First just wanting to see if anyone has the same take as I do on this situation.

I've been playing on GG Network alot recently, and one of the most annoying things to me is allowing people to buy in SUPER short. This is especially prevalent in PLO games on the site, which brings me too the main issue I have.

GG Network has a high hand bonus, the requirements for hitting it is listed below.



Now, I have been in numerous hands that I have made the high hand, but due to these short stackers, although reaching rake cap, do not meet the 15BB committed requirement. Then I had a thought, under there rules, I should meet the requirements?

Example;
Player A - 200BB
Player B - 250BB
Player C - 11BB

Player B raises 3BB pre, Player C calls, Player A makes it 10BB, both players call. (Pot total 30bb, meaning max rake)

Flop comes, Player B bets 20BB, player C calls for his remaining 1BB, Player A folds, turn and river comes, Player B makes straight flush. Now, player B has only 11BB in the pot, reaching rake cap, but not hitting JP requirements because of the short stacker due to GG poker's short buy-ins.

Now, after reviewing the hand with a friend, I remembered Player B bet 20BB on the turn, committing a total of 30BB to the pot, whether or not the player is called, by definition the money is committed... Right? If the other player had of called, there is no option too take the 20BB back, hence by definition the money is committed, thus making the requirements met?

Whether the bet is called or not, once a further bet is made, the money is committed to the pot under any definition I can see. It is clear in there requirements you must commit a total of 15BB too the pot, not have 15BB in the pot.

What are everyone's thoughts on this? Am I missing something, or are they not meeting there requirements not paying out such a hand?

Uncalled bets never count towards this stuff. It's the same for rake and live casino promotions. If they did there's no reason to have that stipulation at all.

I can't think of any casino that has ever run a promotion that required you to exceed the rake cap in order to win the prize. Also a casino doesn't use the wording "Commit", or not as far as I'm aware.

I think you're overlooking the whole reason for the post, they stipulate you must commit the money, not that it must be called, or end up in the pot.

You haven't committed it to the pot until it is called. Unless you feel that you should be paying rake on uncalled bets, since rake is based on the pot size?

When I played in live casino, high hand was offered whether it went to showdown or not. Some players soft played to see if they could get the quads.

After the fold from opponents, all the player had to do was flip over the cards to show the high hand (though it started at boats, and went up from there).

Comparing the online high hand requirements to live casino requirements is not equivalent, in my opinion.

Very true honestly, I think the only thing important is the wording.
Anything else is irrelevant, as it's GG Networks bonus, but whatever they say they should honour.

To me the word Commit is clear, whether someone calls your bet or not, the money is still committed from the moment you put it into the pot. I can't choose after betting, too change my mind, and take it back.. when the action is on someone else hence it is committed. Whether or not it gets called is neither here nor there, the word is commit 15BB to the pot and not contribute 15BB to the pot.

It's not committed, imo, because you can take it back, rake free, if it's not called.

I think the best you'll get is their thanks for pointing out that some people may be confused by the wording, and they may change the wording to make it clearer to everyone.

How would you classify it as not committed?

The money is committed to the pot, whether or not a player calls isn't on you, you've already made your commitment to the pot - Considering there is no more action for you to make, and should a player want to be involved, you have no option to take the money back (eg commitment).

Oxford's definition of commit;
1. perpetrate or carry out (a mistake, crime, or immoral act).
2. pledge or bind (a person or an organization) to a certain course or policy.

You pledge, or bind yourself to the hand once your action is over. you have no recourse if the other player decides too call your bet, you're forced too keep the action. To say you're not committed because someone might not call, is simply inaccurate, and is not following any definition. If it's not committed, you would have the option too take it back, which you don't.

Edit:
I should note my reason for posting, is to make them change there wording. I have no care for anything else. I believe drawing attention to something publicly is about the only way to get change.

I should have said that it's not committed to the pot.

If no one calls, it's not committed or, (by the definition of committed that is meant in this instance), bound to the pot unless it is called. You get it back. Then it is no longer in the pot that you win.

(See https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/committed.)

I doubt that anyone else has ever had a problem with what is meant by the rule, but I do accept that the wording could be changed to avoid any confusion, whatsoever.

The bet is action waiting to be accepted. It is not yet in the pot. You have committed to that action in that you cannot change your mind If a player accepts your bet. Once the action is accepted, the bets become part of the pot. Until then, it is not part of the pot.