Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:53 pm GMT by chew
I have been playing a lot of Hold'em for over 5 years and only today did I discover the Under-Raise Rule to my annoyance.
Here's the situation.
NL Sit n Go. Game still on level 1.
I get AA under gun.
I triple the bet and the guy to my immediate left calls and a loose cannon on the button calls.
Flop comes Q26 but there are two diamonds and a possible gutshot for someone in there with 34s or something. The Pot is big enough for me to end it right away so I bet the full pot to hopefully end it right there.
First guy calls and then the guy on the button raises all-in but he is already short stacked so the raise is ony 200 (my bet was 600).
Now I have to at the very least call his 200 but I really want to just chuck the rest of my chips in and hope that the first caller isnt the one with the set or two pair. But I can't go all-in. I check that it definitley is a 'No Limit' STT, which it is, but there is no option for me to go all-in???? WTF? I thought NL meant that at any moment you can chuck your stack in there, but apparently not.
In steps the Under-Raise rule. Don't ask me what it is or why it exists, I don't understand it or what logical purpose is serves.
As it turns out the first guy had pocket 7's....?? and called the 200 also.
The turn is 7clubs so he goes all-in after I had bet.
I call. (probably a mistake - but that's irrellevant.)
The river is a rag and the set of 7's wins. Never got to see what the button had.
So at the flop I had the first guy dominated but the under-raise rule crippled me. I couldn't make the play that would have put him under maximum pressure which is what NL is all about. OK, if it had just been me and him in the pot he would have simply called my bet, hit his set on the turn and beaten me fair and square, but it still sucks.
I read up on the under-raise rule and I think is meant to protect players who have already bet or something, but I think it is crazy.
If it was a boxing match it would go like this:
Its the last round and you are behind on points - you need a KO to win. You land a big left hook to your opponents jaw which rocks him, the crowd go wild, he's still standing but he's clearly going down if you can just land one final blow. You wind up your right arm ready for a bone-crunching upper-cut but suddenly the ref steps in to 'protect' your opponent and allows your opponent to recover. The bells sounds and you lose.
You're left standing there thinking WTF just happened there?
That's how I felt anyway.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!
Gotta Love it!!
Chew
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:17 pm GMT by Arkwell
There must have been other factors that stopped you from going all in
In NL holdem, you can go 'All In' anytime, no matter what anyone else bet...
You can never not go All In, you always, always have the option to raise all in, at any time in the game, always...
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:21 pm GMT by Johny
If the re-raise is less than twice the amount of the original raise, then you don't have the option to re-raise. When making a re-raise, the amount has to be twice the size, right? Plain and simple it didn't count as a re-raise, so you can only call or fold.
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:23 pm GMT by Gunslinger
Arkwell, there is an under raise rule in NL:
| Quote: | | Under-raise: 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. |
Chew, in a situation like yours, you need to notice that your desired bet of 600, the size of the pot, will fall just short of the button's stack. If he's going to call, he's going to push, so you need to bet enough to put him all-in in the first place. This puts a harder decision to the guy in the middle position as well.
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:24 pm GMT by Johny
"The Pot is big enough for me to end it right away so I bet the full pot to hopefully end it right there."
Why do you want the pot to end there? Don't you want your opponents to chase a draw with wrong pot odds?
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:30 pm GMT by Arkwell
Can someone give a clear, fictional example of this 'Under-Raise' rule?
Not really understanding it, never heard of it...
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:34 pm GMT by Phil14312
His story is a pretty good example. Bet 600 on the flop, Player A calls, Player B goes all-in for 800, since that is only a 200 raise, there is no option to re-raise.
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:40 pm GMT by Johny
When chew bet 600 on the flop, the minimum re-raise that Villain could make was to 1200 total. Since Villain's re-raise was only 200, his bet doesn't count as a real re-raise. Therefore chew doesn't have the option to re-raise.
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:41 pm GMT by chew
I'm sorry Arkwell, no offence, but you are wrong. The rule is enforced at 'VC Poker' anyway.
That's exactly what I thought, before it happened to me.
You should read up on the 'Under-Raise Rule'.
I wanted to go all-in and couldn't. Simple.
I had a long discussion with the site manager about it and he tried to explain it but I couldn't see a single reason for having it.
Some sites may not use it, I don't know. Might be worth checking out.
I checked my hand history and it was a No Limit STT.
Just after the Button raised (it was actually 280) there is a line on the hand history that states: 'Under-Rasie rules now in effect' and all I could do was call the 280.
Here's the rule:
What is an Under Raise, and how does it work?
An under-raise 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.
http://www.bowmanspoker.com/help/support_q_a/pots_rakes_betting_rules
Do you understand that crap?
Chew
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:51 pm GMT by chew
Thanks Gunslinger for your advice.
I probably should have bet at least the buttons full stack.
Johny4444 - You are right, I would be happy to play with those two guys all day, every day making plays like they did. So I should be happy with that game even though I lost.
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:55 pm GMT by Johny
| chew wrote: | | Johny4444 - You are right, I would be happy to play with those two guys all day, every day making plays like they did. So I should be happy with that game even though I lost. |
I'm glad you realise this. You can call me Johny. 
Welcome to the forums! 
Posted Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:48 pm GMT by Arkwell
kind of a weird rule, but makes sense
but it probably wont happen to me as I would usually raise someone all in if I want to make a big raise, why would you only raise 600, when he had 800 left?
surely if he called, he would have no option but to throw the last 200 in...
Posted Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:40 am GMT by JohnnyCache
Basically, you should have covered the guy instead of just using the quick buttons. It's there so that if you make a bet just short of someone's stack, he can throw his last couple chips in without opening the floor to new action
Posted Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:27 am GMT by Icec0o1
I don't know about you guys but I'd want that guy to call 600, and even better, 800 every time with his pocket 7's in that situation I think that was the perfect play and would make the most money in the long run.
Posted Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:42 am GMT by snoogins47
This is weird, I wrote a reply to this post, and apparently my browser must have crashed as I was posting or something... clearly it's not here.
Anyway, to sum it up... if you aren't able to see that this rule exists, and understand exactly how you, or others, could seriously take advantage of situations where it DIDN'T exist, you should be very thankful that it is in place.
It is one rule that I try my best to make sure I know before hand, if I'm playing in unfamiliar territory... along the lines of the raise cap, if there's no cap heads up, and whether or not overbets/returned bets are raked.
Basically, put yourself on the outskirts of a hand, without the protection of this rule. Let's say this scenario:
Three handed pot on the flop, the pot is like, 1000 chips.
You have 5000 chips, on the button.
Sharky Mc Sharkfest has 10000 chips, and is first to act.
Shorty Mc Nochips has 700 chips, and is in between you two.
Shark bets 699 chips.
Shorty goes all in, for 700.
Do you see what a stupid disadvantage this puts you at? Do you see how much more Sharky is able to punish you if you're not paying attention? Do you see how much this helps sharky? If Sharky thinks he has the best hand, do you see why he is, to put it bluntly, stupid if he decides to bet 700, as opposed to slightly less? Do you see how intensely more pronounced this effect would be if Sharky and Shorty are colluding?
Basically, the rule exists because without it, easily exploitable angles open up, which are even more exploitable by cheaters. In fact, what you were bitching about initially is the exact angle that they're trying to eliminate, though you seem to have stumbled onto it without realizing it. (Not that I'm criticising... if the rules allow it, I don't see what's wrong with exploiting it.)
Posted Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:16 pm GMT by Carson Cashman
Excellent post, snoogins... I agree entirely. The rule exists as protection. Without it, the above scenario and similar ones essentially allow you to raise yourself and open up an extra round of betting for no good reason.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 3:26 pm GMT by cayouche
I'm sorry for this old thread revival, but I have a question.
Situation:
Blinds are 100/200. UTG has 240, and goes all-in. He didn't raise half of the expected raise, is the betting round locked?? Or not, since he was first to act??
Could've player UTG+1 reraised??
Posted Wed May 31, 2006 3:55 pm GMT by Gunslinger
The under-raise rule applies to everyone who has already acted. Anyone who has not yet acted that betting round is free to raise as much as they want.
|
|
