Quote:
Originally Posted by MMMed13
I feel like you have made this extra complicated. When you say "might be subject to raise evaluation" it translates in my head to "might get angleshot."
No, I'm suggesting that it could be made easier. Any multi-chip bet that equates to a min-raise is a min-raise ... move on. Any multi-chip bet that is less than a min raise is evaluated under the current rules in place ... move on.
I agree that these spots are pretty rare, but the evaluation goes against the basic premise of a raise requirement.
Who gets angled? A Player really can't angle themselves and if you're suggesting that the next Player may see the 2-chip 'bet' as a call and incorrectly put out an under-call that can and will happen. Players need to be aware of the action ahead of them before acting, which is the case all the time not just in this case.
If you're suggesting that a Player will bet $30 with the hopes that at least one other Player will 'call' with two green chips and unknowingly reopen the betting for said Player, then yes, that's a potential angle and the 'offending' Player needs to know his math or say call before putting out the 50.
I was done with this thread until the angle comment came up ... There are plenty of cash and tournament examples already in the thread that match the 10-30-50 sequence.
'Literally' tossing in two chips is not the same as tossing in one chip. Within the same paragraph you acknowledge that. I'm suggesting to eliminate as many 'sometimes' events that we can.
All I'm suggesting is that a min-raise is a min-raise. The 'chip removal' and 50% rules can govern all other combinations of two or more chips that fall below a 'complete' min-raise.
When you eliminate situations that cause the game to slow down it's not a complication. Is it a change? Yes. Would current Players slip up? Yes. Would there still be local and 'room' rules that Players need to be aware of? Yes. That will never be eliminated from poker. GL