| |
Main
Date: 23 Jan 2009 08:00:19
From: burt
Subject: rules in no limit
|
Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes all
in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it 100?)
Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 goes
all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is the
minimum raise player 4 could make?
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2009 08:56:05
From:
Subject: Re: rules in no limit
|
On Jan 23, 9:26=EF=BF=BDam, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com > wro=
te:
> There are constant difficulties with terminology. =EF=BF=BDMany players a=
re not precise with their language, so rulings are often quite different, n=
ot only because rulings are often different because of personality, but als=
o because
the story gets to be second or third hand to the decision maker.
> In your example, player 1 raises "to" $100 ... this player raises a preex=
isting bet of $10 by $90 ... this player often states "I raise $100" ... th=
ere is sometimes confusion as to whether he "means" ... "raise to $100 or $=
110" ... most of the time, the confusion is not really a problem because he=
actually puts out $100 or $110 and it is usually clear what he "meant."
da pickle: Your well-written and thoughtful response is much
appreciated.
I've seen several minor confrontations occur when players are
imprecise with their language. I have especially witnessed this
problem with players for whom English is a second language.
May you NEVER "seven-out," ...*guy...
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2009 08:33:24
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: oops goofed again !!
|
On Jan 23, 11:25=A0pm, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Jan 23 2009 7:44 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 6:53=A0pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 23 2009 6:42 PM, FangBanger wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 23 2009 10:00 AM, burt wrote:
>
> > > > > Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes=
all
> > > > > in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it =
100?)
>
> > > > Technically if for some reason someone wanted to raise it the minum=
um
> (BUT
> > > > WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER WANT TO DO THIS ) .. Player 3 could actually =
make
> it
> > > > 190 to go .
>
> > > > The 80 is not considered a raise therefore it doesnt exist
>
> > > > > Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 =
goes
> > > > > all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is t=
he
> > > > > minimum raise player 4 could make?
>
> > > > 90 on top of the 180 for a total of 270
>
> > > > I got tricked in my initial reading of this because
>
> > > > WHY IN THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RAISE THE MINIMUM ??
>
> > > > THATS JUST STUPID
>
> > > > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
> atrocities.
> > > > Voltaire
>
> > > Hey doggy,
>
> > > Next time you create a new online handle, may I humbly suggest the ti=
tle
> > > of this thread?
>
> > I didn't know this thread was titled asshole. He had to have seen my
> > correction before he corrected me but he has to go around acting like
> > an ass.
>
> > As for why anyone would want to raise the minimum. No one decent would
> > but the rules don't give advice. They are just the rules. And it is a
> > good idea to know if anyone can reopen and who.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> First of all , you pedantic asshole ..."reopening " is never an issue in
> doubt ..
That's why we get questions from people who got bad rulings in casinos
(like the Sahara just last year) or who don't know the rule in home
game or bar tournaments. Because it's never in doubt. Imbecile. When
people ASK these questions it's because they don't know the answer.
"Everyone knows that" is not an answer. It is posing.
but this lame shit about people wanting to "minraise" with real
> money in the pot just typifies the skills of the TVSM's
Why do you want people to play better? If they want to fuck up, tell
them the rules and let them do what they want.
>
> and oh by the way ... FUCK YOU !!
Yawn. You are such a nit-picking asshole. You know you could just go
kill your useless self instead of inflicting your lame attempts at
flaming on the grownups.
--
Will in New Haven
I'm not pompous; I'm pedantic. There's a difference.
Let me explain it to you. -- nancybuttons.com
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 17:44:57
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: oops goofed again !!
|
On Jan 23, 6:53=A0pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 23 2009 6:42 PM, FangBanger wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23 2009 10:00 AM, burt wrote:
>
> > > Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes all
> > > in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it 100?=
)
>
> > Technically if for some reason someone wanted to raise it the minumum (=
BUT
> > WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER WANT TO DO THIS ) .. Player 3 could actually make=
it
> > 190 to go .
>
> > The 80 is not considered a raise therefore it doesnt exist
>
> > > Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 goes
> > > all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is the
> > > minimum raise player 4 could make?
>
> > 90 on top of the 180 for a total of 270
>
> > I got tricked in my initial reading of this because
>
> > WHY IN THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RAISE THE MINIMUM ??
>
> > THATS JUST STUPID
>
> > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrociti=
es.
> > Voltaire
>
> Hey doggy,
>
> Next time you create a new online handle, may I humbly suggest the title
> of this thread?
>
I didn't know this thread was titled asshole. He had to have seen my
correction before he corrected me but he has to go around acting like
an ass.
As for why anyone would want to raise the minimum. No one decent would
but the rules don't give advice. They are just the rules. And it is a
good idea to know if anyone can reopen and who.
--
Will in New Haven
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 20:25:04
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: oops goofed again !!
|
On Jan 23 2009 7:44 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Jan 23, 6:53 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 23 2009 6:42 PM, FangBanger wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 23 2009 10:00 AM, burt wrote:
> >
> > > > Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes all
> > > > in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it 100?)
> >
> > > Technically if for some reason someone wanted to raise it the minumum
(BUT
> > > WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER WANT TO DO THIS ) .. Player 3 could actually make
it
> > > 190 to go .
> >
> > > The 80 is not considered a raise therefore it doesnt exist
> >
> > > > Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 goes
> > > > all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is the
> > > > minimum raise player 4 could make?
> >
> > > 90 on top of the 180 for a total of 270
> >
> > > I got tricked in my initial reading of this because
> >
> > > WHY IN THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RAISE THE MINIMUM ??
> >
> > > THATS JUST STUPID
> >
> > > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities.
> > > Voltaire
> >
> > Hey doggy,
> >
> > Next time you create a new online handle, may I humbly suggest the title
> > of this thread?
> >
>
> I didn't know this thread was titled asshole. He had to have seen my
> correction before he corrected me but he has to go around acting like
> an ass.
>
> As for why anyone would want to raise the minimum. No one decent would
> but the rules don't give advice. They are just the rules. And it is a
> good idea to know if anyone can reopen and who.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
First of all , you pedantic asshole ..."reopening " is never an issue in
doubt .. but this lame shit about people wanting to "minraise" with real
money in the pot just typifies the skills of the TVSM's
and oh by the way ... FUCK YOU !!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 22:03:35
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: oops goofed again !!
|
On Jan 23 2009 9:25 PM, FangBanger wrote:
> On Jan 23 2009 7:44 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 6:53 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 23 2009 6:42 PM, FangBanger wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jan 23 2009 10:00 AM, burt wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes all
> > > > > in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it
100?)
> > >
> > > > Technically if for some reason someone wanted to raise it the minumum
> (BUT
> > > > WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER WANT TO DO THIS ) .. Player 3 could actually make
> it
> > > > 190 to go .
> > >
> > > > The 80 is not considered a raise therefore it doesnt exist
> > >
> > > > > Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 goes
> > > > > all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is the
> > > > > minimum raise player 4 could make?
> > >
> > > > 90 on top of the 180 for a total of 270
> > >
> > > > I got tricked in my initial reading of this because
> > >
> > > > WHY IN THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RAISE THE MINIMUM ??
> > >
> > > > THATS JUST STUPID
> > >
> > > > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
> atrocities.
> > > > Voltaire
> > >
> > > Hey doggy,
> > >
> > > Next time you create a new online handle, may I humbly suggest the title
> > > of this thread?
> > >
> >
> > I didn't know this thread was titled asshole. He had to have seen my
> > correction before he corrected me but he has to go around acting like
> > an ass.
> >
> > As for why anyone would want to raise the minimum. No one decent would
> > but the rules don't give advice. They are just the rules. And it is a
> > good idea to know if anyone can reopen and who.
> >
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> First of all , you pedantic...
Someone's been using the thesaurus again...
--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 15:42:34
From: FangBanger
Subject: oops goofed again !!
|
On Jan 23 2009 10:00 AM, burt wrote:
> Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes all
> in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it 100?)
Technically if for some reason someone wanted to raise it the minumum (BUT
WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER WANT TO DO THIS ) .. Player 3 could actually make it
190 to go .
The 80 is not considered a raise therefore it doesnt exist
>
> Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 goes
> all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is the
> minimum raise player 4 could make?
90 on top of the 180 for a total of 270
I got tricked in my initial reading of this because
WHY IN THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RAISE THE MINIMUM ??
THATS JUST STUPID
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
---
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 15:53:47
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: oops goofed again !!
|
On Jan 23 2009 6:42 PM, FangBanger wrote:
> On Jan 23 2009 10:00 AM, burt wrote:
>
> > Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes all
> > in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it 100?)
>
> Technically if for some reason someone wanted to raise it the minumum (BUT
> WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER WANT TO DO THIS ) .. Player 3 could actually make it
> 190 to go .
>
> The 80 is not considered a raise therefore it doesnt exist
> >
> > Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 goes
> > all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is the
> > minimum raise player 4 could make?
>
> 90 on top of the 180 for a total of 270
>
> I got tricked in my initial reading of this because
>
> WHY IN THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RAISE THE MINIMUM ??
>
> THATS JUST STUPID
>
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> Voltaire
Hey doggy,
Next time you create a new online handle, may I humbly suggest the title
of this thread?
Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 15:35:55
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: rules in no limit
|
On Jan 23 2009 10:00 AM, burt wrote:
> Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes all
> in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it 100?)
>
> Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 goes
> all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is the
> minimum raise player 4 could make?
# 1 .. he can make it any amount he has in front of him
# 2 .. he can make it any amount that he has in front of him
I think you need to re examine this .. but keep this in mind .. a raise is
NOT A RAISE in n/l unless it equals or exceeds the previous raise...
period
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 11:26:03
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: rules in no limit
|
"burt"
> Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes all
> in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it 100?)
There are constant difficulties with terminology. Many players are not
precise with their language, so rulings are often quite different, not only
because rulings are often different because of personality, but also because
the story gets to be second or third hand to the decision maker.
The general rule in no limit is that the minimum raise is the amount of the
existing bet ... when it is pre flop, the minimum raise is the big blind
amount. (There are some strange exceptions to this general rule, but it is
still the general rule.)
The other general rule is that in order to "reopen the betting" to someone
who has already acted or had the right to act, the "raise" must be at least
equal to the previous bet or raise.
In your example, player 1 raises "to" $100 ... this player raises a
preexisting bet of $10 by $90 ... this player often states "I raise $100"
... there is sometimes confusion as to whether he "means" ... "raise to $100
or $110" ... most of the time, the confusion is not really a problem because
he actually puts out $100 or $110 and it is usually clear what he "meant."
Continuing with your example, player 2 says "All in" and puts out $180.
This player is facing $100 to "call" ... he is short raising "$80" (the
minimum equal raise would have been $90).
Why player 3 would be concerned about a "minimum raise" is certainly a
strange question, but it would normally be $90 ... equal to the last raise.
He is facing $280 to call ... so, as a minimum, he would make it $370 to go.
We are not faced with the unasked question about whether the betting has
been "reopened" by the action of player 2. That is usually the more
difficult question. (There are some rooms that "add the short raises" to
see if there is a "whole raise" that would reopen the better for previous
actors. That is even a more difficult situation.)
> Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 goes
> all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is the
> minimum raise player 4 could make?
These questions are not realistic because concerns about "minimum raises"
are not usually a "problem" of merit. However, the "minimum" raise for
player 4 would be the same as the last real raise ... $90. I am not aware
of any room that adds the raises to determine a minimum raise, but there are
some that add the short raises for "reopening the betting" considerations.
Suppose, for example, in your second scenario, player 4 simply calls the
$210 facing him.
The question of interest is whether (if all others fold ... players 2 and 3
are all in) and the betting gets back to player 1, can he "reraise"?
This is an important question. Has the betting been reopened to player 1 or
is he "raising himself" since there has not been a equal raise to his
original raise of $90 (unless you add the two short raises)?
Rulings might differ when presented with this scenario.
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 09:04:43
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: rules in no limit
|
On Jan 23, 11:30=A0am, Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote:
> On Jan 23, 11:00=A0am, burt <rbmad...@ualr.edu> wrote:
>
> > Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes all
> > in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it 100?)
>
> The raise has to be at least equal to the previous bet or raise. BUT
> the previous raise was a short all-in. I don't think a raise to 260
> (an eighty-dollar raise) would cut it. I think it would have to be a
> raise to 280, a one-hundred dollar raise, equal to the last full bet
> or raise.
Actually, that first raise was a _ninety-dollar_ raise. So a ninety-
dollar reraise, to 270, would be legal here.
--
Will in New Haven
>
>
>
> > Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 goes
> > all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is the
> > minimum raise player 4 could make?
>
> The last full bet or raise was one hundred. Ignoring both the short
> all-ins, the smallest raise player 4 could make would be another
> hundred dollars. But why would anyone want to make the minimum raise
> in either situation?
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 08:30:57
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: rules in no limit
|
On Jan 23, 11:00=A0am, burt <rbmad...@ualr.edu > wrote:
> Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes all
> in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it 100?)
The raise has to be at least equal to the previous bet or raise. BUT
the previous raise was a short all-in. I don't think a raise to 260
(an eighty-dollar raise) would cut it. I think it would have to be a
raise to 280, a one-hundred dollar raise, equal to the last full bet
or raise.
>
> Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 goes
> all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is the
> minimum raise player 4 could make?
The last full bet or raise was one hundred. Ignoring both the short
all-ins, the smallest raise player 4 could make would be another
hundred dollars. But why would anyone want to make the minimum raise
in either situation?
--
Will in New Haven
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 15:47:30
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: rules in no limit
|
On Jan 23 2009 10:30 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Jan 23, 11:00 am, burt <rbmad...@ualr.edu> wrote:
> > Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes all
> > in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it 100?)
>
> The raise has to be at least equal to the previous bet or raise. BUT
> the previous raise was a short all-in. I don't think a raise to 260
> (an eighty-dollar raise) would cut it. I think it would have to be a
> raise to 280, a one-hundred dollar raise, equal to the last full bet
> or raise.
first raise ws only 90 not 100
>
> >
> > Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 goes
> > all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is the
> > minimum raise player 4 could make?
>
> The last full bet or raise was one hundred. Ignoring both the short
> all-ins, the smallest raise player 4 could make would be another
> hundred dollars. But why would anyone want to make the minimum raise
> in either situation?
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 15:21:23
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: rules in no limit
|
On Jan 23 2009 11:30 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Jan 23, 11:00 am, burt <rbmad...@ualr.edu> wrote:
> > Question1: Blinds are 5-10, player 1 raises to 100, player 2 goes all
> > in for 180. What is the minimum raise player 3 could make?(Is it 100?)
>
> The raise has to be at least equal to the previous bet or raise. BUT
> the previous raise was a short all-in. I don't think a raise to 260
> (an eighty-dollar raise) would cut it. I think it would have to be a
> raise to 280, a one-hundred dollar raise, equal to the last full bet
> or raise.
>
> >
> > Question 2: Same scenario as Q1 except now suppose that player 3 goes
> > all in for 210(after player 2 has gone all in for 180). What is the
> > minimum raise player 4 could make?
>
> The last full bet or raise was one hundred. Ignoring both the short
> all-ins, the smallest raise player 4 could make would be another
> hundred dollars. But why would anyone want to make the minimum raise
> in either situation?
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
You corrected yourself later, and are correct. In both cases, $90 on top
of the last bet size.
Also, In situation 2, if Player 4 just called, Player 1 could re-raise
when it got back to him, but in situation 1 he could not, if player 3 just
called.
Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
|
