I know the rule books explicitly make that exception — I was pointing out that we can have special rules for special situations.

The one being discussed might be an undocumented but accepted rule. I've seen the situation countless times, and never has anyone disagreed that it was an all-in bet. That's a rule by convention.

Playing B, in your example, is an idiot.

I have never seen a rule in a rule book that doesn't make an exception for raise sizing when it's an all-in wager.

That rule is about allowing an all in bet less than a full bet. It says nothing about the manner of making the bet.

To extend your argument that it applies to the way the bet is made let's look at this scenario

Player A bets 30. Player B has 50 left and tosses out $40. Is player B compelled to complete the wager to $50 or is it a call.

By your reading player Bs legal raise size is $20. He has now put out 50% of that raise so you would compelling him to go all in? I hope not. Because we recognize that the rules dont say $50 is a legal raise because it is all in. But is a legal action. If $50 all in were a legal raise it would reopen betting. Rather it is "action only"

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

You are confusing yourself more now. The 50% applies to the size of the previous bet or raise. So if Player A bets 30, Player B would have to bet 30 + .5(30) = 45 before he is compelled to go all-in. Maybe I don't understand what you are saying.


Aside from that, here's another question for you: If a player is explicitly allowed to make an all-in wager that is less than the size of the previous raise, which we all agree is true, then what rule defaults it to a call if he uses all of his chips to act (and the excess is not composed of a single oversized chip)?

He's saying that, since the guy would be all in for 50, that is only 20 more. So applying the 50% rule to that would mean that if he put in 20 x 50% = 10 more, then it should be ruled a raise. So if the bet is 30 to him and he puts out 40, he would be required to put in a full (to him) raise to 50 all-in.

He doesn't actually believe that is intended, he's just using that as an example of why the rules (or more specifically, which subset of the rules that we are now trying to assert are the ones which should be enforced in an all-in for less situation) are ambiguous to this circumstance.

I get that you don't see this issue often and that's because when it happens it's generally a no call. First many times the player will announce all in making it irrelevant. Second it is only implicated with the bet amount is less than 50% of a raise. And most of the time we don't call it because we see the players want it allin. It's like that tick tack string bet of a small denomination chip. If no one is objecting "I didn't see it"

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

I understand that you are arguing that this is the case, but I am saying that I would rule the opposite. If it's obvious he wants it to be a call, I'll look the other way and let it be a call. But if he puts all his chips in, and it's not a weird oversize chip situation, then I am ruling it an all-in if a ruling is called for (absent other extenuating circumstances that make it clear it was intended as a call).

I don't understand the argument here. The bet is $40. Player A put out $55 and had more money behind. It is a call.

Also, Player B tabled his hand before ever calling the supposed allin which also solidifies the fact that Player A had only called.

Don't 1 dollar chips play in 2-5 if it's an all in? By not including the whites when pushing the red chips forward, it makes it a call. He'd either have to say all in or include the white chips.

As mentioned above repeatedly, it depends on the room (and especially the game). In most, yes they play in 2-5 (but possibly not in 5-10+ or 5-5+ PLO or 5-10+ LHE). In some, they only play in quantity (i.e. in groups of 5, the next larger chip size). In some, they don't play at all, even in quantity.

P,


Raise 10 is not a valid raise, so it's a call and B gets 10 tossed back.

If B puts in 50, it's a valid all-in raise, so it's a raise to 50.

I agree with that for 5/5 games and up. But you can't run a 2/5 game without having whites play at least preflop, unless there are $2 (or smaller than $1) chips?

They play for SB action, but not afterwards (or for all ins) in some rooms. Similar to how some PLO games handle singles.

I don't understand how they could not play in quantity, since you could vary your stack size mid hand just by asking for change, but some rooms just don't want to deal with them I guess.

It was never stated in OP that white chips do not play so why assume that is the case? Unless OP confirms that to be true, there is no reason to even mention it other than to ask OP if that is a rule there.

People were wondering why this would be anything but a call, so it was asked to rule it out.

Here bets and raises in 2-5 games must be in increments of fives. You can't toss out two red and two whites and say make I twelve

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the SB needs a way to post $2 preflop. That's pretty tough if you don't allow for $1 chips to play at all.

Duh! You are doing a great job of being obtuse. I believe and hope it is intentional. But the fact that whites only play, other than posting a SB which will still be completed to a multiple of five unless the SB folds, is very important to the OP and whether the player is all in or just called.

So to me, it seems like if forced I would have to rule, if whites didnt play, that this was an uncalled AI and change returned. Nutz obviously thought it was just a call and acted accordingly by turbo tabling.