Suprisingly not a moan!

[Gus Mango Fish]

Originally Posted by LPL_Mike

There is 1200 in the pot... player A raised to a total of 1200 (1100 +100 bb)
Then player re-raised..so he calls the initial bet of 1200..and decides to do a minimum raise which would be 1100 this would then make the pot 2300

I think that is right.

lets just confirm and look at other example:

BB 400
Player A raises 3x the BB to total of 1200 (800 raise +400 bb)
Player B anounces re-raise ...so he calls the initial bet of 1200 while considering the raise (minimum raise would be 800) in total the raise would be 2000 (1200 + a raise of 800 =2000)

If there is 1200 in the pot after player A has acted, then it can't have been a raise (if we're talking post-flop here). You don't raise if you are first to act post-flop, you bet. Pre-flop if you are first to act, and you make a bet that is higher than the big blind, then you are indeed raising as there are already two blinds in.

[Gus Mango Fish]

Originally Posted by askldfhj

This isnt good when i have to reapeat myself and actually requote myself!!

Looking at the example above, the min raise IS in fact 2400. I WAS the first to act AFTER the flop and the BLINDS have nothing to do with it.

So for example; preflop me and you (mike) go hell for leather prelop and DONT put each other all in when the blinds are 50/100 (irelivant)..... and POST flop iam first to act and i bet 1200.... the min raise IS 2400..... All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise (<<<
So iam sorry to say this but not only does the 'new' venues need the rules but by the sound of it all the venues need the rules!

Iam sorry to sound like as ass hole... and iam sorry to sound like a fuckin moaning old man but CHRSIT there is a friggin WSOP seat up for grabs and it would be good that the winner knows how to min raise!

AND for the record if the winners of this promotion decide to min rasie at the WSOP they deserve to be shot......

.....becasue a min rasie is a truly awful bet IMO.....

And lastly i apologise if this comes across as a very abrupt post but iam on major tilt and i have been drinking far too much already!!! LMAO......

Have fun everyone!!! hehe

This is right. If you are talking post-flop, then Player A who was first to act hasn't raised, and as Lee says the blinds are irrelevant. Player A has just bet. The next person, if they wish to raise, must raise by the same amount as the previous raise if there has been a raise, or by the same amount as the previous bet, if there hasn't been a raise. Simplicity itself!

e.g.1: Player A first to act post-flop bets 1000. Player B, if they want to raise, must raise at least 1000. Therfore the minimum raise is to 2000.

e.g.2: Player A first to act pre-flop raises from 100 (the size of the big blind) to 1000. This is a raise of 900. Therefore if player B wants to raise they have to raise by at least 900 too. The minimum bet in this case is 1900.

100 > 1000 (a raise of 900) > 1900 (a raise of 900).

To further confuse matters, in the Irish Open, and most televised poker games, the size of the minimum raise is equal to the size of the last bet, not the size of the last raise!!

So, for example. Blinds 200/400. Player A raises to 1000. Player B must now raise to 2000 if he wants to raise (and not 1600 as you might think). This style of NLHE is "proper No Limit Hold'em" according to Mad Marty Wilson, and not the wuss-like version where a min raise is equal to the last raise.

[LPL_Mike]

Originally Posted by askldfhj

This isnt good when i have to reapeat myself and actually requote myself!!

Looking at the example above, the min raise IS in fact 2400. I WAS the first to act AFTER the flop and the BLINDS have nothing to do with it.

So for example; preflop me and you (mike) go hell for leather prelop and DONT put each other all in when the blinds are 50/100 (irelivant)..... and POST flop iam first to act and i bet 1200.... the min raise IS 2400..... All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise (<<<
So iam sorry to say this but not only does the 'new' venues need the rules but by the sound of it all the venues need the rules!

Iam sorry to sound like as ass hole... and iam sorry to sound like a fuckin moaning old man but CHRSIT there is a friggin WSOP seat up for grabs and it would be good that the winner knows how to min raise!

AND for the record if the winners of this promotion decide to min rasie at the WSOP they deserve to be shot......

.....becasue a min rasie is a truly awful bet IMO.....

And lastly i apologise if this comes across as a very abrupt post but iam on major tilt and i have been drinking far too much already!!! LMAO......

Have fun everyone!!! hehe

I knew it was to early in the morning to start trying to workout betting and raising!

Originally Posted by askldfhj
There is still some confusion about the min raises etc... just as an example i raised 1200 on the flop (first to act)

What threw me was you saying that you 'raised' when actually you were first to act and it was a bet..which of course means that the person who wants to raise must actually raise by the size of the previous bet which would be 2400!...

phew i think we finally got there!

[Raiser]

Originally Posted by LPL_Mike

I
What threw me was you saying that you 'raised' when actually you were first to act and it was a bet..which of course means that the person who wants to raise must actually raise by the size of the previous bet which would be 2400!...

phew i think we finally got there!

Yes got their eventually! LOL - sorry i used the worng word but i did put in brackets 'first to act' lol - well thats my defence anyway

But we all agreed and thats the main thing

So, is you offer still on to get some 'black and white rules' organised?

Anyway i really need to go to sleep now

[Hoof_Hearted]

Wow, didn't mean to stir up a hornets nest, but this is one rule that really needed to be clarified. As I said earlier, I have seen many different views on this matter and we really all need to be playing the same set of rules.

Talking about stirring up a hornets nest, there is one other important rule that different venues play differently. It is what happens when somebody raises all-in for less than the previous raise or bet. What is the required call for the next player. Here is an example.....

BB 100. After the flop, player A bets BB 100. Player B raises to 500 (a raise of 400). Player C, with two rags (suited, so they must be good), raises all-in for a total of 600 (a raise of 100, which is not a sufficient raise if he had enough chips). And now this is where it all goes wrong. If Player D is still to call, what amount must he call? Is it the previous raised bet from all-in Player C of 600? Or must he call 900? which is the lowest legal raise after Player B raised to 500.

I am sure that in a previous post, Mike said that because the all-in raise was insufficient for a legal raise, then all subsequent bets must be equal to or more than the next legal raise. Some venues are playing to this rule. Other venues are allowing subsequent bets to equal the all-in raise, even though it is less than the previous raise. Personally, I am all for calling the all-in raise.

[LPL_Mike]

Originally Posted by Hoof_Hearted

Wow, didn't mean to stir up a hornets nest, but this is one rule that really needed to be clarified. As I said earlier, I have seen many different views on this matter and we really all need to be playing the same set of rules.

Talking about stirring up a hornets nest, there is one other important rule that different venues play differently. It is what happens when somebody raises all-in for less than the previous raise or bet. What is the required call for the next player. Here is an example.....

BB 100. After the flop, player A bets BB 100. Player B raises to 500 (a raise of 400). Player C, with two rags (suited, so they must be good), raises all-in for a total of 600 (a raise of 100, which is not a sufficient raise if he had enough chips). And now this is where it all goes wrong. If Player D is still to call, what amount must he call? Is it the previous raised bet from all-in Player C of 600? Or must he call 900? which is the lowest legal raise after Player B raised to 500.

I am sure that in a previous post, Mike said that because the all-in raise was insufficient for a legal raise, then all subsequent bets must be equal to or more than the next legal raise. Some venues are playing to this rule. Other venues are allowing subsequent bets to equal the all-in raise, even though it is less than the previous raise. Personally, I am all for calling the all-in raise.

BB-100

Player A Bets 100
Player B Raises 500 (raise of 400)
Player C Raises allin 600
Player D calls 600

Player A calls 500
Player B calls 100

Side pot is now created ..turn card is dealt and the pot will now continue

That to me is the correct play.

[Gus Mango Fish]

Originally Posted by Hoof_Hearted

...there is one other important rule that different venues play differently. It is what happens when somebody raises all-in for less than the previous raise or bet. What is the required call for the next player....

This is something I've noticed a lot in home games too. There is a thread discussing this here

[Raiser]

OMG... after a night on the beer and coming back and posting and now reading everything again....... This turned into a friggin thread about MIN raising!!.....the world has gone mad!

[LPL_Mike]

Originally Posted by askldfhj

OMG... after a night on the beer and coming back and posting and now reading everything again....... This turned into a friggin thread about MIN raising!!.....the world has gone mad!

Actually i think this has been a very valuable post high lighting a few problems that need to be addressed throughout the LPL.
I have also considered a mass e-mail pointing out the basics of the 'betting & raising' so more people will be aware on how to correctly bet and raise.

Also if you have the same problem with someone trying to re-raise less then the minumum can you please make sure the organizer is aware of the situation, this would help clarify this for new players.

[DonkBox]

Originally Posted by askldfhj

.....becasue a min rasie is a truly awful bet IMO.....

Don't want to hijack the thread of anything lol! The 'min-raise' in your example was a truly awful bet. However i think there's a time and a place to use it. Off the top of my head, when you hold the nuts on the turn and a player bets into you. if the pot is small enough a min-raise will keep him in, whilst a bigger riase may cause them to fold. Or by check min-raising on the flop or turn if the board is paired you can represent a bigger hand than you have.
Likewise on the river a min raise or a chk min-raise often gets paid off whilst a bigger bet may not!

Now where's my flame proof suit...