Minimum = Double the Last Bet in NL (4 Viewers)

[Jimulacrum]

Suppose there's a rule that, in NL games, the minimum raise is not the last increment but double whatever the last full bet was. For example:

Normal rule: Player A bets $5, Player B raises to $15, Player C raises the minimum to $25.
Doubling rule: Player A bets $5, Player B raises to $15, Player C raises the minimum to $30.

This also changes what qualifies as a legitimate raise when someone goes all-in, for the purpose of reopening the action. For example, if Player C were going all-in for the $25 under the doubling rule, Player B would not be able to reraise, whereas it would reopen the action and allow a reraise under the normal rule.

Personally, I think the normal NL rule makes perfect sense, and there's no need to change it. I'm sure a lot of you agree. But that's not my question.

My question is: Do you think there are any real downsides to this approach, apart from the fact that it's not the norm? Any game management or fairness issues?

 

[Kain8]

The betting rises even more dramatically from a geometric perspective depending upon the opening bet with the doubling rule.

i.e. Player A bets $20, Player B raises to $60, now player C has to at least raise to $120 instead of $100 under the normal rule. The difference in between the two rules is the amount of the opening bet.

The doubling rule would massively incentivize fast playing / opening for larger amounts, knowing that it's going to cost your opponents a higher price to play back at you in the first place. In turn, it would really devalue making speculative re-raises preflop in NLHE due to the inherent higher price to do so.

 

[BarrieJ3]

I think it’s easy and quick, and normally if I’m min clicking that’s what I’m doing (doubling) cause I’m not going to be bothered with remembering the last raise increment (so I may not be literally min clicking, but in my head I am).

I don’t think there’s any “unfairness”, it’s just a small wrinkle/change.

That being said, I don’t think there’s a need to institute personally. Almost 100% of games I’ve played prob average somewhere around 1.5 all in players per hand, and/or have multiple players uncomfortable with the sizing of bets/frequency of all ins already - most of the time feels like an all in or fold tourney but for cash.

My experience may be unique to circus though, and this may have more application to hold em and super duper deep stack games.

 

[upNdown]

I’d wager that a large percentage of the poker-playing public believes this doubling business to be the actual rule.
I think @Kain8 gets it right above, at least for games with people who can play. But for your average $1/3 game or average home game, I bet you wouldn’t notice a difference.

 

[Bacon Dad]

I’d wager that a large percentage of the poker-playing public believes this doubling business to be the actual rule.
I think @Kain8 gets it right above, at least for games with people who can play. But for your average $1/3 game or average home game, I bet you wouldn’t notice a difference.

Agree, although I don't know what geometry has to do with it. @Kain8

But why dumb it down and take away a small advantage over players who don't know the rules?

 

[Jimulacrum]

But why dumb it down and take away a small advantage over players who don't know the rules?

In the couple cases within my experience, it's precisely to keep things simple for people who don't know (or lack fluency) with the proper rule.

As someone who's usually in the "advantage" column, if it makes the game easier for casual players, good. I don't want that kind of advantage.

 

[Jimulacrum]

The betting rises even more dramatically from a geometric perspective depending upon the opening bet with the doubling rule.

i.e. Player A bets $20, Player B raises to $60, now player C has to at least raise to $120 instead of $100 under the normal rule. The difference in between the two rules is the amount of the opening bet.

The doubling rule would massively incentivize fast playing / opening for larger amounts, knowing that it's going to cost your opponents a higher price to play back at you in the first place. In turn, it would really devalue making speculative re-raises preflop in NLHE due to the inherent higher price to do so.

This all makes sense in theory, but how common are minimum bets in your game?

 

[Bacon Dad]

In the couple cases within my experience, it's precisely to keep things simple for people who don't know (or lack fluency) with the proper rule.

As someone who's usually in the "advantage" column, if it makes the game easier for casual players, good. I don't want that kind of advantage.

I was thinking of play in a casino.

If it is a home game, I get it. But even then, I don’t want to teach new-ish players how to calculate min bets incorrectly. If they ever find themselves in a real casino, I want them to know how it is really done.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I was thinking of play in a casino.

If it is a home game, I get it. But even then, I don’t want to teach new-ish players how to calculate min bets incorrectly. If they ever find themselves in a real casino, I want them to know how it is really done.

Oh yeah, in a casino, the rule should be the standard so people know what to expect. And in most home games, I agree with your sentiment.

But these are the two places I've encountered the double-the-bet rule:

• A cheeseburger-level freeroll tournament—featuring Montel Williams in the field!—with 10 or 12 tables IIRC, where several of the dealers and many of the players were inexperienced.*
• A tournament in a private club where several of the players are elderly people, including a stroke victim and multiple players who've recently dropped out due to dementia. Even the non-elderly folks are mostly casual players.

Spoiler: *

The point of the event was to promote Poker Training Network, some bullshit poker software Williams was a partner in, where you'd pay like $40 a month for play chips and some pretty underwhelming "coaching," poker-boom style. The software offered virtually no value to customers, and the sales structure was a classic pyramid scheme. Obviously this project flopped or you might have heard of it.