NL – “Half Bet Guideline” for Fixing Short Raises: Your Club's Rule?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rick,
Your box is full, no PMs.

edit: Or maybe this software is messing up as I can't get into my box either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've got that message that I'm supposed to delete a few hundred PMs. This sucks since there are a lot that I'd like to save and it will take me forever to go through them.

Anyway, my email is available under my 2+2 profile. And Outlook Express lets me save them all, even those Nigerian money scams. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean those are scams? Oh oh.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that in the real world (including the Bike, HG and other LA clubs) the floor isn’t always called and players often accept the intended raise to $200.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to bump an old thread but I just realized that right there is your guide to writing a guideline. You have to look at how the game is actually played and write a rule that reflects that.

Not jsut in this siutation, but in all situations any ruel you write shoudl be transparent to the players. Tommy Angelo explained to me long ago that the correct way to righ tpoekr rules is to observe how the game is played and write rules that reflect that. I would say that any time you write a rule that asks most of the players to change how they place chips in the pot etc you have written a bad rule.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that in the real world (including the Bike, HG and other LA clubs) the floor isn’t always called and players often accept the intended raise to $200.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to bump an old thread but I just realized that right there is your guide to writing a guideline. You have to look at how the game is actually played and write a rule that reflects that.

Not jsut in this siutation, but in all situations any ruel you write shoudl be transparent to the players. Tommy Angelo explained to me long ago that the correct way to righ tpoekr rules is to observe how the game is played and write rules that reflect that. I would say that any time you write a rule that asks most of the players to change how they place chips in the pot etc you have written a bad rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

We discussed Tommy's thoughts in another thread and I agree, yet I'm not sure how we aren't working toward that end here.

The *amount* of most raises is correct far more often than not. But when the amount is short, a guideline (or rule) IMO would be helpful.

I'm leaning toward a "half or more" guideline for correcting short raises. Perhaps it should be part of the dealers job to correct short raises, up or down, on the spot, reducing arguments and the need to call the floor. I think this is practical, but you have more experience so I'm curious what you think. If a player objects to a dealer's correction, the floor can still be called to straightened it out using the same guideline.

Based on Tommy's observations, I think the Hawaiian Gardens method is faulty, since it takes a raise away that is clearly intended (the one chip short raise). But the "half or more" guideline would be useful when needed, which should be fairly rare if other rules are well written.

~ Rick

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on Tommy's observations, I think the Hawaiian Gardens method is faulty, since it takes a raise away that is clearly intended (the one chip short raise). But the "half or more" guideline would be useful when needed, which should be fairly rare if other rules are well written.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. My post was in reply to yours, but more as genral info for the board and how these things should be done. The HG rule of trimming back an obvious raise is a bad rule. My only objection to something more than a half bet being a riase is that introducing anything about a hlef raise in a NL game is headed towards casusing a misunderstanding about when action is reopened with an all-in raise.

I have not played NL in a casino since 2002; how common is it that an incorrect amount is being put in as a raise? Also is a situation occurring where the is a $100 bet ans someone wants to raise to $150 (being new to poksr and not knowing how much to a raise has to be).

More than half a bet seems like a reasonable standard. Any amount short being trimmed back seems unreasonable.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Based on Tommy's observations, I think the Hawaiian Gardens method is faulty, since it takes a raise away that is clearly intended (the one chip short raise). But the "half or more" guideline would be useful when needed, which should be fairly rare if other rules are well written.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. My post was in reply to yours, but more as genral info for the board and how these things should be done. The HG rule of trimming back an obvious raise is a bad rule. My only objection to something more than a half bet being a riase is that introducing anything about a hlef raise in a NL game is headed towards casusing a misunderstanding about when action is reopened with an all-in raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you know, there is no half bet rule for the purposes of re-opening the betting for someone who has already acted. Good rule/guideline wording and training can keep it distinct from the "more than half bet guideline/rule" for correcting short bets.

[ QUOTE ]
I have not played NL in a casino since 2002; how common is it that an incorrect amount is being put in as a raise? Also is a situation occurring where the is a $100 bet ans someone wants to raise to $150 (being new to poksr and not knowing how much to a raise has to be).

[/ QUOTE ]

The very tiny raises (twice the original bet) or "juice the pot raises" or "donk raises" are more common in the real small NL games ($100 buy or less), but I see them in the 3-5 and 5-10 blind medium sized games I play quite often. Arguements over improper raises when these raises fall a bit short do come up all too frequently.

[ QUOTE ]
More than half a bet seems like a reasonable standard. Any amount short being trimmed back seems unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

Regarding Hawaiian Gardens, I do think their rule that a minimum reraise must be twice the amount the reraiser is facing is very good (i.e. standard rule is bet 1, min raise to 2, min re-raise to 3; HG rule is bet 1, min raise to 2, min re-raise to 4). This of course is separate from the issue of correcting short raises.

~ Rick