An E-Mail About Poker Rules – When can the betting be reopened?

I get a lot of e-mail these days from people with poker rules questions. This helps me continually improve my poker rules, Robert's Rules of Poker. I found the following e-mail to be especially interesting, because it called attention to a situation that's not covered by my rules set – or any other set of poker rules, as far as I am aware. Yet it is clearly a situation that the rules should cover. Here is that communication, lightly edited by me. (It was sent to a number of other people besides me.)

"I am writing regarding a rules question/issue for no-limit hold'em. I work at a newly opened cardroom, and believe that management misunderstands an important rule. If you could take the time to consider the following scenario, I would greatly appreciate it. The question concerns the reopening of betting, specifically the application and meaning of the 'full-bet' rule. I have looked on the Internet and at rulebooks, but most examples I have found do not explore the rule adequately.

Here's an example: In the following fivehanded scenario, Player A bets $100, Player B raises all in for a total of $160 ($60 more but not equal to the established bet of $100), Player C raises all in for a total of $240 ($80 more than Player B and $140 more than Player A's original $100 bring-in), and Player D calls $240. May Player A now reraise or just call an additional $140? If you could answer this question with a simple, 'Yes, Player A may raise' or 'No, Player A may not raise, just call or fold,' I would greatly appreciate it. Of course, any elaboration is welcome, as well.

It is important to me that my cardroom has the best rules.

Below are some more details of the problem if you are interested. I seek your counsel not because of some fetish with exotic derivatives of poker rules, but because I am concerned. As our rules are now, a player could be asked to put in more than he originally bet without the option of reraising, which I believe is a gross error in the formulation of our rules, because it exposes a player to unfair risk.

At my cardroom, the core of our debate revolved around the difference between Player B's $160 all-in raise and Player C's $240 all-in raise. My boss contended that since the difference was only $80 (not $100, and thus not equal to or greater than Player A's original bet of $100), Player A could not reraise the caller, Player D. I contended that as soon as any all-in raise equals the bet for that round ($100 in this example), the pot is now open for raising by the original bettor, and that the difference between Player B's and Player C'sall-in raises is not material to the debate.

Returning to the example, Player C's all-in raise to $240 reopens the betting to Player A because the difference is $100 or more between Player A and Player C ($140). Furthermore, the minimum reraise for Player A would be $140, for a total of $380, since $140 is now the newly established bet for that round. Am I thinking correctly?"

I answered him by agreeing with his viewpoint, as follows. "Yes, Player A may raise. He bet $100 and the bet back to him was another $140. It does not matter how it got to $140."

One of my friends also got this e-mail, and sent me the following message: "The attached e-mail message has caused some heated disagreement. Two directors believe the original player should not be able to raise, since neither raise was legal. Two others (all four are prominent) believe the original player should be allowed to raise because the first all in was not a raise and the second was."

I think this situation is worth further discussion, because it apparently was capable of creating disagreement between knowledgeable poker people. I would like to analyze the situation and show you my approach to handling any argument concerning rules, whether the rules be poker, governmental, or whatever.

The two most important questions that must be asked when one is deciding which rule to use are as follows: First, what is fair? Second, what is practical?

I do not see fairness when the order of the players going all in controls whether or not a player can raise. In other words, if Player B were in Player C's seat and vice versa, and they both went all in, the betting would be reopened, despite the fact that the amount of money in the pot would be identical and the actions taken by subsequent players would be identical.

I see two practical difficulties if the player is not allowed to raise. The first difficulty is that to administer the rule in a manner that forbids a raise here, you must not only look at the current situation, but must backtrack to how it arose.

Most players would think that a player who bet $100 and was faced with a wager of $140 more could raise, so it is possible that the law could be broken because no one realized that the $140 wager arose incrementally. And if someone did remember, maybe he would speak up only if he was going to be injured by a raise, and "fail to remember" if he was the person who wanted to raise, or was an all-in player hoping for the protection of a raise that might knock out opponents. In addition, when the tournament director comes to the table, one cannot relate to him the situation without explaining the history. In some cases, there might even be a difference of opinion on the history, which would require it to be ironed out. At the very least, the ruling will clearly take longer to be administered.

The second difficulty is that a player who is contemplating going all in has additional factors to think about. Suppose that the game were $10-$20 limit. (Yes, the concept of combining all-in wagers also applies to limit play. In limit poker, half a bet or more constitutes a raise.) It is a $20 betting round and you have $22 left. In a multihanded pot, the first player bets $20. You have a good hand and act next. Is it OK to go all in, or should you just call? That sounds like a silly question, but it is not – if the house uses the rule I am knocking. You see, the player on your left has $31 left. If you go all in and he goes all in, the betting would not be reopened. So, maybe you should just call (assuming that this bad rule is in use), as you want the betting reopened. Or, what if a player pushes your $2 back and tells you to save it, as sometimes happens? Now, why should any player have to deal with all of that baggage, instead of just putting the $2 all in into the pot along with the call, and not have a measly $2 affect whether the betting is reopened or not?

I think you can see that the situation we are discussing is not a case of "it does not matter what rule you use, as long as you have a rule." It is clearly better to allow a player to raise anytime he faces a wager that is a legal-size raise, regardless of how it got to be that size.

In my newest version of RROP, I will have the following rule: "Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to individually qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise."

I hope you remember to ask these two questions whenever you cast a vote concerning laws. What is fair? What is practical?