, rules are there to have a consistent application but when rules contravene the principles/common sense, the  rules-making ppl should take a 2nd look at it. It probably got overlooked bcos there are other worse rules around and e scenario may have happened without us noticing.

Its true people who know the rules application well can exploit it (in time of need). That is bcos 99% (w common sense) may not comprehend it. There is a good reason why ppl answered 17k (in scenario 1qn2)  is the right raise amount bcos common sense dictates since he opens the action, he should be the 'raiser'. (but of course we know why 4k cannot be the min raise amt), if we work along this line, we can appreciate why the exception of 2 consecutive under raises > min raise opening action is a good one but the min raise amount didnt make sense. (already over-discussed).  If technically the 2nd all in has opened  action, he should be deemed as the raiser. The deemed raised amount is (13-5)=8, ie player d can raise to 21k. This makes a lot of sense as player c is deemed last raiser to player a's last legi bet. (player b merely called).

One point i didnt quite agree is in your scenario 2's proposal is player A can raise to 29k. I understand ur logic but technically speaking, the last legi raise is up to 10k (player b), we should now already discarded player A's raise. Based on the deemed last raiser as player d and last legi raiser player B. the raised amount be up to 24k. (17+7).

Another way to look at it, no all in situation flop 3 handed. Player A bet 5k, Player B raise to 12k, player C raise to 25k. Back to player A, the min raise would bring him to 38k and not 45k. My thought is on consistency.. Then again, im not the TD and my thots can be flawed.

One thing for sure wsop ruling on this one doesnt make sense. Well, even though i made the 'correct answer' based on the rule interpretation. Im not convinced at all.. . In e end of the day, if we want more chips in play and more exciting poker,  e min raise amt must grow larger right? 

Great explanation. But, at the end of your explanation you don't agree with the fact of the amount that the player A is allowed to min raise, stated by the WSOP rule.

That is enough to ask. What do you think the min raise should be than? I also agree that a player shouldn't have to double the amount that they are facing in situations where multiple short all-in bets have been made. Because of both accounts? Don't you agree that you can live with the fact regardless of how many player have moved all-in. If a player has already acted by betting, raising or calling and the action gets back to that player, where no complete raise was made. Than that player should not be allowed to raise?

This will top it off. I won't reveal the name. But, I asked a TD that I used to work with at the WSOP, who also has worked it more years before me and is currently working it now. Here is his answer below: (Which is totally wrong in my eyes and based on the WSOP rule)

Because the bet of Player C reopened the betting to Player A, yes he can raise. The bet is 13k. Therefore, the difference of 13k - 5k = 8k. That makes the min raise 8k more than 13k for a total bet of 21k.

So I told him he is totally wrong and since he is working the WSOP now. He needs to check WSOP 2012 rule #91 A 

[LloydFontillas]

I asked the same question to one of my best guys that has helped me with the APT and is now one of the busiest guys in the industry and here is his answer:

Scenario, 4 way action, NLH tournament, Blinds at 500-1,000, action after the flop:

Player A bets 5,000 (leaving 45,000 behind)
Player B goes all-in for 9,000
Player C goes all-in for 13,000
Player D flat calls the 13,000 (leaving 50,000 behind)
Action back to Player A, who now re-pops it all-in for a total of 50,000, trying to isolate the 2 all-in players
Player D now goes into the tank!

Question 1)
Is there something wrong with the scenario?
1st player A cannot raise anymore, how can he re raise without any raise.

Question 2)
Instead of Player D flat calling the 13,000, he wants to min raise. How much can he min raise to and why?
2nd if player D wants to min raise it should be 18,000. (13,000+5,000)

[MinsoonLim]

Thumbs up for contesting the wsop rule!

1) true, the action should not be opened without  a legi raise.
2) but if wsop exception rule in principle wants to open the action after 2 all in raises > min raise, then at least shouldnt create the scenario that initial better/ raiser is technically going raise his own last aggressive action. ( min raise rule).
3) rule application is in doubt bcos even e wsop ppl on the ground doesnt know how to apply the exception rule consistently.

[LloydFontillas]

Thanks again to everyone that posted. I haven't got an answer back from the man who wrote the rule. But, I did do some homework by asking some very respected tournament directors about the rule.

Basically it comes down to the value of what a player is facing and if that value is equal or great than the initial amount. Than a player should be able to raise. After giving it more thought. I can live with that and if the min raise is based on the last legit bet or raise, I can live with that too! Even if that last legit raise or bet was made by the player wanting to reopen the action.

The only thing I really think that needs to be done. Is to write a stand alone rule in a way that explains how action is open and here is what I came up with:

Action Open Rule:
Action deems to be open when a player is facing an amount that is equal or larger than the last legit bet or raise. Even if it happens to be the player that initiated the action (bet) or has already acted  (called or raise) The min raise amount will be the last legit bet or raise.

Than show a scenario where a player is raising himself just like both of my scenarios.

At the end of the day this is why we have rules in the first place. So, that when players and TDs like myself try to contest a rule it can be justified! 

[LloydFontillas]

It's great to see that this post got many views. Just to make the rule (#91 A) that was created by the WSOP a bit more confusing. Here is how the TDA has it stated in their set of rules, about how action is not open to players that have acted when an incomplete raise has been made:

TDA Rule #38.   Raises. A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous
bet or raise of the current betting round.  If a player puts in a raise
of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum
raise, he must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the
minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple samedenomination chips in Rule 40). In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in
wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a
player who has already acted.