Misprint, or am I losing my mind?

[Jordan Olsommer]

GSIH, p. 50:

"But when you have the button, as you do this hand, most of the warnings come before you act. Only one of the two blinds can spring a surprise raise on you. So when it looks safe, you can slip in with the vulnerable hands you had to avoid in early position."
(emphasis mine)

OK so for the past five minutes or so, I've been drinking coffee and staring at the wall and trying to figure out how the hell that statement can be true. Does EM play in games where the big blind is dead for some reason? Is there some alternate definition of "surprise raise" with which I was heretofore unfamiliar?

This is seriously bugging me. You know how you're in the car or some other place without access to a computer and you suddenly think "what was the name of the actor who played so-and-so in that movie I saw?" and it bugs the living crap out of you until you can find out? Same thing here. I'm sure it's just something ridiculously simple that I'm missing, but I'm damned if I can see it.

[Ed Miller]

I meant, "only two more people can raise." I didn't mean, "Only one of the two remaining players can raise... the other one can't raise."

Having reread it, the wording is more than a little ambiguous. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant, "only two more people can raise." I didn't mean, "Only one of the two remaining players can raise... the other one can't raise."

Having reread it, the wording is more than a little ambiguous. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, ok - it took me a few seconds to be able to re-parse it, but I see your intention now. THANK YOU for answering that question; that was really causing me to question my own sanity for a second there.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant, "only two more people can raise." I didn't mean, "Only one of the two remaining players can raise... the other one can't raise."

Having reread it, the wording is more than a little ambiguous. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No apology necessary, Ed, your wording was perfect, for 2 reasons.

#1 After the initial raise, you are no longer surprised.
#2 Only one of the remaining players CAN raise; any others would be reraises... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[binions]

I understood exactly what you meant.

[jojobinks]

i'm staring at the wall trying to figure out how the wording was vague or confusing.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm staring at the wall trying to figure out how the wording was vague or confusing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the difference between "only one of the two blinds can raise, the other one cannot" and "the only players left who can raise are either of the two blinds".

If you had parsed the sentence the latter way the first time you read it, you wonder how anyone could find it vague. If you parsed the sentence the former way the first time you read it, you'd wonder how anyone could find it clear.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I meant, "only two more people can raise." I didn't mean, "Only one of the two remaining players can raise... the other one can't raise."

Having reread it, the wording is more than a little ambiguous. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No apology necessary, Ed, your wording was perfect, for 2 reasons.

#1 After the initial raise, you are no longer surprised.
#2 Only one of the remaining players CAN raise; any others would be reraises... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Touche