Hey everyone

I'm currently drafting some poker house rules for our own club with few friends. Currently debating definitions of "minimum bets" and "minimum raises". Hope some of you can help us out?

First Problem: "The minimum bet amount is the same as the current big blind."

The wording "IS" means the minimum bet = current BB. For example preflop 100/200 the first player making a bet must show at least 200 on the table. But wait, isn't that a bit confusing? On preflop the player on BB already made a forced bet of 200 so there can be only calls or raises preflop. From flop onwards you can make voluntary bets. I think for beginners this rule needs a little expanding to explain the above. Thoughts?

Second Problem: "The minimum raise is double of the current big blind"

I find this not entirely correct. There can be no raises without a bet. So should be "The minimum raise is double of the current bet", right? When you bet on flop with e.g. 200, the next raiser should show at least 400 on the table, right?

Do you have better suggestions for the rules for minimum bets or raises?

Of course TDA Poker Rules have more complicated rulings in this matter but we're only trying to simplify this for the normal poker folks.

Thanks for your input!

- Michael

There is nothing to change in #1 .. and you already admitted that in your own statement indicating that the BB is a forced PF BET. You are also correct indicating that all actions PF are calls or raises, as the 'opening' bet of 200 is already forced on the BB.

I know of nowhere in poker that #2 statement exists. That statement is for PF action only. A raise can't happen unless someone bets. And until someone bets, assuming they are free to bet up to their full stack, we can't declare what a min-raise would be.

Your 2nd statement also has flaws as well. Player opens to 200, Player raises to 500 .. The next allowable raise is to 800, not 1000 (2x500). In Europe they used to have 2x the current bet, but did away with this quite a few years ago.

TDA 2019 is the current majority rule set. Robert's Rules of Poker haven't been updated in over 10 years. Both of these rule sets are available free online.

If you try to make the game 'simple' you will ultimately run into situations that are covered in these rules sets and be forced to add them to your simple home game set. There are probably rules (tournament, non-NL games) that don't apply to your home game for sure, just delete them but maintain what you need from the rest.

If you want to simplify the TDA rules? Force all Players to verbalize their action. There is a lot of verbiage in TDA that is 'in response' to non verbal actions by Players which result in confusion over what they actually want to do.

Again, zero reason to touch #1, and #2 should be "A minimum raise must be equal to or greater than the opening bet unless a larger legal raise is now facing an 'in turn' Player. This Player's total minimum bet consists of the 'call' amount plus the desired raise amount."

I wrote this without looking at the TDA, so hopefully I'm close enough in my own words. Same example .. open to 200, raise to 500 .. The minimum 'raise amount' is 300. the minimum raising be must be 800.

Welcome to the forums .. there is help here, but you really kind of came in here guns blazing with some words against 'the bible'. GL

Thanks mate this helps and is very interesting.

Few more comments and questions below between your lines:

There is nothing to change in #1 .. and you already admitted that in your own statement indicating that the BB is a forced PF BET. You are also correct indicating that all actions PF are calls or raises, as the 'opening' bet of 200 is already forced on the BB.

Thanks for confirming. I really had to figure this out myself, that the BB is a forced PF bet. Couldn't find this on Google nor is this mentioned in most Poker rules. Funny.

Your 2nd statement also has flaws as well. Player opens to 200, Player raises to 500 .. The next allowable raise is to 800, not 1000 (2x500).

That's really new to me.

If you try to make the game 'simple' you will ultimately run into situations that are covered in these rules sets and be forced to add them to your simple home game set. There are probably rules (tournament, non-NL games) that don't apply to your home game for sure, just delete them but maintain what you need from the rest.

Well I hear you but we want to keep it simple. Hence next allowable raises are always doubles.

It's funny to see that there are lots of different rules around this and no genuine standard yet. Or am I wrong?

If you want to simplify the TDA rules? Force all Players to verbalize their action. There is a lot of verbiage in TDA that is 'in response' to non verbal actions by Players which result in confusion over what they actually want to do.

Yeah, that's another problem. How to deal with unannounced bets. In our house rule is, when you quietly put on more chips than the previous bettor but the sum is wrong, it will be interpreted as the minimum raise.

Again, zero reason to touch #1, and #2 should be "A minimum raise must be equal to or greater than the opening bet unless a larger legal raise is now facing an 'in turn' Player. This Player's total minimum bet consists of the 'call' amount plus the desired raise amount."

Hmmm, don't understand what's an "in turn" player?

And good on you for writing this without looking at the TDA but can you find an official link/formula/quotation for this?

Welcome to the forums .. there is help here, but you really kind of came in here guns blazing with some words against 'the bible'. GL

Lol. Hope my post doesn't confuse anyone but brings in some transparency among so many different poker rules.

Simplified

'Any raise must be at least equal to the size of the last raise. In the case of a player raising an opening bet, the raise must be at least equal to the size of the open bet. A big blind is considered a live, force, opening bet (it is live, as the big blind still has all his or her options available to them)

You can use examples to clarify

The first person to act preflop may fold, call the big blind, or raise at least 1 big blind. Let's say that they decide to raise 2 big blinds to make the bet 3 big blinds. The next person to act may fold, call 3 big blinds, or raise. If they raise, their raise must be equal to or larger than the previous raise (which was 2 bb).

If your house rules want the minimum raise to be double the current bet, then that's the way it will be. But you'll be putting your Players into a position where this will not be the case if they play most anywhere else.

There is a 'standard' rule set .. TDA 2019. It's easy to Google and get the PDF copy. The TDA reviews the rules of poker every 2 years to discuss if any adjustments need to be made to accommodate the evolving poker landscape. The 'issue' with this is that every room, like your own 'room', doesn't instantly adopt any changes that have been made. Sometimes it can take a very long time due to a casino being under local gaming regulations that require all rules to be reviewed by that authority. Sometimes it's not worth the effort to go through that process, so you end up with rooms that have 'old' rules for years.

The 'in turn' Player is the Player who action is currently on to make a decision about their holding.

Have fun with your game, the basics are relatively simple but any entity that contains (human) variables ultimately ends up with situations that can make it seem complicated. GL

I've always found that trying to simplify rules usually leads to crap rules.

Aye, that's our challenge. To simplify or not. Human variables are our problem.

Almost nobody would understand this:

Second problem, too many rule changes confuse them and game pauses too often. Makes it boring and players won't come anymore.

Got a good example for this case?

1) As of 2019 (pre CV) 'research' estimated that over 100 million people were playing poker world wide. I'm going to stretch and say that 99 million of them completely understand that statement.

2A) Changes? Are you referring to your game changing to what is typically standard world wide? Lots of games evolve over time. As the game host you are there to help them through. Humans typically adapt very quickly, especially when it comes to games.

2B) Boring? A rules discussion can almost always liven a game up since there are Players with different levels of opinions on the rules. It can sometimes be even better than the game itself.


The fact that you are helping organize a poker club is great. The posters in these forums want you to be successful and grow your club .. and maybe even send a few more Players to this site for reference and growth of their own understanding and skill within the game.

There are two things that worry me .. One, you are spending a lot of time making assumptions about your Players inability to grasp rule sets that are already in use for Players from ages 12 to 100. There are Players who travel to the US (and vice versa) who don't know a lick of the local language, but they can sit down at a poker game with very few issues.

Two, as I've stated before. Setting up a unique rule set will isolate your group and create difficulties should any group Player try to play outside the group. While it's definitely a worthy discussion, I think you're trying a little too hard to reinvent the wheel.

Also, you seem to already have your mind made up and are making wide 'assessments' of both your potential club members and the other estimated 100 million poker players already out there. Perhaps you had a bad experience? We don't even know your age or country.

I'm all for a good discussion and I don't think you came here for a debate. If you really want to simplify some rules, play Limit Poker where there's only 1 or 2 bet sizes. GL

Zero tolerance is full of examples. Kid ate a pop-tart into a gun and got suspended because it was then a weapon:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...964_story.html

This is not a case of a simple rule, but a case of a bad rule and an inflexible one. This example actually disproves your case, as the issue almost certainly came from an overly complex and interpretative definition of what a weapon was.

And trying to compare the ambiguity of creating a rule set to manage a bunch of students and a ruleset to govern the very specific and finite situations encountered in a poker game is, well, a bad idea.

My experience has been the opposite. Creating overly specific and granular rules leads to gaps and exploits.