I'm involved in a disagreement about a poker rule and finding it difficult to come up with anything definitive on the subject. The rule in question is how large a raise can be in a pot-limit game.

In particular, there is a well-known algorithm for computing the amount a player can bet (meaning total bet, not raise), which says 3 times the previous bet, plus all the trailing bets, plus the pot. We both agree this works, but I claim if the raise is made from a blind the amount of that blind is not added to the total (because it's allowed for already in the 3x), while the other party to this discussion believes it should be added (amounts to adding it twice in my view).

In trying to find something definitive on this subject, I note that the above-described algorithm is not any part of the rules of poker. It simply happens to work. Or more correctly, it was designed to work by the person who made it up.

But what are the rules of poker? Bellagio, Wynn, and Aria all claim their own rules are unpublished and recommend reference to TDA rules. As near as I can tell, while TDA talks about how to handle incorrect bet sizes, no TDA publication actually defines the correct maximum raise in a pot-limit game, nor do they define "pot." Of course these things seem obvious, until they are questioned.

I do find, in WSOP Tournament Rules, Caesars Entertainment 2019, page 20, for pot-limit, "the maximum amount a participant can bet or raise is limited to the amount of the pot." "Pot" is defined on page 28 of the same rules as "the sum of the ante, blinds, bets and subsequent action."

WSOP Live-Action Rules, Caesars Entertainment 2019, page 12, states "in pot-limit, the maximum amount a participant can raise is the amount that would be in the pot after that participant called." "Pot" is not specifically defined in the Live-Action Rules.

These definitions seem to me to be correct, and may wind up being sufficient for my purpose, but I wonder, is there any more generally accepted definition published elsewhere? Also, interestingly, the definition of the pot (only found in the tournament rules) and the clarification of pot size "the amount that would be in the pot after the participant called" (only in the live-action rules), both seem necessary to actually frame this question.

Then, using these definitions does seem to confirm my already-held view on the algorithm.

Taking an example, if the blinds are $5 and $5, and UTG and Button both call, and SB wishes to raise the maximum, then there is $5 + $5 + $5 + $5 in the pot. It would appear, by rule, SB can raise by $20 (or make it $25). Applying the algorithm to the above example, by NOT adding the active blind, 3 times $5 plus $5 plus $5 seems correct, since it yields the same answer as the official rule (player makes it $25, which is a raise of $20--correct). ADDING the active blind, 3 times $5 plus $5 plus $5 plus $5 seems wrong, since it yields a different answer than the official rule (player makes it $30, which is a raise of $25--not correct).

Taking a second example, if the blinds are $5 and $10, and only the Button calls, SB folds, and BB wishes to raise the maximum, then there is $5 + $10 + $10 in the pot, and BB can raise by $25 (or make it $35). Applying the algorithm to the above example, by NOT adding the active blind, 3 times $10 plus $5 seems correct, since it yields the same answer as the official rule (player makes it $35, which is a raise of $25--correct). ADDING the active blind, 3 times $10, plus $5 plus $10 seems wrong, since it yields a different answer than the official rule (player makes it $45, which is a raise of $35--not correct).

So I feel justified in holding to my original opinion, but I wonder if there is any better source available than what I've found, or if anyone has any comment that may help resolve this question.

I'm not sure if it's defined anywhere (other than possibly in gaming commission documents), but "the maximum amount a participant can raise is the amount that would be in the pot after that participant called" is the definition of a pot sized bet in every room I've ever heard of.

Take the current action. Pretend you called. Total up all the money currently in front of players and in the pot. That is the amount you can raise.

As you surmise, the 3xbet + trail + pot formula is a shortcut that works in most but not all situations. When in doubt, just calculate it using the definition above.

I don't know of something you can reference for objective proof, but your original opinion is correct and the WSOP Live-Action definition of a pot-sized raise is universal. It's easy to derive the 3x formula from this definition.

It works in 100% of situations. You just aren't supposed to count chips that would make up part of your call/raise for the calculation.

The money in front of you does not count as part of the pot. You can always fall back to the basic definition of pot limit. What you're doing is calling the bet, adding that to the pot, then raising by the total amount.

In example 1 of an un-raised 5-5 game, you already have the "call" out there so you don't need to add it again. With your blind there is 20 in the pot, so add that to the 5 and you get 25. This fits the 3x rule just fine assuming you know to not count the chips currently in front of you. This calculation should not vary by casino, but some players and dealers do get confused.

It's not the easiest read but the pot limit calculation pdf here has some good examples:
http://www.wsopdealersandstaff.com/d...formation.html

Pre-flop there can be some differences between casinos in regards to how the blinds are treated especially if there is a bring-in or straddle. Usually the SB is rounded up to the BB amount. I know one casino where both blinds are rounded up to the straddle amount - in a 5-10 PLO if someone puts on a 25 straddle, each blind is considered 25 so UTG pot is 125. In a 2-2 PLO with 5 bring-in, sometimes the blinds are counted as 2 each, sometimes they are collectively rounded up to 5, sometimes each is rounded to 5. So UTG pot can be anywhere from 8 to 20.

In tournaments blinds are not rounded up.

This is the way I've always thought it was done. Treat ALL blinds as BB (or straddle) when computing a bet of 'pot'. *

As far as I know, even in that 2-5 game, if the SB folds, the $2 is the pot is calculated as $5. Probably to make it easier to keep in $5 increments.

* In the 5-10-20/25 straddle game, after any blind folds, they may only count the actual bets put into the pot. I suppose the difference is that they are counting in $5 increments.


Unknown is the impact of the rake removed. When observing a 2-2 PLO game in a live casino, it had a $5 bring-in and I think the POT bets on later streets treated the pot as "un-raked" when calculating the bet size. I could be wrong about that.

Related to not counting rake removed, may be not allowing bets in non-$5 increments. The $1 chips may only be in play for all-ins (or in increments of 5).

I feel like the easiest way to "prove" this is when it folds around to the blinds.

5/5 PLO game, folds to either blind, they can only raise to 15, not 20.

I know you clarified this too, but just because someone might misinterpret this sentence -- "money in front of you" refers to the 3x + the trail calculation. If, instead, we're doing the literal "call and then raise the size of the pot" then the money in front of the raiser does count (in other words, their previous calls).



I've always understood this to be standard for PL games. If there's actually a rationale for that standard, I'm curious about it.

In principle, afaik the reason Omaha usually plays as PL rather than NL is supposedly to prevent overbets from blowing opponents out of the pot, so you can always get at least 2:1 on your call. But if the rake is a big chunk of the pot, then you're really getting less than 2:1, right?

In practice unless rake is really outrageous (like some of these uncapped games one hears about), it doesn't matter much. I'm just curious.

This makes me think of a new $1-2 (5 to come in) game that I played in. For the first week they were trying to round the $1 up to $5, the $2 up to $5, and so the opener could raise to $20 which is almost a 3xPSR ($7 would be the literal PSR).

Fortunately they wised up and reinterpreted it so both blinds together count as $5, so the open-PSR is $15.

Some rooms do it that way. It really just depends on what sort of player they're catering to. Some PLO nuts just want the pots as big as possible. If you want to try to get 1-2/1-3NL players to give it a shot you might want to keep it smaller pre-flop.

In my room we didn't have any official rules for the 5 bring-in in our 2-2 game but the players almost always want it. Somehow we settled on 10 for UTG pot.

I think that's the most important point: In live PL games preflop, opening for "pot" is exactly to the amount specified in the house rules.

Our room went through a bunch of variations irt the blinds in 1/2 and 2/2 plo.(with and wo a 5 bring in). We'be done it where the blinds were always counted as true value; where sb is counted as bb preflop but true value once in pot; and where sb is counted as bb always. The latest version is a 2/2 blinds with a 5 rock (mandatory 5 straddle that goes to winner of last hand). For pot calculations the blinds are counted as 2. But whatever the true pot size is, it is then rounded up to the next 5. So preflop, if the first to act pots, its 3x5(the rock) plus 2+2. (The blinds). That is 19, which is then rounded up to 20 for a pot bet. If a pot is 51, it still goes up to 55, not down to 50.

Off topic but I hate that it's done this way. I don't understand why people want to play 2/2 with a $5 bring in instead of just 5/5. The only people this favors is the nits who get to save money in the blinds while everyone else pretends it's a $5 blind game. Pretty sure playing nothing but AAxx and trying to get it in pre is a (boring and suboptimal) winning strategy in these $5 bring in games where you only need to pay $4 an orbit in blinds while still getting to play a huge preflop pot when you decide to VPIP.

It's not about saving the $3 - it's about raising the stakes and making stack sizes smaller.

Most players would never sit at a $5/5 PLO table, but they will take a shot at $2/2 and not take the bring-in into account. I'm not saying it makes sense, but it's the truth. This theoretically increases the number of fish in the game.

Even regs in the game usually don't know how to play deep stack. They want to be able to shove when they think they're good. They don't know what to do when they raise pot and get re-raised pot on the turn. The way this happens is to buy in for a couple hundred and juice it up pre-flop. Much less thinking involved - just get it in and see what happens.

Why not just play with a mandatory straddle and achieve the same thing? I know it's not about saving $3 for most players, I'm just saying that the large gap between blinds and level of action creates an incentive for less desirable players to come into the game. I guess the nits are mostly sticking to hold'em though.

1) The 'money in front of a Player' doesn't count when trying to calculate the TOTAL amount of a pot sized raise AND you are using the 3x formula. But it would count if you were just trying to figure out the size of the pot, 'after' the Player is assumed to call any bet facing them. Those are two different things. The formula gives you the total bet while the other gives you the maximum amount of a potential raise.

2) The Blinds typically count as a full bring-in unless they are already folded into the middle. Once in the middle they may or may not be combined (room choice) to establish a pot size that will differ .. again, by room, by one bring-in bet.

3) IMO the main reason a Player may or may not sit down at a table is the potential BI of other Players (and perhaps the table min for that stake), not so much the 'savings' the lower Blinds offer. Players who may have short-stacked their way up don't want another Player to be able to sit down for 200 BB (or more) and get a chunk of their 'hard work' in one hand. GL

I'm pretty sure it works in every situation.

Not in the situation where everyone including the dealer forgets that the blinds can't count themselves in the trail.