poker news
blondepedia
card room
tournament schedule
uk results
galleries
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
July 19, 2025, 01:59:38 PM
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Search:
Advanced search
Order through Amazon and help blonde Poker
2262320
Posts in
66605
Topics by
16990
Members
Latest Member:
Enut
blonde poker forum
Poker Forums
The Rail
Rasing Question (following a ruling)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
« previous
next »
Pages:
1
2
3
4
[
5
]
6
Author
Topic: Rasing Question (following a ruling) (Read 11556 times)
Sheriff Fatman
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 5901
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #60 on:
October 13, 2005, 12:46:40 PM »
Quote
NO-LIMIT RULES
1. The number of raises in any betting round is unlimited.
2. All bets must be at least equal to the minimum bring-in, unless the player is going all-in. (A straddle bet sets a new minimum bring-in, and is not treated as a raise.)
3. All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. A player who has already checked or called may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)
4. “Completing the bet” is a limit poker wager type only, not allowed at big-bet poker. For example, if a player bets $100 and the next player goes all-in for $140, a player wishing to raise must make the total bet at least $240 (unless going all-in).
5. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.
Example: Player A bets $100 and Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn't fully raised. (Player A could have raised, because Player B raised.)
The above is from Bob Ciaffone's "Robert's Rules Of Poker" which, as far as I'm aware is as close to a 'standardised' version of the rules as there is. (You can google for this info from loads of different sites so I don't think I'm breaching any forum rules here by quoting it).
The example at the bottom is consistent with my view rather than dik9's, which is why I'm so adamant its correct.
I'd love to reach a conclusive view on this matter as I'm now in a situation where, were I to be in dik9's cardroom, I would have a fundamental disagreement with the decision of one of the staff. This is not to imply any criticism of dik9, but one of us is wrong at the end of the day and I'd like to know who it is for my own understanding.
I can appreciate that there are a number of issues where local rules can vary but surely something as fundamental as bet size should be a black and white area. It'd be nice if we could establish a conclusive opinion on this at the end of the day, even if that happens to be different to the one I currently hold.
Sheriff
Logged
"...And If You Flash Him A Smile He'll Take Your Teeth As Deposit..."
"Sheriff Fatman" - Carter the Unstoppable Sex Machine
2006 Blonde Caption Comp Ultimate Champion (to be replaced by actual poker achievements when I have any)
GUKPT Online Main Event Winner 2008 (yay, a poker achievement!)
BlueWolf
Humble Overlord & Master Of All
Sr. Member
Offline
Posts: 875
Kill Me Now
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #61 on:
October 13, 2005, 01:37:47 PM »
hehehehhehehe i give up too lol i wouldnt look good in a tux
Logged
www.BlueWolfsBlog.blogspot.com
12barblues
Sr. Member
Offline
Posts: 317
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #62 on:
October 13, 2005, 05:08:22 PM »
I'm bumping this because I think it's important.
For what it's worth, I'm with Sherriff - if the minraise (or 'increment') is 200, then a series of min raises would be in increments of 200 i.e. total bets of 200, then 400, then 600, then 800, etc. The third player in my example would not be forced to raise the call amount of 400 by a further 400.
Oh dear....I may have made things worse......
Logged
If life is a game of cards, somebody is cheating.
Nightfly
Full Member
Offline
Posts: 233
my decision is final!
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #63 on:
October 13, 2005, 06:36:44 PM »
Sheriff...
Your examples are all spot on.
Where raising and re-raising have been going on the CALL amount is always equal to the sum of its parts. It does not become the minimum re-raise.
Post Flop Player 1 makes a
BET
Player 2 Calls
BET
and Raises
RAISE
(
RAISE
must be equal to or greater than
BET
)
So player 3 must
CALL
the combined amount (
BET
+
RAISE
)
If player 3 wishes to
RE-RAISE
then
RE-RAISE
must be equal to or greater than
RAISE
If he does so then
CALL
for player 4 becomes
BET
+
RAISE
+
RE-RAISE
If player 4 wishes to
RE-RE-RAISE
then he must
CALL
(
BET
+
RAISE
+
RE-RAISE
) and
RE-RE-RAISE
an amount equal or greater than
RE-RAISE
and so on
Hope the colour coding helps
nightfly
Logged
Poker @ Alea Nottingham on Facebook
dik9
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3025
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #64 on:
October 14, 2005, 02:12:40 AM »
WOW WHAT A CAN OF WORMS....I have just finished a 12 hour shift at the casino and whilst doing this I have been on the phone to loads of people, Pros, TDs,EPT dealers, dealers from across the globe.
Apparently this debate has been going on for years, and a conclusion never agreed upon. (first I have heard). The thing is, it is so rare for this to happen that no one has come across the actual situation on the table (three people minimum raising). In the example of "roberts rules of poker " it is an example of a different ruling. Also in the TDA rules a similar example is also under a different ruling. Ironically the closest rule is Caro and Cooks (which is the basics to my rules) but it is interpreted either way (but on reading leans towards the Sheriffs and Nightfly's response).
The answers I got from all asked, was 11 out of 15 said in their experience the minimum raise is the amount of the CALL, 2 people said in their experience the minimum raise is the amount of the last RAISE. 3 people said it depends whereabout in the world you play. In America (the home of poker) it is the amount of the RAISE, but in Europe it is the amount of the CALL. One of the girls that owns her own private poker club and who deals for the EPT is on the case and waiting for a response off Thomas Kremser as she is under the same illusion as me. As it was put to me, this is just trivial the situation never happens.....I NEED TO KNOW this IS important as their is so much diversity in the answers. This situation is in my rules under the heading under raising, as I wrote it, it states : .In No limit games a raise must be at least the same size as the call, unless you do not have the chips to cover it. You can under raise all-in. However players that have already had the opportunity to raise may not come over the top in that round, unless a player after the under raise has made a full raise. Therefore it is in my House Rules.
Could Yogi, Dani V or any Supervisor/manager please respond as to what they do. All of the dealers that have come to the Broadway from Gala, Rainbow, and junction 10 are under the same impression as me. One of my 6 supervisors said that he agrees with Sheriff and did so at his last place -Stanleys-. The staff that work at our casino were not part of the fifteen quoted as asking. I seeked independant advice. As this is a poker forum could all you pro's give your 2 cents worth. Now this is why I love Blonde, I have no problems admitting I am wrong as I am always willing to learn. But as I am the one expected to know when the situation arises (if it ever does...I am sure it will now) I would like to be confident that the right decision would be made, as at the moment I am not confident!!
Tourny Directors meeting QUICK!!!!!
Bluewolf will represent me as I just realised I resigned....might take it back errrrm........
Logged
Cardroom Manager, Genting International Casino, Resorts World Birmingham
The Baron
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 9558
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #65 on:
October 14, 2005, 02:20:40 AM »
Nightfly is a cardroom manager/supervisor.
Logged
dik9
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3025
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #66 on:
October 14, 2005, 02:31:11 AM »
I know and value his rulings as I know he is extremely respected and clued up, but would like to hear any other views, be them similar or different. I really NEED to clear this up. So I can justify it if it ever happens. I NEED to know whether to change my rules!!
Logged
Cardroom Manager, Genting International Casino, Resorts World Birmingham
Ironside
Administrator
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 41931
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #67 on:
October 14, 2005, 02:33:28 AM »
its simple treat it like limit you can raise the same as the last person raised ecept there is no 4 bet cap
Logged
I am the master of my fate
I am the captain of my soul.
dik9
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3025
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #68 on:
October 14, 2005, 03:01:52 AM »
Thats the problem...it is not liimit, when i first read Sheriffs post I thought he was giving a strange example of limit, thats why i questioned it. The American rules (which are the most prolific) are mainly geared towards limit. Limit games are rarely seen in Europe, this is why I think the diversity seems to occur. I just keep visualising a table of piss takers going 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 etc and am sure they will now somewhere just to do a dealers head in? The essence of no limit poker goes if this happens. Lets say a ten handed table get wise in the bubble situation and all have two minutes to act (i know this would never happen, but in theory) Average stacks of 20,000 for 4000 chips doing this you could waste 1 hour 20 on the same hand preflop. Pretty radical example, but isnt this why limit is capped?
Logged
Cardroom Manager, Genting International Casino, Resorts World Birmingham
The Baron
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 9558
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #69 on:
October 14, 2005, 03:09:43 AM »
Dik,
I'm 100% sure Sheriff and Nightfly are correct. If you go to online sites even they will show this to be true.
«
Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 03:20:42 AM by The Baron
»
Logged
Ironside
Administrator
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 41931
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #70 on:
October 14, 2005, 03:19:34 AM »
Quote from: dik9 on October 14, 2005, 03:01:52 AM
Thats the problem...it is not liimit, when i first read Sheriffs post I thought he was giving a strange example of limit, thats why i questioned it. The American rules (which are the most prolific) are mainly geared towards limit. Limit games are rarely seen in Europe, this is why I think the diversity seems to occur. I just keep visualising a table of piss takers going 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 etc and am sure they will now somewhere just to do a dealers head in? The essence of no limit poker goes if this happens. Lets say a ten handed table get wise in the bubble situation and all have two minutes to act (i know this would never happen, but in theory) Average stacks of 20,000 for 4000 chips doing this you could waste 1 hour 20 on the same hand preflop. Pretty radical example, but isnt this why limit is capped?
thats why you go hand for hand on the bubble
Logged
I am the master of my fate
I am the captain of my soul.
dik9
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3025
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #71 on:
October 14, 2005, 03:44:44 AM »
I am not saying they are wrong, the issue was raised on this forum and the initial post was correct, I think we all agreed on that. As the thread went on It diversed to a different matter (which happens to be rare) I questionned it as the posts were different to my understanding. I have caused world war 3 amongst some players simply by asking them their thoughts on this matter. Experienced and well known players may i say. As I said, on reading the rules again I do lean against the side of minimum raise = previous raise not the call. I am big enough to admit I am wrong, however, the debate goes on and it is recognized in the main, around my region that Min raise is Min call and this is what the cross section of players and staff asked, believe. I am not new to the game, I have been running card rooms for 17 years. This has never really cropped up. But now it has I am looking for answers. I do not wish to be blazed for asking the question. My head is done in because I am in the majority of people I have spoke too, but the minority on here.
To go off topic for one moment, The chief super intendent in the Isle of Man did not know it was legal to kill a Scotsman on Douglas Beach on Christmas day, it IS a by law and never been used in his lifetime, so why should he know, and does this make it right to be allowed to kill one??
No Offence Ironside
Quote from: ironside on October 14, 2005, 03:19:34 AM
Quote from: dik9 on October 14, 2005, 03:01:52 AM
Thats the problem...it is not liimit, when i first read Sheriffs post I thought he was giving a strange example of limit, thats why i questioned it. The American rules (which are the most prolific) are mainly geared towards limit. Limit games are rarely seen in Europe, this is why I think the diversity seems to occur. I just keep visualising a table of piss takers going 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 etc and am sure they will now somewhere just to do a dealers head in? The essence of no limit poker goes if this happens. Lets say a ten handed table get wise in the bubble situation and all have two minutes to act (i know this would never happen, but in theory) Average stacks of 20,000 for 4000 chips doing this you could waste 1 hour 20 on the same hand preflop. Pretty radical example, but isnt this why limit is capped?
thats why you go hand for hand on the bubble
So the blinds have gone up 3 times whilst waiting for the other hand to finish, hardly fair to the short stack
Logged
Cardroom Manager, Genting International Casino, Resorts World Birmingham
The Baron
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 9558
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #72 on:
October 14, 2005, 03:51:42 AM »
Quote from: dik9 on October 14, 2005, 03:44:44 AM
I am not saying they are wrong, the issue was raised on this forum and the initial post was correct, I think we all agreed on that. As the thread went on It diversed to a different matter (which happens to be rare) I questionned it as the posts were different to my understanding. I have caused world war 3 amongst some players simply by asking them their thoughts on this matter. Experienced and well known players may i say. As I said, on reading the rules again I do lean against the side of minimum raise = previous raise not the call. I am big enough to admit I am wrong, however, the debate goes on and it is recognized in the main, around my region that Min raise is Min call and this is what the cross section of players and staff asked, believe. I am not new to the game, I have been running card rooms for 17 years. This has never really cropped up. But now it has I am looking for answers. I do not wish to be blazed for asking the question. My head is done in because I am in the majority of people I have spoke too, but the minority on here.
To go off topic for one moment, The chief super intendent in the Isle of Man did not know it was legal to kill a Scotsman on Douglas Beach on Christmas day, it IS a by law and never been used in his lifetime, so why should he know, and does this make it right to be allowed to kill one??
No Offence Ironside
Quote from: ironside on October 14, 2005, 03:19:34 AM
Quote from: dik9 on October 14, 2005, 03:01:52 AM
Thats the problem...it is not liimit, when i first read Sheriffs post I thought he was giving a strange example of limit, thats why i questioned it. The American rules (which are the most prolific) are mainly geared towards limit. Limit games are rarely seen in Europe, this is why I think the diversity seems to occur. I just keep visualising a table of piss takers going 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 etc and am sure they will now somewhere just to do a dealers head in? The essence of no limit poker goes if this happens. Lets say a ten handed table get wise in the bubble situation and all have two minutes to act (i know this would never happen, but in theory) Average stacks of 20,000 for 4000 chips doing this you could waste 1 hour 20 on the same hand preflop. Pretty radical example, but isnt this why limit is capped?
thats why you go hand for hand on the bubble
So the blinds have gone up 3 times whilst waiting for the other hand to finish, hardly fair to the short stack
No blazing intended mon ami. Just saying what happens in the online arena. In terms of what the big sites say on this matter is pretty much gospel to me. I doubt they'd have it "wrong".
Logged
Sheriff Fatman
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 5901
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #73 on:
October 14, 2005, 10:29:29 AM »
I think dik9 deserves a lot of credit for looking into this so extensively. It looks like there is a genuine discrepancy in the rules used in various places so its easy to see why there's so much diversity of opinion.
I guess our dead cert 'black and white' issue turned out to have the greyest of grey tones after all!
Ultimately, I think we should all 'celebrate' by turning up at Broadway one night for a specially arrange Blonde event. We can then spend a fun night consistently min-raising and requesting rulings especially for him and BlueWolf!
Sheriff
Logged
"...And If You Flash Him A Smile He'll Take Your Teeth As Deposit..."
"Sheriff Fatman" - Carter the Unstoppable Sex Machine
2006 Blonde Caption Comp Ultimate Champion (to be replaced by actual poker achievements when I have any)
GUKPT Online Main Event Winner 2008 (yay, a poker achievement!)
Phil
Sr. Member
Offline
Posts: 313
AKA mrcoffee182
Re: Rasing Question (following a ruling)
«
Reply #74 on:
October 14, 2005, 10:33:27 AM »
Wow, this has got a bit interesting now. I only posted this to clear up two different rulings I'd had. Looks like its quite a grey area when you look into it further. Good work.
Logged
1st. West Ham. 2nd Poker
Pages:
1
2
3
4
[
5
]
6
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
-----------------------------
Poker Forums
-----------------------------
=> The Rail
===> past blonde Bashes
===> Best of blonde
=> Diaries and Blogs
=> Live Tournament Updates
=> Live poker
===> Live Tournament Staking
=> Internet Poker
===> Online Tournament Staking
=> Poker Hand Analysis
===> Learning Centre
-----------------------------
Community Forums
-----------------------------
=> The Lounge
=> Betting Tips and Sport Discussion
Loading...