Here is a question I was asked when aiding a poker website with advice on poker rules (I am paraphrasing). "According to poker rules, an all-in raise that is less than half of the structured raise is not a raise, only an 'action.' Does this mean that a player can go all in with a bet that is less than half of the structured bet size even if this 'raise' would be one more than is accepted at the table?"
My own poker rules do not directly address this question, nor do I know of any set of poker rules that does. As the question states, a bet of less than half a full bet is not considered a raise. Suppose a cardroom's rules state that a bet and three raises are allowed. Does this mean a player cannot go all in if he has less than half a bet left?
It is helpful to analyze the meaning of "cap" in poker parlance. If the betting is capped, it means a further increase of the pot size is not allowed. Since the players are assured that they will not have to pay any more money to see the next card, it would be improper to allow even a small increase in the amount one needs to pay to stay in contention.
I can remember some cardrooms a long time ago that stated the cap as a dollar figure. For example, if the game was $10-$20 with a three-raise limit, the cap on the fourth and fifth card was stated as $80 in the cardroom rules. To the best of my knowledge, cardrooms do not do this anymore, and simply use the number of raises to establish where the cap is located.
There are several scenarios in which a player could want to go all in after there has been a bet and three raises. Let's discuss each:
1. Each bet and raise on the betting round has been the maximum allowed. Here, it is obvious that an all-in bet is not allowed after the bet and three raises have occurred.
2. One of the earlier bets was undersize, meaning it was big enough to count as a raise, but not a full wager. As I explained, no one these days pays attention to whether a dollar sum has been reached, so I do not see how this could affect the situation. The player cannot go all in.
3. The third raise was not a full-bet size. For example, on a $20 betting round, the third raise is taken by a player who goes all in for $12. The next player wants to go all in for $20. This is an unclear situation, and one worth discussing if you are trying to formulate rules that will cover all situations. There are some good arguments for allowing or disallowing a player to go all in for a sum of $20 or less when a player in front of him has made the third raise for a lesser amount.
First, let's consider the argument for allowing the all-in wager to be made. Suppose you have $20 left, and are planning on going all in. Can you be deprived of this "right" by some player who is short-stacked? This does not seem fair. There was supposed to be a $20 betting increase open, and all the players who had money invested on the round were prepared for at least the possibility that they would have to pay an extra $20 if the third raise was made by someone. Can a short stack distort the betting on the round?
Those opposed to letting the player go all in also have a good argument. When the third raise was made, even though it was not the size of a full bet, the word "cap" was supposed to be uttered by the dealer. In a well-run cardroom, one of the required dealing procedures calls for the dealer to announce all caps. Once the dealer says, "Cap," every player has the right to assume that a call will allow him to see the next card. Allowing the total bet to increase after "cap" has been called out makes a liar out of the dealer.
How should you resolve a rules issue when there is a reasonable argument for either of two treatments? There is a trite poker saying that I cannot stomach. That saying is: "It does not matter what the rule is, as long as everyone knows it and the enforcement is uniform." Baloney. Of course it matters. I have yet to see a poker situation in which one rule was not innately superior to another. I am not a relativist; I am an absolutist. I look for the optimum solution, not just a workable one.
If two rules seem equally logical, I think the first "tiebreaker" is which rule is easier to apply. To me, the overriding principle is that a cap must be a cap. If someone goes all in with the third raise and it is not a full bet, what should the dealer say? "Cap unless someone goes all in for $8 or less" has the ring of an out-of-tune bell. I suppose one could require the dealer to say nothing if the third raise is less than a full wager, but that would be both stilted and inefficient. Allowing any increase in the total bet after the dealer has said "cap" is, of course, a corruption of the meaning of cap. So, the most practical rule is that a cap should not be exceeded regardless of any circumstances.
As you recall, the original question was asked in regard to a rule for an Internet poker site. Should this make any difference? I don't think so. It is a good idea to have the word "cap" appear in any poker context in which it applies. Even if one did not choose to do this on a certain site, Internet poker rules should follow live poker rules unless there is a good reason not to do so.
The conclusion: A cap should be a cap in any poker game.
Editor's note: Bob Ciaffone's new book, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, co-authored with Jim Brier, is available now (332 pages, $25 plus $5 shipping and handling). This work and his other poker books, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Holdem Poker, can be ordered through Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons. E-mail thecoach@diamondcs.net or call (989) 792-0884. His website is www.diamondcs.net/~thecoach, where you can download Robert's Rules of Poker for free.