| |
Main
Date: 02 Dec 2006 22:43:28
From: Mark B (Diputsur)
Subject: Under-Raise Rules
|
WTF is the purpose of that?
Doyle's Room, I'm sitting in the cutoff with aces (only 5 people
playing so I'm 2nd to act) and raise 4x after UTG limps.
The guy behind me (button) pushes, small bind folds, big blind
calls, UTG pushes and Under-Raise Rules go into effect...
being next to act, why don't I still have the option here?
Do all sites have this 'rule' ? I've never encountered it before!
Had I been able to push here, I may have made some money
on the hand, but as it turned out, the flop came 7s 3d 5s and
the BB (other fat stack at the table) folded to my continuation
sized flop bet (I'm pretty sure he would have called my push
preflop, but that board didn't help him)
My AA ended up against Ac2c (UTG) and 9s9c (button).
Being as stupidity is rewarded, the A2 raked the pot when
the Jc and 4h completed the board, giving the idiot with the
shittiest hand preflop a straight on the river. That's poker ;-)
Mark
---
www.myspace.com/diputsur
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 23:19:23
From: Mark B (Diputsur)
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> > WTF is the purpose of that?
> > Doyle's Room, I'm sitting in the cutoff with aces (only 5 people
> > playing so I'm 2nd to act) and raise 4x after UTG limps.
> > The guy behind me (button) pushes, small bind folds, big blind
> > calls, UTG pushes and Under-Raise Rules go into effect...
> > being next to act, why don't I still have the option here?
> > Do all sites have this 'rule' ? I've never encountered it before!
>
>
> I think this is a common rule, you didn't say what the stack of the UTG
> or the button was, but I imagine it was probably something like 4.1x or
> something like that. The rule makes sense. If you raised something
> like 4,000, and the BB calls, and then someone with 4,100 chips pushes,
> should you really have the option of raising the BB? No, it doesn't
> make sense.
Not what happened. I was playing in a cash game... I raised 4x bb
and the button (shortstack) pushed for about another 20x... BB calls,
UTG who was the next shortest stack pushes for about 25x ... He
has the option, why don't I? Had he just called the bet, I would have
had the option to raise... why does his push prevent me?
Fuck him and his short stack.
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 22:53:40
From: Omaha8_Beach
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> WTF is the purpose of that?
> Doyle's Room, I'm sitting in the cutoff with aces (only 5 people
> playing so I'm 2nd to act) and raise 4x after UTG limps.
> The guy behind me (button) pushes, small bind folds, big blind
> calls, UTG pushes and Under-Raise Rules go into effect...
> being next to act, why don't I still have the option here?
> Do all sites have this 'rule' ? I've never encountered it before!
I think this is a common rule, you didn't say what the stack of the UTG
or the button was, but I imagine it was probably something like 4.1x or
something like that. The rule makes sense. If you raised something
like 4,000, and the BB calls, and then someone with 4,100 chips pushes,
should you really have the option of raising the BB? No, it doesn't
make sense.
Ken
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 23:08:11
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
On Dec 2 2006 11:53 PM, Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> > WTF is the purpose of that?
> > Doyle's Room, I'm sitting in the cutoff with aces (only 5 people
> > playing so I'm 2nd to act) and raise 4x after UTG limps.
> > The guy behind me (button) pushes, small bind folds, big blind
> > calls, UTG pushes and Under-Raise Rules go into effect...
> > being next to act, why don't I still have the option here?
> > Do all sites have this 'rule' ? I've never encountered it before!
>
>
> I think this is a common rule, you didn't say what the stack of the UTG
> or the button was, but I imagine it was probably something like 4.1x or
> something like that. The rule makes sense. If you raised something
> like 4,000, and the BB calls, and then someone with 4,100 chips pushes,
> should you really have the option of raising the BB? No, it doesn't
> make sense.
>
>
> Ken
Why, exactly, not?
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 02:15:31
From: Omaha8_Beach
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> <snip>
> > Host-EddieB (03:22:38): This occurs when a player raises a prior bet
> > but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising going
> > all-in to raise has less than half of the expected raise for that
> > betting round, the betting round is locked.
>
> Want to point out that the expected raise in this instance is $1.08
> and the under-raise of .67 is *more* than half of the expected raise,
> so he was completely full of shit.
>
> Mark
The .67 may not be considered more than half of the expected raise
since it's less than $1.62 (I think anything less than $1.08 + $0.54 is
what's considered less than half of the expected raise here). But even
if that's not correct, it doesn't matter. The way I see it, when the
#3 player puts in the raise of .67, whether it's an under raise or not
doesn't matter, at that point, you should still be considered as having
yet to act (meaning you have yet to act to the button's all in raise,
which occured before the #3 seats raise). I think the concept of
"betting has not yet reached them" is being applied to too many
instances according to Doyle's room rules. It seems that "betting has
not yet RETURNED to them" is something that should also be used in some
cases.
According to these rules, there will be many instances where check
raising won't be possible or likely when it should.
Ken
|
| |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 10:13:23
From: Randy Hudson
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
In article <1165128207.978790.178280@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
Mark B (Diputsur) <diputsur@gmail.com > wrote:
> Doyle's Room, I'm sitting in the cutoff with aces (only 5 people
> playing so I'm 2nd to act) and raise 4x after UTG limps.
> The guy behind me (button) pushes, small bind folds, big blind
> calls, UTG pushes and Under-Raise Rules go into effect...
> being next to act, why don't I still have the option here?
No-limit should not have a three-raise max, and a non-reopening raise should
not be counted against such a limit anyway, but it sounds like they used the
limit poker bet-and-three-raises cap. UTG limped, so there was the bet; you
raised, that's one raise, button pushes, that's two raises, and when UTG
throws in his whole stack, that action-only raise got counted as the cap.
"Damn it, Jim, I'm a programmer, not a poker player!"
--
Randy Hudson
|
| |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 01:08:28
From: Mark B (Diputsur)
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
<snip >
> Host-EddieB (03:22:38): This occurs when a player raises a prior bet
> but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising going
> all-in to raise has less than half of the expected raise for that
> betting round, the betting round is locked.
Want to point out that the expected raise in this instance is $1.08
and the under-raise of .67 is *more* than half of the expected raise,
so he was completely full of shit.
Mark
---
www.myspace.com/diputsur
|
| |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 00:57:19
From: Mark B (Diputsur)
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> > That's what I thought... but apparently not on Doyle's...
> > they have these special (by special, I mean retarded)
> > Under Raise Rules.
> >
> > Mark
>
> I think it is just an error in the code. I think it is applying the
> rule in a unique situation when it really shouldn't. I'd email them
> the hand history and hopefully someone competent will review it. Of
> course, Doyle's room has been opened for some time, so you'd think this
> would have already been addressed, so maybe that is their rule.
Well, I found the hand history and contacted support through chat.
Their ruling: Nothing's wrong, that's how the game is played.
Call me a fucktard, but it still doesn't seem right to me...
Check out the HH and chat transcript and tell me who's wrong.
First, the actual HH:
Real Money Ring Game
Table Name Hand ID Game Stakes
Zoolander 10474698-195195 Holdem No Limit $0.02/$0.04
[Dec 2 22:21:28] : Hand Start.
[Dec 2 22:21:28] : Seat 1 : bidou11 has $0.99
[Dec 2 22:21:28] : Seat 2 : DustyJewel has $4.53
[Dec 2 22:21:28] : Seat 3 : wrc94 has $1.95
[Dec 2 22:21:28] : Seat 5 : Diputsur has $5.01
[Dec 2 22:21:28] : Seat 6 : GaryWard has $1.28
[Dec 2 22:21:28] : GaryWard is the dealer.
[Dec 2 22:21:28] : bidou11 posted small blind.
[Dec 2 22:21:29] : DustyJewel posted big blind.
[Dec 2 22:21:29] : Game [195195] started with 5 players.
[Dec 2 22:21:29] : Dealing Hole Cards.
[Dec 2 22:21:29] : Seat 5 : Diputsur has Ah As
[Dec 2 22:21:30] : wrc94 called $0.04
[Dec 2 22:21:33] : Diputsur called $0.04 and raised $0.16
[Dec 2 22:21:37] : GaryWard called $0.20 and raised $1.08 and is All-in
[Dec 2 22:21:39] : bidou11 folded.
[Dec 2 22:21:43] : DustyJewel called $1.24
[Dec 2 22:21:44] : wrc94 called $1.24 and raised $0.67 and is All-in
[Dec 2 22:21:44] : Under-Raise rules are now in effect.
[Dec 2 22:21:50] : Diputsur called $1.75
[Dec 2 22:21:51] : DustyJewel called $0.67
[Dec 2 22:21:51] : Dealing flop.
[Dec 2 22:21:51] : Board cards [7s 3d 5s]
[Dec 2 22:22:00] : DustyJewel checked.
[Dec 2 22:22:15] : It's your turn.
[Dec 2 22:22:15] : Diputsur has 10 seconds to respond.
[Dec 2 22:22:15] : Diputsur bet $2
[Dec 2 22:22:28] : DustyJewel folded.
[Dec 2 22:22:29] : Showdown!
[Dec 2 22:22:29] : Seat 5 : Diputsur has Ah As
[Dec 2 22:22:31] : Seat 3 : wrc94 has 2c Ac
[Dec 2 22:22:31] : Seat 5 : Diputsur has Ah As
[Dec 2 22:22:31] : Seat 6 : GaryWard has 9s 9c
[Dec 2 22:22:36] : Board cards [7s 3d 5s Jc 4h]
[Dec 2 22:22:36] : Seat 3 : wrc94 has 2c Ac
[Dec 2 22:22:36] : wrc94 has Straight 5432A
[Dec 2 22:22:36] : Seat 5 : Diputsur has Ah As
[Dec 2 22:22:37] : Diputsur has Pair: Aces
[Dec 2 22:22:37] : wrc94 wins $1.92 with Straight 5432A
[Dec 2 22:22:37] : Seat 3 : wrc94 has 2c Ac
[Dec 2 22:22:37] : wrc94 has Straight 5432A
[Dec 2 22:22:37] : Seat 5 : Diputsur has Ah As
[Dec 2 22:22:37] : Diputsur has Pair: Aces
[Dec 2 22:22:37] : Seat 6 : GaryWard has 9s 9c
[Dec 2 22:22:37] : GaryWard has Pair: 9s
[Dec 2 22:22:37] : wrc94 wins $4.88 with Straight 5432A
[Dec 2 22:22:54] : Diputsur : wow
[Dec 2 22:22:54] : Hand is over.
Now, the chat transcript with Doyle's Room Support:
(03:14:39): Please wait... contacting available host.
(03:14:39): Player 'Diputsur' joined chat.
(03:14:45): Host 'Host-EddieB' joined chat.
Host-EddieB (03:14:49): Hi, welcome to our poker room. How can I help
you?
Diputsur (03:15:02): hello ;-) do you have access to hand histories?
Diputsur (03:16:13): can you look at hand #: 10474698-195195 and
explain to me why under-raise rules came into effect preflop in that
hand
Host-EddieB (03:16:29): one minute please
Host-EddieB (03:22:38): This occurs when a player raises a prior bet
but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising going
all-in to raise has less than half of the expected raise for that
betting round, the betting round is locked. The term locked here means
that any player who has already acted in the round (checked, called,
or raised) may no longer raise. They may only call or fold. However,
players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet) may
raise the expected raise for that betting round, after calling. If the
under-raise is half or more than the expected raise, the lock rule
does not apply.
Diputsur (03:23:22): did you look at the hand history I provided?
Host-EddieB (03:24:08): I did, the hand is perfectly normal
Diputsur (03:24:36): so a shortstack raising a raise is enough to close
the action on a betting round?
Diputsur (03:24:48): had he called, I would have been permitted to
raise.
Diputsur (03:24:59): how can his action CLOSE the betting?
Diputsur (03:25:27): I understand how in a tourney it wouldn't re-open
the action... but it should NEVER *CLOSE* the action
Host-EddieB (03:25:44): the player to your left bets all in, $1,28.
then a player to your right goes all in $1,95. Here's when the under
raise occurs
Diputsur (03:26:04): no, I raise preflop... player to my left re-raises
Diputsur (03:26:13): which reopens my option...
Diputsur (03:26:23): until the shortstack pushes, I get closed out???
BS
Host-EddieB (03:26:50): but you raised 0.20 preflop
Diputsur (03:27:09): right, and when it was raised over a buck my
option was open again
Diputsur (03:27:25): until the shortstack pushed, that should NOT have
closed the action
Diputsur (03:27:49): the under-raise rule is in place to prevent an
under-raise from reopening the betting...
Diputsur (03:28:06): but it should not close the action
Diputsur (03:28:37): answer this: had the 2nd stack not pushed, would I
have the option to raise?
Host-EddieB (03:29:03): no, he has no more option to raise, only to
call
Diputsur (03:29:10): who he?
Diputsur (03:29:16): had he called, I could raise.
Host-EddieB (03:29:31): Sorry, you have no option to raise
Diputsur (03:29:36): why not?
Diputsur (03:29:45): my 20c was bumped to over a buck
Diputsur (03:29:50): that doesn't reopen the betting?
Host-EddieB (03:30:53): If the player under-raising going all-in to
raise has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round,
the betting round is locked
Diputsur (03:32:35): it should never close the action...
Diputsur (03:32:46): I understand not re-opening the action ...
Diputsur (03:32:52): but it should NEVER close the action.
Diputsur (03:33:46): but that is by design then? all seems well?
Host-EddieB (03:34:24): the system never closes the option untill
another player fold
Diputsur (03:34:57): no, the system closed the action immediately after
the 2nd push... but should not have.
Diputsur (03:35:18): you can see in the hand history where it closed
the action... they put a retarded little statement in there.
Host-EddieB (03:37:26): after the flop you bet 2 dollars and the player
next to you folded, there's when the sction gets closed
Diputsur (03:38:00): No shit, the other 2 were all in... I wanted to
bet those 2 bucks preflop though, when the other guy would have called!
Diputsur (03:38:08): duh ;-)
Host-EddieB (03:41:14): ok
--- I closed the session after that...
Fuck you very much EddieB
Mark
---
www.myspace.com/diputsur
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 23:57:46
From: Omaha8_Beach
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> That's what I thought... but apparently not on Doyle's...
> they have these special (by special, I mean retarded)
> Under Raise Rules.
>
> Mark
I think it is just an error in the code. I think it is applying the
rule in a unique situation when it really shouldn't. I'd email them
the hand history and hopefully someone competent will review it. Of
course, Doyle's room has been opened for some time, so you'd think this
would have already been addressed, so maybe that is their rule.
Ken
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 23:54:52
From: Omaha8_Beach
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
FellKnight wrote:
> You forget the fact that you never got the chance the reraise the original
> raise, far less the two other raises. The only time that you should not
> be able to reraise is if both raises did not cumulatively add up to a full
> reraise of your raise.
>
> Fell
I was thinking that neither all-in raise was significant. After the OP
clarified the all-in amounts, I said that he should have been able to
reraise. The only thing that made sense to me was that both all-ins
were only slightly more than the original raise, but the OP indicates
that they were both much more than that.
Ken
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 23:54:34
From: Mark B (Diputsur)
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> > Not what happened. I was playing in a cash game... I raised 4x bb
> > and the button (shortstack) pushed for about another 20x... BB calls,
> > UTG who was the next shortest stack pushes for about 25x ... He
> > has the option, why don't I? Had he just called the bet, I would have
> > had the option to raise... why does his push prevent me?
> > Fuck him and his short stack.
>
> Well that doesn't sound right.
No shit ;-) That's why I posted here!
> Maybe a glitch in the software, I'd email support about it.
After the 2nd shortstack pushed, there was the notation
"under-raise rules in effect" so it seemed by design, which
is why I asked if anyone has ever heard of it before.
I'm familiar with the rule in which a small raise can't reopen the
betting, but never heard of this one which apparently states that
a small raise can CLOSE the betting!!!
> Seems that if the button raised to 20x you
> should be able to reraise when it gets back to you, even if the big
> blind is the only person that could then call your reraise.
That's what I thought... but apparently not on Doyle's...
they have these special (by special, I mean retarded)
Under Raise Rules.
Mark
---
www.myspace.com/diputsur
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 23:28:39
From: Omaha8_Beach
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> Not what happened. I was playing in a cash game... I raised 4x bb
> and the button (shortstack) pushed for about another 20x... BB calls,
> UTG who was the next shortest stack pushes for about 25x ... He
> has the option, why don't I? Had he just called the bet, I would have
> had the option to raise... why does his push prevent me?
> Fuck him and his short stack.
Well that doesn't sound right. Maybe a glitch in the software, I'd
email support about it. Seems that if the button raised to 20x you
should be able to reraise when it gets back to you, even if the big
blind is the only person that could then call your reraise.
Ken
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 23:20:59
From: Omaha8_Beach
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
FellKnight wrote:
>
> Why, exactly, not?
It doesn't make sense because the additional 100 isn't a legitmate
raise for you to re-raise and therefore you shouldn't have the
opportunity to put additional pressure on the other players who called
your original bet, who would surely call the 100. I think it's a fair
rule. I'm sure there are arguments for allowing a player to reraise in
this situation, but the way I see it, the additional 100 wasn't put in
the pot with the same rationale as a normal raise and therefore
shouldn't be treated as such. That's just my opinion though.
Ken
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 23:37:43
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Under-Raise Rules
|
On Dec 3 2006 12:20 AM, Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> FellKnight wrote:
> >
> > Why, exactly, not?
>
> It doesn't make sense because the additional 100 isn't a legitmate
> raise for you to re-raise and therefore you shouldn't have the
> opportunity to put additional pressure on the other players who called
> your original bet, who would surely call the 100. I think it's a fair
> rule. I'm sure there are arguments for allowing a player to reraise in
> this situation, but the way I see it, the additional 100 wasn't put in
> the pot with the same rationale as a normal raise and therefore
> shouldn't be treated as such. That's just my opinion though.
>
> Ken
You forget the fact that you never got the chance the reraise the original
raise, far less the two other raises. The only time that you should not
be able to reraise is if both raises did not cumulatively add up to a full
reraise of your raise.
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
|
