Posted Mon May 24, 2004 2:51 pm GMT by poe1
Trying to learn more about the technicalities. I was reading through a TDA guide and I'm confused about full raises and raises and whatnot. I thought the rule in NL hold'em was simply that 1) all bets/raises must be at least the SB and that 2) all re-raises must be at least the last raise
Here's the two stipulations that are messing with me and that I totally don't understand:
-If a player puts in a raise of 50 percent or more of the raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed.
-Less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who already has acted.
These two thigns have got me confused, not sure I understand what either one means, help?
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 Mon May 24, 2004 3:32 pm GMT by K-rug
I think that is worded kind of funky. The two that are confusing I think mean:
1) If you bet more that the raise then that is what the new minimum bet is to call now. No clue what the 50 percent means.
2)You can call for less IF you don't have enough to call a bet. You are considered all-in at that point and it DOES NOT reopen the betting.
But hell maybe I read that wrong too.
Posted Tue May 25, 2004 12:51 pm GMT by poe1
MAN! That makes SO much more sense now K-rug, you're a genius! Frig, talk about some MESSED up wording that is. Damn!
Posted Tue May 25, 2004 1:10 pm GMT by Always_Bored
Ya, I believe K-Rug is correct.
Posted Thu May 27, 2004 8:41 am GMT by JimTheBullet
| poe1 wrote: |
-Less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who already has acted. |
I think this refers to the situation where, say, I bet 400 (maybe I am hoping for a raise so that I can go over the top all in) and two people with plenty of chips call. The action gets round to the guy to my right and he raises all in but not enough to ordinarily raise my bet of 400 (say he only has 500). When it is my turn to act again I cannot reraise as I have not been raised the minimum. My only option, and the only option of the original two callers, is to call this raise (or fold, but that would usually be very stupid).
Not sure what that first rule is all about though...
Posted Thu May 27, 2004 10:28 am GMT by golddog
That seems strange. Any time a bet is to me, I have the option of folding, calling or raising (presuming I have enough chips to do so). Just because the player on my left goes all-in, that shouldn't prevent me from raising. We just make a side pot.
Maybe they were hoping to avoid dealing with side pots. Seems pretty weak if that's the case.
Posted Thu May 27, 2004 10:37 am GMT by Dave B
You correct, BUT, if you are the original raiser and someone goes all in after you, if his bet is not more than 50% of your original raise, then it is not considered a reraise.
You open w/ a 400 bet, one calls, second calls, third all in for 599, you can NOT reraise the 199 that is raised to you.
Posted Thu May 27, 2004 1:49 pm GMT by MuddyGrimes
lets say you are UTG with AA blinds and are 100/200
you make it 400 to go...
two callers...
sb folds
bb goes all in for 599
it doesn't make sense that you can't reraise to isolate you and the big blind?
because most likely...everyone else is gonna call the 199 bet?
Posted Thu May 27, 2004 1:55 pm GMT by Dave B
Make sense....yes and no. What if he raised to 401, and then you went all in for 4000K. Should the other 2 be blown out of their 400 call because someone raised $1?
I think that would clearly be unfair. So somewhere in between 1% and 100% there needs to be a cutoff. 50% seems OK to me.
If you want to isolate a small stack in the big blind, go all in or at least 100% of the small stack. Then it is a non factor.
|
|
