Rules check (1 Viewer)

[Pinesol13]

That mentality is how a golden retriever ends up playing in district-sanctioned basketball games.

This is the best

 

[joker80]

Thanks for all your help. I hope the Roberts Rules will apply going forward but ultimately house rules override normal rules

 

[JScott]

This is better than my friends “around the world” straight, house rule.

The topic at hand is a pretty minor issue tbh, I wouldn’t leave a game over it.

 

[TheOffalo]

Yeah it's a semi-edge case, and in the OPs situation, he actually won more money because of it.

 

[joker80]

I am not going to leave the game over it , it's just nice to have the rule defined if he wants to play otherwise

 

[joker80]

This is better than my friends “around the world” straight, house rule.

The topic at hand is a pretty minor issue tbh, I wouldn’t leave a game over it.

So which straight is higher? or

 

[danopoker]

It's pretty bad to not follow the standard rules on this. Suppose I am first to act after the flop, and notice someone is short-stacked behind me with say $50, and a few deep stacks behind him. I bet $45, next player goes all in for his last $50... the other players are unfairly squeezed. The $5 raise is insignificant and should NOT open the action again to me lest I get a couple of speculative callers and can now bring in the hammer.
However, the guy with $50 shouldn't be prevented from going all in (I remember hearing somewhere, in no limit you can go all in any time it is your turn to bet) so the best way to handle this is spelled out by others -- follow the actual rules, let him re-raise all-in to $50, but if no one else makes the minimum raise, all I can do is fold or call the $5.
[Edited: I misread the OP somewhat, you were correct, first to act in your scenario shouldn't have been allowed to jam]

 

[utgtrash]

not following the rule here is dumb, and what's the difference between that and ANY raise being as small as the BB? but i've definitely played in games where some dumb thing happened and someone who knew better said, "yeah that's just how they play it here," and just made it work for them. but in this case, if they don't seem to get that knowing if the action is closed or not when you call the all in is REALLY important to establish, you'll probably have to wait for it to bite them in the ass to make the argument again.

 

[CHP TD]

the actual problem here is the game has no rules.

Rule 1 BEFORE hosting a game. Get a set of rules. Post them where people can see them, then invite players. Never the other way around.

Every ruling problem and every ruling argument would never happen if people followed rule 1.

 

[Pinesol13]

So which straight is higher? or

In this imaginary world, the straight to the 5 is higher.

 

[doublebooyah85]

Raising all-in for less than a minimum bet doesn't re-open action, but doesn't close action to anyone who hasn't acted.

1. EP was the initial opener post-flop for $65, so he's acted. Min raise amount is $65.
2. MP raised all-in short for $104, so he's acted (and can no longer act anyway because he's all-in). Min raise amount should still be $65.
3. OP hadn't acted yet so he could fold, or call $104, or re-raise to $169+ I believe ($104 + the $65 min raise amount). OP elected to call.
4. If no other players left to act, EP cannot re-raise again since he already acted and he's not facing a full-size raise. He can call $104 or fold.

This

 

[JScott]

So which straight is higher? or

A legit straight is higher apparently, which it should be since the other one isn’t even a thing.

I told him it’s a stupid rule, but he rarely hosts. And the funniest thing is so far as I know I’m the only one that has actually had one and won a pot with it… against him.

 

[Samuel]

No, it's a bet of $65. This is a new round of betting. Previous rounds do not factor in.

A bit of symantics here. You get 1 move. To me, I'll see your $65 is the same as I call your$65.

Not positive I understand your scenario:

But no, and putting that aside, the next guy would need to raise 63+63= 126 to be a full raise. Anything less is not a full raise and does not opem the action for anybody that has already acted.

Yeah, there are two half-raise rules I think, one related to Limit and one related to correcting an illegal action in No Limit. Not as clear on the Limit part, but for the illegal action it's when someone makes a bet/raise that does not meet the minimum bet amount (the BB).

If someone bets 300, and someone else tries to raise to 400, that's not allowed (unless the 400 is an all-in) and would only count as a call of 300 because it's less than half the min-raise. If the raise was to 450, that's still an allowed amount, but then the raiser would be forced to raise to 600 because the 450 is at least half the min-raise amount.

Edit: The 50% rule for limit games is basically a relaxed version of the full-wager rule for no limit. In limit, an all-in raise of at least 50% of the min-raise does reopen action for someone who previously acted.


EP's first bet post-flop of $65 is a bet. The BB is the minimum bet amount. Preflop, SB and BB are posted, but post-flop, the first bet just has to be at least the BB. As long as it's $2 or higher, it's a bet not a raise if it's the first non-call/fold action in that round of betting.

The situation in the OP is that no one raised enough to constitute a full minimum raise of $65 to EP's opening bet of $65, so when the action came back to EP, he should only be able to call or fold and not reraise.

Thanks for the added info. Maybe I was misreading/understanding the bolded and underlined parts in this excerpt from the linked article:

"In NLHE a legal raise must be equal to or greater than the previous RAISE amount (except in some European card rooms, more about this later). And, of course, it must be at least equal to the big blind amount. So at blinds 100/200 if UTG makes it 450, that is a raise of 250. The next legal raise would be 250 more than the current bet. In that case the next legal raise would be 450+250 = 700."

I always considered an opening action a "bet" but the way I'm reading the paragraph above, it seems like the author is calling UTG's 450 a "raise" (unless I'm reading it wrong or it was a poor/erroneous choice of words?).

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear on "see" and "call", I meant to say if the opening bet is 200 and I follow with 300, it basically means that I'm seeing/calling your 200 and raising you an additional 100 (which I'm understanding now is a no-no in "real" NL minimums (but ok in my group of friends' home games)).

So I think what I'm finding out is that in "real" NL, the opening bet in a round sets the minimum raise limit (opening bet - $BB) for that round. If that's true, does the minimum raise increase if someone raises a larger amount later? E.g. let's say 5/10 NL - opening bet is $50 (which establishes minimum raise of $40?), next player puts in 100 (50 + raise of 50), if someone wants to raise after that, can it be a raise of 40 or has to be 50 or more?

Thanks!

 

[Samuel]

the actual problem here is the game has no rules.

Rule 1 BEFORE hosting a game. Get a set of rules. Post them where people can see them, then invite players. Never the other way around.

Every ruling problem and every ruling argument would never happen if people followed rule 1.

First thing we do each time we play is to go over house rules.

 

[TheOffalo]

Thanks for the added info. Maybe I was misreading/understanding the bolded and underlined parts in this excerpt from the linked article:

"In NLHE a legal raise must be equal to or greater than the previous RAISE amount (except in some European card rooms, more about this later). And, of course, it must be at least equal to the big blind amount. So at blinds 100/200 if UTG makes it 450, that is a raise of 250. The next legal raise would be 250 more than the current bet. In that case the next legal raise would be 450+250 = 700."

I always considered an opening action a "bet" but the way I'm reading the paragraph above, it seems like the author is calling UTG's 450 a "raise" (unless I'm reading it wrong or it was a poor/erroneous choice of words?).

Pre-flop, the blinds are considered bets. The small blind is a mandatory half-minimum bet, and the big blind is a mandatory minimum bet. So in the example you quoted, the bet to 450 is a raise because there's already a bet of 200 out there, even if it was mandatory.

If someone re-raises after that, it'd be called a 3-bet (or abbreviated to 3!) because it's the third bet, w/the BB 200 being the first bet, and the UTG 450 being the second bet. That person would have to raise to at least 700 (the current bet of 450 + the minimum raise of 250).

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear on "see" and "call", I meant to say if the opening bet is 200 and I follow with 300, it basically means that I'm seeing/calling your 200 and raising you an additional 100 (which I'm understanding now is a no-no in "real" NL minimums (but ok in my group of friends' home games)).

So I think what I'm finding out is that in "real" NL, the opening bet in a round sets the minimum raise limit (opening bet - $BB) for that round. If that's true, does the minimum raise increase if someone raises a larger amount later? E.g. let's say 5/10 NL - opening bet is $50 (which establishes minimum raise of $40?), next player puts in 100 (50 + raise of 50), if someone wants to raise after that, can it be a raise of 40 or has to be 50 or more?

Thanks!

In general, the new raise has to match the last raise. So SB posts 5, BB posts 10, UTG bets 50, a raise of 40. UTG+1 bets 100, a raise of 50. Next player has to raise to 150 minimum, if raising, but can just call/fold.

(I say"in general" because the new raise must always be at least as big as the last raise except if the last raise was a short all-in, which is the situation in the OP. I guess instead of saying the new raise must be as big as the last raise, one could say the new raise must be at least as big as the biggest raise that betting round, or all-in.)

When I first started playing poker "for real", I thought each bet had to be double the last one, so bet 10, raise to 20, reraise to 40, etc. But it just has to match the last raise. So a bet of 1 can be raised to 2 can be reraised to 3. (Or a bet of 1 can be raised to 4 can be reraised to 7, etc.)

 

[Samuel]

So what I'm getting is that I should probably just stick to all the games me and my buddies made up ourselves...

haha jk - thanks for that ^ Big O, that helps a lot!

 

[ArielVer18]

So which straight is higher? or

Depends on the game. In some games that allow wraparound straights, the five card hand with the highest card by suit is stronger.

 

[strat_baseball]

I'll admit I didn't read every post in response but having played in at least a dozen different home games (most of them with people who have worked as floors in casinos) as well as in probably two dozen casinos and card rooms around the country this is a much easier question then it was 15 years ago. Why? Back then limit was still the primary game played and most of the floors and dealers had cut their teeth on limit and that colored their thinking about how the game was played and what the rules were.
For an explanation, in limit (for example) playing 40-80 limit and a player goes all in on the flop for $60 when facing an initial $40 bet, that would reopen the betting to the original bettor, a half bet rule is in place and the $20 raise would count as one of the 4 or 5 bets towards the cap, so the cap on this betting round would be $140 or $180 rather then the normal $160 or $200. When no limit was introduced this (generally incorrect) half betting rule was often enforced this way and in some rooms this is the rule even in no limit games. So to answer @joker80 while non-standard there are a few rooms in the world where the half bet rule is in place in no limit so it would not be impossible for this to be standard, however if the half bet rule is specifically not mentioned, just that more chips means the original bettor can re-raise that is always incorrect.
Also note that there is another half bet rule, and this is in use in both no limit and limit games, and yes it is confusing as they both are called by the same "half bet rule" shorthand despite being very different rules. If a player puts in at least half a raise with chips remaining behind they are required to raise, and in big bet games make exactly a minimum raise. This is not the case of a player calling with all same colored chips, e.g. a player calling a T600 big blind by tossing in 2 T500 chips, the reason is that this is the same as calling with a single chip, and when making an action with chips of a single denomination, if removing 1 chip would be less then a call, the action is automatically a call. I have heard that this single denomination rule was removed in the last TDA conference in 2019, but haven't asked my friends who are still flooring major tournaments to see what they would rule in this situation as I haven't had it come up for me as min-clicks are very rare in cash games and the blinds in cash games that I play don't require multiple colored chips to make a call of the big blind.

 

[Samuel]

Played a home game earlier tonight where the scenario in the OP came up as well as other minimum follow up raise situations - we're good to go (playing official) now!

 

[IamMattDamon]

The players all-in re-raise does not reopen the action for the EP player. It's not considered a full raise ($130 would be a full raise and completely reopen the action). However, you have the option to isolate here if you wanted to. EP can only fold or call here if you call. From Roberts Rules of Poker:

4. 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.)

 

[ekricket]

So which straight is higher? or

Add up the pips with face cards worth 10 and the ace worth 11

 

[danopoker]

Add up the pips with face cards worth 10 and the ace worth 11

Yeah but in cribbage the first one is 8, the second 7 so there's that