Tuesday, June 30, 2015

The Check Raise That Wasn't

Those of you who follow me on Twitter (and if you don’t, why the heck not?) saw my tweet last night about a questionable interpretation of the rules for raising in No Limit Hold’em that I witnessed at the Aria.  Since it normally takes me 1,000 words to tell a 150-word story, there was no way I could tweet out the issue, but fortunately I have this very blog where no one can limit the amount of words I use to tell a story.

In doing so, I want to make clear that I think Aria is one of the premier poker rooms in Vegas and what I witnessed in no way affected that  opinion.  If, as I suspect, I witnessed an incorrect ruling, I chalk it up to the fact that the ruling was made by a human (well, two, actually, counting the dealer) and that to the best of my knowledge, we have yet to discover the human being who has never made a mistake.

The game at Aria is 1/3 and I had only recently taken my seat.  The player on my immediate right limped in to the pot, and I raised to $15 with Ace-Queen of clubs.  A player behind me called, the blinds both called, and the limper called.

The flop was King-7-3, two spades and a red card.  Not exactly a great flop to me.  I figured I was done with the hand but it checked to me, with only one player who hadn’t acted left.  The manner in which everyone checked—very quickly—made me consider a continuation bet.  Ordinarily with that many players I wouldn’t do it, but it was early, I had my full $300 starting stack, and I have seen such a bet work on occasion…..and if it didn’t work, I’d have time to get it back.  So I put out $40 with nothing more than one overcard and a backdoor straight draw.

The last player folded but one of the blinds, a woman, put all her chips in, but it was $49 total, just nine bucks more than my bet.  The last player left, the guy to my immediate right, asked if he could re-raise.  Note:  At the time, I wasn’t sure if he had asked if he could re-raise or if he was asking if I would be allowed to re-raise if he merely called.  The second question was certainly legitimate—not knowing what he had, he might want to call if he knew it was just $49 but would think twice if the preflop raiser was allowed to bump it up some more.  However, it soon became apparent that he was specifically asking if he could raise the $49 bet he was now facing.

The dealer said no, he couldn’t raise. His explanation was that her raise was not at least 50% of my bet.  It had to be at least half of my bet again in order to re-open the action.

I’ll refrain from my own commentary until I finish the story.  But I said nothing.  Other players insisted that he could raise.  I’m not sure if the player facing the bet questioned it all that much but two other players not in the hand were adamant that he could raise.  The dealer called the floor, and received the full explanation of the situation from the dealer.

The floor said that he couldn’t raise because the bet wasn’t more than half the bet she was facing.  In other words, if she had been able to go all-in for $61, he would have been able to raise.  That’s my own example for illustration, not what the floor said, but that was the clear interpretation of what both the floor and the dealer were saying. The other players pointed out that she hadn’t raised the player facing the bet, she had raised me, and that he hadn’t put any money into the pot at this point on this street.

The floor asked if the player facing the bet had acted at all on this street.  When told he had, but that he had checked, the floor ruled that since he had had a chance to act on this street, and had checked, he couldn’t re-opening the betting because the lady’s all-in was not large enough to re-open the betting.

And so, that was the ruling.  The player to my right could only call.

I swear this is a completely accurate retelling of what occurred at the table last night.

OK, so what do you think of this ruling?  How many mistakes do you see made by the floor and the dealer?

I count two. 

The player to my right was not trying to raise the lady, he was trying to raise me.  The fact that he had initially checked means nothing, unless this is the first poker room I’ve ever played in that doesn’t allow check-raising!  But in fact, the lady herself had checked-raised me!  So, of course he could raise…he could raise me.  The only thing that was a question in my mind was what his minimum bet would have to be.  Would he be allowed to bet only $80 (double my bet) or would he have to bet at least $98 (double the lady’s bet)?  I’m assuming that $98 is the right answer.

But seriously, how could he not be allowed to check-raise there?  How was the fact that he had initially checked the flop relevant to whether or not he could raise?  Check-raising is a key part of poker.  He had obviously checked hoping that I would c-bet and I had totally fallen into his trap.  


Note: clearly if he had just called (as he ended up doing), the betting would be closed to me, I would not have been able to re-raise.  But that brings me to the second mistaken ruling at the table by the dealer and the floor.

Both of them stated that the action could only be re-opened if the lady’s all-in was 50% or more of the bet she was facing.  For the player to my right, that was irrelevant, as I’ve just explained.  But for me, if he had just (voluntarily) called, it was totally incorrect.  The 50% rule applies to limit games.  In No Limit hold-em, it’s 100%.  Many dealers—and even floor people—get this wrong.  I did a post not long ago covering this very topic.  You can find it here.

Say I had hit the flop, and would have been more than happy to re-raise there.  I couldn’t have because her bet was only $9 more than my bet.  But even if her all-in was $79, not $49, I wouldn’t have been able to raise, because this is No Limit, not limit hold-em.

Note, in that post I just linked, there was some back and forth, and it was determined that there are actually some poker rooms across the country that do have it as a house rule that re-opening of a NL betting is the same as in a limit game.  But I would be totally shocked if Aria was one of the rooms with that particular house rule.

Anyway, to finish off the story with the results of the hand, for those curious, the guy called the $49.  I knew I was badly beat, but for the size of the pot, I couldn’t fold for a measly $9.  The pot was over $200!  So I threw away another nine bucks on a gazillion-to-one chance I still had a shot at the pot.

The turn card was another 7, and the guy on my right shoved all-in for about $200.  I folded like a cheap suit.

Turns out he had flopped a set of 3’s and turned the full house.  The lady had a weak flush draw.

Note….I think the shove was not a great play on his part, but I think because he couldn’t raise the flop he was already in shove mentality (because of the flush draw) and couldn’t stop himself when he turned the boat.  Not that it made any difference, I wouldn’t have put another penny into that pot at that point.

I should point out though, that the error did cost me $9.  If he had been allowed to raise on the flop, a real raise, not just nine bucks, I would never have called it, and saved myself the nine bucks.

After the hand, we were all discussing how absurd it was that the floor ruled the guy couldn’t check-raise.  But I was the only one noting that the 50% interpretation was incorrect as well.

Unless I’m wrong?  So, dealers, floor people, poker room managers…..please let me know.  Have I gotten anything wrong?

Or did I just witness what humans sometimes do….make mistakes?

(Edited to add: a bit of a follow up to this story can be found at the bottom of the post here).

32 comments:

  1. Where the 50% or more rule applies to No Limit is when a player behind you (who is not all-in) puts in $60 or more but less than $80, then they will have to complete the minimum raise to $80. The player to the right of you who checked should be able to raise you and make it $80 because the $49 all-in was not a full raise. Even if the all in was for $79, the person who checked can technically make it $80.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Anony, but I think (like the Aria folks) you are confusing limit with no limit. There's no limit on the max, only question is what the minimum acceptable raise, or if a raise is allowed if the all-in is less than a 100% increase from the bet that's being raised.

      Delete
    2. Rob, I understand what you're asking. Maybe I didn't word it correctly. Raise should be allowed. I used to work @ V, under their rule book, the minimum that he can raise is $80. Under the WSOP Live Action Rules, the minimum raise is $89. I guess it depends on the room.

      Delete
    3. OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm ok with their being some wiggle room in how much the minimum he could raise could be, that's kind of tricky question, could easily vary from room to room.

      Delete
  2. Rob

    This is probably one of the worst rulings I have heard of. The player clearly has all 3 options open to him ie fold, call or raise. Nothing more to say than disbelief a major poker room can make this basic error. Are you sure this isn't a late April Fool??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks....nope, I couldn't make this up, saw with my own eyes, and since I was in the hand I was definitely paying full attention

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Thanks, Kat....that was my feeling at the time. In fact it was so bad, I couldn't believe, and wondered if I was missing something about a rule I didn't know about!

      Delete
  4. Would he be allowed to bet only $80 (double my bet) or would he have to bet at least $98 (double the lady’s bet)? I’m assuming that $98 is the right answer.

    It's no limit, so the player can bet whatever he wants to, including all in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand that, my question was what was the minimum he could raise to, not the maximum he could bet. He couldn't, for example, raise the $49 to $55, right?

      It turns out neither suggestion I had was correct. My buddy @AvoidOddLaw tweeted to Matt Savage, the TD of the WPT tour and asked. The player to my right definitely could have raise, and the MINIMUM amount of his raise was $89, not $80, not $98. I guess the logic is the full amount of the raise, plus the extra the all-in put in.

      Delete
  5. The turn card was another 7, and the guy on my right shoved all-in for about $200.

    By the way, when you turn the effective nuts, shoving is -EV. You're supposed to get value.

    You didn't say, but I assume he drove out the flush-draw lady?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I addressed the player's "bad play" in the post. I think he was mentally committed to shove on the turn when he couldn't raise on the flop. He couldn't switch gears fast enough when he saw that he actually now had a full house and no longer had to be concerned with a flush draw. He should have taken a breath and checked or bet smaller, but he probably started pushing his chips forward before he even saw the 7 on the turn.

      Actually, MOJO, the flush draw lady was all in before the action got to him, so she wasn't a concern for him. He was trying to get me out and/or get value from me. He did get the extra 9 bucks only because it didn't make sense to fold when I could see the next card in such a huge pot for a tiny amount.

      Delete
  6. 1. As everyone has concluded, guy who checked absolutely should be able to raise. Look at it this way: If the woman had a zillion chips and had put in a full legal raise, THEN could he raise? Sure, of course. Conversely, if she had a zillion chips but just called your bet, could he raise? Sure, of course--perfectly standard check-raise. So it makes no sense to say that he can't raise when she does something in between.

    2. You are also correct that the floor was erroneously importing the half-bet rule from limit poker to no-limit, where it should have no application. (I'll take your word for it that there are poker rooms that have this as a house rule, but I don't think I've ever encountered it.)

    3. I think Matt Savage's answer about the minimum raise is correct. When I was in dealer school, we were taught that what the woman did should be called "action on a bet," since it can't be called a raise. In effect, his minimum raise is first to call the current bet + action ($49), then also put in the minimum raise to your bet, which is another $40. Because the woman's action on your bet was not a raise, it does not become part of the amount that he has to double.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Grump. I especially appreciate the explanation about the min raise the guy would have been allowed to make if the correct ruling had been made.

      As for the 1/2 bet rule being used in NL in some rooms, if you read thru the post I linked, the reader, Ed, went back to the room where his hand happened and they told him that is the house rule there.

      Our mutual friend Alaskagal (Kristi) has reported that some rooms have that rule--or at least she has heard the floor insist that that is the house rule in that room. She suspects they are actually wrong and are too lazy to actually look it up!

      Delete
  7. Actually, I would have to agree with the ruling. A similar question was asked, and this case was answered here: stackexchange, quoting the TDA rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Herb, but I have to disagree. Whoever answered the question in that link you provided confused limit and no-limit, just as the floor at the Aria did! And he provided the evidence to prove this.

      If you read the two paragraphs of Rule 41 that he quoted, Part A does not state whether it refers to limit or no-limit (or pot limit). That's where he's getting his erroneous info from. But Part B specifically refers to No-Limit & Pot-limit. By inference, that means Part A is referring only to Limit. And reading part B clearly leads to the same interpretation that I have, and that everyone who has responded (except you) has.

      So if the responder in that link had read the two parts more carefully, he would have realized he erred in his response to the question.

      In fact, he allowed for the possibility that other rooms require the full bet, not half the bet, to re-open the action. Maybe where he's from, the limit rule is more common in NL games. I dunno. But if he's using the TDA rules, he's got it wrong.

      And again, we have the tweet from Matt Savage, probably the most expert of experts on TDA rules.

      Delete
    2. I stand corrected.

      I have played in bar leagues where the 50% rule has been applied in NLHE, and that accounts for some of the confusion. Primarily, I didn't think he should be able to re-open the action, based on her action, but I realize now that it's because of your bet that he can.

      It took re-reading the link I shared, and several other posts regarding this question. to help clear it up considerably, although there is some debate over the interpretation of the rules in similar situations.

      Delete
    3. The farther you get away from a major Vegas poker room, the more likely you are to see strange rules. Didn't expect it at Aria tho.

      Delete
  8. The player had never acted on your bet, right? She did not have $40 committed? Your bet reopened the pot for her then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally confused by your comment Greg, I think you have a wrong pronoun.

      The player not allowed to bet (per floor ruling) had never acted on my bet, but it was a "he" not a "she". The "she" was the player who reacted to my bet of $40 by moving all in for $49. And note: the first time, after the flop, that she had a chance to act, she had checked. I bet behind her, then she moved all in, which since it wasn't enough to be a "real" raise wasn't actually a check-raise only be a technicality.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, thought that the player that wanted to reraise was the she. I actually had to read your post a second time. First time I read it, it was obvious to me the floor had made the correct ruling. I typed up a whole paragraph explaining this, and then thought... "Rob knows the rules better than this" and went back and reread it...

      Take the ALL IN player out of of the equation, and it becomes clear. He checks, you bet $40, he is allowed to Call, Raise, or Fold. Adding a player all in the middle changes nothing.

      This is a pretty bad decision.... makes no sense to me how a floor and a dealer at a major casino could get this wrong...

      I see everyone get the 50% reopens thing wrong though... in fact I think that rule is misused so often that it has become the unofficial rule.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Greg...I think at least half the dealers/floors in Vegas would miss the 50% thing on a rules test. It's really strange now because fewer and fewer dealers ever deal limit any more!

      Delete
  9. Sounds to me like Aria owes you nine bucks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm......I suppose that is one way to look at it...

      Still, it was my decision to take the million to one shot with those nine bucks.

      Delete
  10. Completely wrong ruling. He should have been allowed the c/r , as you already know. The 1/2 bet rule I have seen in many poker rooms, as their house rule. I cannot remember Aria, as its been awhile. Just one of those things. BUt either way, would not have applied in this case

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Karen.....I'm going to try to find it Aria has the 1/2 rule, but I doubt they do.

      Delete
  11. Rob, lots of reading and thinking on this post. Couldn't you reward us with a nice picture that's easy on the eyes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm.......I was beginning to think people didn't care one or the other about the boobie pics now that anger has stopped commenting.

      But...perhaps I can make it up next post.

      Delete
    2. Heh heh....you're welcome!

      Delete
  12. One major point I think we've all overlooked here is that apparently EVERYONE is sitting in wait to check-raise Rob...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They all just assumed I had pocket Kings.

      Delete