Weren’t asked what a call would be. Guess what, if raised to $20, now BB cal is $18. Your reason has no meaning and applies no logic. Try again.

It is just different from what you are accustom to. Heck why not say min raise is always equal to BB. Why should my bet determine your raise size?

I've Always thought id prefer the "euro" rule. Never played with it though.

There have been multiple examples using different stack sizes and using players A, B and C. So I'm not exactly sure which example you are referring to in this quote. But if you are referring to the original example in the OP, then Player C does have the option of putting in a full raise, on top of B's all in, which would indeed reopen the action to player A.

If we're going for reducing intellectual laziness, then how about the min-raise being twice the square-root of the last raise? That will force people to think.

As indicated, the '2x last bet/wager' rule was mostly a European rule that has mostly been adjusted to match the rule set mostly (if not completely) used here in USA. I've never played in an event/game where this rule was applied here in NAm.

I got no bites on Twitter, really from anyone, about the OP of this thread. Probably because it's a very common rule to follow along with. All the rules of poker are 'simple' .. as long as you apply them in the proper order. It's not 'this trumps that', it's following in the order most applicable to the spot. GL


PS .. Another spot we have discussed in various threads .. Is a straddle a (temporary) Blind or a 'Raise with option'? This will determine the min raise wager size. I believe the consensus was that it's a RWO since if it was a Blind it would/should carry over to future streets.

I’m sure there are rooms where the min raise preflop is to $8 in a 1/2 game with a $5 straddle. But I don’t recall ever seeing that situation in real life. The couple of times I’ve heard someone ask, the answer was always $10.

Going back at least 15 years, RROP is clear that a straddle is NOT a raise with option. Here's the wording.

That is logical to me. Otherwise, you are giving a player the ability to raise twice in the same betting round wo a reraise by another player.

Now you're just being obtuse.

No, you're trolling.

I like the language and will try to remember it for the next live discussion. As in mostly PLO (for me) the Bring-In does establish a value of which a min raise must at least double.

And they define 'the first round of betting' as well .. so this should solve a lot of the discussions that pop up at least once a month!

Since TDA is 'tournament' there's no need to address Straddles.

I like that Robert's still has a few bits we can pull out and apply to today's poker. While most rooms have a mixture of rules, it'd be nice to hang onto a few things so newer Players can learn the history behind some of the rules that can vary from room to room. GL

Perhaps, but no more than you when you declare a rule that you are not used to is illogical because it's not the rule.

Well a 5 straddle in a 1/2 game already violates RROP since the size must be 2x the BB or 4. In a 1/2 with a 5 straddle, the min bet on flop is 2. This treats the straddle as a raise. In a 1/2/5 three blind game the min flop bet is 5 as it matches the biggest blind.

Note RROP doesn’t allow button straddles, MS straddles, sleeper straddles, double straddles, etc and the size of straddle is fixed at 2x BB. So using it to definitively say anything about modern straddle rules is weak logically

Your entire line of mathematically lazy is obtuse. Mathematical ease or difficulty are not rule considerations in poker

I think Ive already addressed many times how various rooms have adopted their own rules and have never stated that RROP describes todays game definitively. But when looking for references that address the issue of whether a preflop raise must double the straddle amount or the difference between the straddle amount and the big blind amount, this is one of the few references that addresses it specifically.

Those differences you mention, such as who can straddle, or the amount of the straddle don't actually address that what the raise amount must be after a straddle. And just bc a flop bet is 2 doesnt mean the 5 straddle must be treated as a raise. There is no rule, for example, that allows a player to raise twice in a round without another raise inbetween. So calling a straddle a raise is not entirely accurate either.

But without question this is one of those topics where Ive seen a pretty even split between rooms saying the straddle must be doubled or just the difference must be doubled.

Defining a Straddle as a 'Modified Frist Round (PF) Bring-In' wager is the way to go IMO.

I'm fine with rooms that may say that it's a raise with option and therefore the min raise is 2x-BB.

But the language above by not including raise or blind will shorten a lot of discussions and perhaps create a light-bulb moment for some Players. GL

The problem with using RROP for anything straddle related is that it is inher3ntly weak logically. RRoP only has utg straddles; no button straddles, MS straddles, sleeper straddles, double straddles, etc. also RRoP fixes the size at exactly 2x BB.

So we are going to use RRoP as the definitive authority on straddles, but only these aspects and do otherwise for these other aspects. Seems logically inconsistent and thus weak.

I do agree IF post flop min bet matched the straddle, it would make it more obvious but I haven’t seen that as the case. Not even in PLO. I have never seen the min bet flop or later be forced to equal straddle in holdem. And in limit holdem I have never even heard it suggested it could be. In plo, at least the as discussed here 1/2 w/5 straddle, the game is almost always IME already $5 bring in. So is it the straddle making it $5 bring in or was it already?

TANGENT:
I understand the status and history of RRoP and that they are not updated for 15+ years. What I don’t understand why it needs to remain that way? I understand that Robert Ciaffone has no intention to ever update them again. Why hasn’t or why can’t someone, either a person or organization, chosen to update them. IANAL nor copyright expert, but I believe an update as a derivative work could be done. Especially if there was no associated commercial gain. Definitely those rooms who hired Bob to write their rules could update and issue them.

As an alternative, could “we” convince TDA to issue a set of cash game rules derived from their tournament rules. Although this is outside of their area of charter.

The job is thankless. It is impossible to satisfy everyone. There is little to be directly gained from the headache. Maybe these reasons have been enough but can we change it?

Literally zero people have said this, and at least one has said the exact opposite.

Well that post you refer to came between my posts on the topic. Probably while I was composing the second. Also you only included part of my post. I said basically picking and choosing parts of a single rule to support your position is a weak logical argument. The definitive authority was simply hyperbole to stress the point.

There is no definitive authority rule set for poker; cash or tournaments. Yes TDA is by far the most common for tournaments today. It may approach definitive authority status but still isn’t. Not sure I can think of a sport with a single definitive rules authority. (I am sur3 if such exists someone will enlighten me here)

You posted the RRoP quote as defining rule for what a straddle is. The reason I posted those differences was simply to point out you are relying on only part of RRoP straddle definition. I never said or implied the diffs I listed had anything to due with setting subsequent bet size. In fact I was clear about this in my post. I was using those to support why logically using half the rule was a weak supporting argument.

I also did not say you were pointing to a current definitive rule set. I only said you were choosing to rely on half of one rule. And I pointed out that particular rule is definitely one from RRoP which has significantly evolved at many places.

sorry slightly off topic. but i recently learned about this rule

"If facing a bet, unless raise or all-in is declared first[/B], a multiple-chip bet (including a bet of your last chips) is a call if every chip is needed to make the call; i.e. removal of just one of the smallest chips leaves less than the call amount. "

for example, 1/3 game. someone bets $10 using two red chips next player reraises to $30 using six $5 red chips. now on you, if w/o saying anything, you throw in two $25 green chips. then that is a call even tho that is a legal min raise. because if you take out the lowest denomination of the chips used (in this case, another green) the left over chip (the single green) isnt enough to call the $30 raise. (Just to check again, is this correct?)




however, i am confused on Part B.


as well as both parts of this.


would someone be able to help me clear this up?

Originally Posted by answer20 View Post
Time to pull the cord boyz .. TDA Rule 45 ..

B: If every chip is not needed to make the call; i.e. removal of just one of the smallest chips leaves the call amount or more: 1) if the player has chips remaining, the bet is governed by the 50% standard in Rule 43; 2) if the player’s last chips are bet he or she is all-in whether reaching the 50% threshold or not.”

.
You are correct in your first example. It's a call even if those two green chips are his last two chips unless he says all in first.

On the part B, let's change your example to say that player 1 bet 4. Player 2 raised to 25, a raise amount of 21. Then player 3 tosses out one green chip and two red chips. (35 total). Not every chip is needed to call the raise to 25. You can remove one or both red chips and still cover the 25 with the green chip. So part B applies. So in B (1), if the player has additional chips remaining in his stack, then the 50% rule kicks in to determine if the 35 is a call of 25 or a raise to 35. The previous raise amount was 21, so 50% of that is 11(rounded up). The 50% rule means that as long as the total chips tossed out is 36 or more (11 on top of 25) then it will be a raise. But the 35 is less, so its a call of 25

That above example uses the 50% rule because the player has more chips left in his stack. Rule B2 simply states that if the player has no more chips left, then the 50% rule is not used. Rather, the player is all in for 35.

So, in the 35 example, if he has more chips behind, the 35 is a call of 25. If he has no chips behind, its an all in of 35.

The crux of the original post was that a Player could go all-in anytime action was on them .. and that is not true in NL. If a Player was involved in previous action and betting is not 'open' to them when action returns, then they are only allowed to call or fold regardless of how many chips will be left behind after completing the call.

In the recent posts the Player in question has not acted yet during the current round of betting and therefore can go all-in regardless of chip stack.

The rule 45 I (incorrectly) broke down for the OP covers whether a Player has called, raised or 'attempted' to raise via the total of the chips put out and the value of the chips individually. However, if 'action' is not open to the Player then this rule will not apply in NL. GL