Connection failed: SQLSTATE[28000] [1045] Access denied for user 'fidpauser'@'localhost' (using password: YES)

62 Raise Requirements

    62.1

  • The minimum raise required must always be equal to or larger than the amount of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, unless a player has moved 'all-in' for less; then it’s a call of the total amount bet and can never be seen as a raise.

  • 62.2

  • If a player puts in a raise of fifty percent (50%) or more of the previous bet, but less than the minimum raise required, he or she will be required to make a full raise.

    The full raise amount required to complete the action will be the amount of the minimum raise required.

    a) In NO-LIMIT, the first minimum raise requirement, after the flop, must be at least double the big blind amount.

    Additional raises may be in increments equal to or more than the previous raised amount.

    b) In NO-LIMIT and POT-LIMIT, an 'all-in' bet of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.

    There is NO cap on the number of raises in no-limit and pot-limit games.

    c) In LIMIT betting structured games, the maximum number of raises will be 1 bet and 4 raises, until 'heads up' play; in certain situations, a venue’s house limit will apply.

    If the player raises 'all-in' for LESS, a raise must be at least half of the limit to constitute a raise.

  • 62.3

  • When facing a bet, unless a raise is first declared, multiple same-denomination chips are a call.

  • 62.4

  • There is no cap on the number of raises in no-limit and pot-limit play. In limit events there will be a limit to raises even when heads-up until the tournament is down to 2 players; the house limit applies.

42: Methods of Raising

In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by A) pushing out the full amount in one motion; B) verbally declaring the full amount prior to pushing out chips; or C) verbally declaring “raise” prior to pushing out the exact call amount then completing the raise in one additional motion. In option C, if other than the exact call amount but less than a minimum raise is first put out, it will be ruled a minimum raise. It is the responsibility of players to make their intentions clear.

43: Raise Amounts

A: A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round. If a player raises 50% or more of the largest prior bet but less than a minimum raise, he must make a full minimum raise. If less than 50% it is a call unless “raise” is first declared. Declaring an amount or pushing out the same amount of chips is the same (See Rule 37-C). Ex: NLHE, opening bet is 1000, verbally declaring “Fourteen hundred” or silently pushing out 1400 in chips are both calls unless raise is first declared. See Illustration Addendum.

B: Without other clarifying information, declaring raise and an amount is the total bet. Ex: A opens for 2000, B declares “Raise, eight thousand.” The total bet is 8000.

44: Re-Opening the Bet.

In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing at least a full raise when the action returns to him. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted. See Addendum. 

45: Oversized Chip Betting

When facing a bet or blind, pushing out a single oversized chip is a call if raise isn’t first declared. To raise with an oversized chip, raise must be declared before the chip hits the table surface. If raise is declared but no amount, the raise is the maximum allowable for the chip. When not facing a bet, pushing out an oversized chip without declaration is a bet of the maximum for the chip.

46: Multiple Chip Betting

When facing a bet, unless raise is declared first, a multiple-chip bet is a call if every chip is needed to make the call; i.e. removal of just one of the smallest chips leaves less than the call amount. Example: preflop, 200-400 blinds: A raises to 1200 total (an 800 raise), B puts out two 1000 chips without declaring raise. This is just a call because removing one 1000 chip leaves less than the amount to call (1200). If the single removal of just one of the smallest chips leaves the call amount or more, the bet is governed by the 50% standard in Rule 43. See Addendum.

47: Previous Bet Chips Not Pulled In

A: If a player bets when facing a raise and has chips in front of him not yet pulled in from a prior bet, the “prior” chips (and any change due) may affect whether his action is ruled a call or re-raise. Because several possibilities exist, players should declare their bets before putting out new chips on top of prior-bet chips not yet pulled in.

B: If facing action, clearly pulling back prior bet chip(s) binds a player to call or raise.

48: Number of Allowable Raises

There is no cap on the number of raises in no-limit and pot-limit. In limit play there is a limit to raises even when heads-up until the event is down to 2 players; the house limit applies.

Rule 43: The largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round.

This line refers to the largest additional action or “last legal increment” by a preceding bettor in the current round. The current round is the “current street”, i.e. pre-flop, flop, turn, river in board games; 3rd– 4th – 5th – 6th – 7th street in 7-stud, etc.

Example 1: NLHE, Blinds 100-200. Post-flop, A opens with a bet of 600. B raises 1000 for total of 1600. C re-raises 2000 for total of 3600. If D wants to raise, he must at least raise the “largest bet or raise of the current round”, which is C’s raise of 2000. So D must re-raise at least 2000 more for a total of 5600. Note that D’s minimum raise is not 3600 (C’s total bet), but only 2000, the additional raise action that C added.

Example 2: NLHE, Blinds 50-100. Pre-flop A is under the gun and goes all-in for a total of 150 (an increase in the bet of 50). So we have a 100 blind bet and an all-in wager that increases the total by 50. Which is larger? The 100 is still the “largest bet or raise of the current round”, so if B wants to re-raise he must raise at least 100 for a total of 250.

Example 3: NLHE, Blinds 100-200. On the turn A bets 300. B pushes out two 500 chips making the total 1000 (a 700 raise). It is 1000 to C to call. If C wants to raise, it must be “at least the largest bet or raise of the current round”, which is B’s raise of 700. So C’s minimum raise would be 700 for a total of 1700. Note his minimum raise is not 1000, B’s total bet.

Example 4-A: NLHE, Blinds 25-50. A raises 75 to 125 total. NOTICE that 125 total = 50 (bet) plus 75 (raise).  The next raise on this street must be “at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise”, which is 75. B now raises the minimum (75) to 200 total. C then re-raises 300 for total of 500. We now have a bet of 50, two raises of 75 and a raise of 300 for total 500. If D wants to re-raise, “the raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round”, which is now 300. So D would have to raise at least 300 to a total of 800.

Example 4-B: Same as 4-A. It’s the same 500 to D, but there’s just been one raise of 450 by A to a total of 500 and B and C have both called. So there’s a blind bet of 50 and a raise of 450. “A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round”, which is A’s raise of 450. So it’s 500 for D to call, and if D wants to re-raise he must raise at least 450 for a total of 950.

Rule 44: Re-opening the bet.

Example 1. Series of short all-in wagers that add up to a full raise and thus re-open betting:

NLHE, Blinds 50-100. Postflop, A opens betting for the 100 minimum.

B goes all in for a total of 125. C calls the 125,

D goes all in for 200 total and E calls 200.

Action returns to A who is facing a total raise of 100. Since 100 is a full raise, the betting is re-opened for A who can fold, call, or raise here. Note that neither B’s increment of 25 or D’s increment of 75 is by itself a full raise, but when added together they total a full raise and thus re-open the betting to “a player who is facing at least a full raise when the action returns”.

Example 1-A: At the end of Example 1 above, A smooth calls the 200 total (another 100 to him). The bet is now on C who is only facing a 75 increment. C called the 125 previously and is now facing 200 total (a 75 increment). Because 75 is not a full raise, the betting for C is not re-opened and C can either put out an additional 75 or fold, he cannot raise.

Example 1-B: At the end of Example 1 above, A raises the minimum (100), and makes it 300 total to C. C already has called 125 so it’s an additional 175 for C to call. 175 is more than a full raise. Since C already acted and is “now facing at least a full raise”, the betting is re-opened to C who can fold, call, or re-raise here.

Example 2Short all-in, 2 scenarios.
NLHE, Blinds 2000-4000. Pre-flop A calls the BB and puts out 4000. B folds and C pushes all-in for 7500 total (an increment of 3500 above the 4000 BB). It’s folded around to the SB who also folds.

Example 2-A. It’s 3500 more to the BB who has not yet acted on his option. The BB can fold, smooth call the 3500, or raise by at least 4000 for a total of 11,500. The BB smooth calls and it’s 3500 more to A. A has already acted and is facing 3500 which is not a full raise. Therefore A can only fold or call the 3500, he cannot raise because it is not “at least a full bet when the action returns to him”.
Example 2-B. The BB raises the minimum (4000), for a total of 11500. It is now 7500 to A and because 7500 is more than a full minimum raise, betting is now re-opened for A who can fold, call, or re-raise.

Rule 46: Multiple Chip Betting.

When facing a bet, unless raise is declared first, a multiple-chip bet is a call if every chip is needed to make the call; i.e. removal of just one of the smallest chips leaves less than the call amount… If the single removal of just one of the smallest chips leaves the call amount or more, the bet is governed by the 50% standard in Rule 43.”

Example 1: There is not one chip that can be removed and still leave the call amount.

1-A: Player A opens post flop for 1200, B silently puts out two 1000’s. This is a call because neither chip can be removed and still leave at least 1200.

1-B: NLHE, blinds 250-500. Preflop the UTG raises 600 to total of 1100. The UTG+1 silently puts out one 500 chip and one 1000. This is a call because neither the 500 nor the 1000 can be removed and still leave at least 1100.

Example 2: Same as 1-B above except the UTG+1 puts out one 1000 and five 100s silently. Four of the 100s could be removed and still leave the 1100 call amount. Therefore this would be subject to Rule 41. The minimum raise is 600. 50% of 600 is 300. Therefore if the UTG+1 puts out 1400 or more, he will be held to making a full raise to 1700 total. Since the UTG put out 1500 he must raise in this example.

Example 3: Same as 2 above except the UTG+1 puts out one 1000 and three 100s silently. Two of the 100s can be removed and still leave the 1100 call amount therefore this is subject to Rule 41. Since the player did not put out at least 50% of a minimum raise, this bet is ruled a call and 200 is returned to the player.

Marcel Luske:

Players interests always first, FIDPA supports Poker Events with www.fidpatravel.com globally & with International Rules fair and transparent for all.

Bharat Agarwalla:

The India Poker Series supports FIDPA because it's the complete and only set of International Poker Rules globally.

Kenny Hallaert:

We love to play with the International Poker Rules from FIDPA, they include all Tournament Directors Association (TDA) Rules.

Juha Helppi:

Same rules for everybody everywhere would be ideal in poker. We need to work together to accomplish that!

Jens Knossalla:

Wieso macht jeder seine eigenen Regeln, dass verwirrt und macht es unnötig kompliziert.spiel doch mit faire und einheitliche Int. Regeln weltweit.

Thor Hansen:

One set of International Poker Rules for all international poker events globally, I support that, period.

Oanh Bui:

Don't make a complicated game more complicated for all participants. Play with one set of International Poker Rules only.

Jake Cody:

Consistency is the key. With international rules in place and less discrepancies, there's more time for playing poker.

Rob Yong:

I firmly believe that a worldwide uniform set of international rules for poker designed, reviewed and improved by a group of experienced players, is the way forward. As a venue owner myself, I embrace this concept.

Michelle Lau:

The International Poker Rules were created to unite the poker world by providing fairness and consistency, and can be easily modified by any card room or Tournament Director to comply with local laws and regulations.

Jack McClelland:

We have a large number of international poker players in our Bellagio events on a regular basis. We make sure they are comfortable with the International Rules and maintain consistency in rulings worldwide. We continue to enjoy a successful partnership with FIDPA.

Chris Moneymaker:

I like to compete and be the best. With International Poker Rules it's a fair playground for all.

Liz Lieu:

Of course we need international rules if we play international events all across the globe for millions of dollars a day.

Michael Mizrachi :

Educating dealers at the Academy about poker etiquette and professionalism is easy with International Poker Rules, creating knowledge and skill and so we support this young industry.

Robert Mizrachi:

To learn, play, or deal International Poker Events these days needs one set of fair and consistent International Poker Rules. No more, no less.

Stacy Matuson:

Poker once known as a man's world with its many sets of rules, now has more class with one set of International Poker Rules showing fairness and equality.

Eli Elezra:

Poker has become international, and international events should be played with international rules to ensure consistency and fairness for all.

Erich Kollmann:

Poker event organizers invite international players from various countries. They should play by International Poker Rules, fair and consistent.

JJ Lui:

I support the International Poker Rules, because I believe it is very important to play by them in any international event.              

Noah Boeken:

It's simple. Play international poker events with international poker dealers and International Poker Rules! 

Simon Trumper:

IP Rules have been created after discussion and feedback from players at all levels, and finally challenging situations can be addressed.

Hamy Wahjudi:

While traveling a lot, Poker is my second home, and with International Poker Rules "the world is my castle".

Sham Patel:

Playing poker with International Rules ensures a fair experience providing me with confidence to play in a safe poker environment.

Michal Wisniewski:

Dzięki regulaminowi FIDPA zostały raz na zawsze rozwiane wątpliwości co do sportowego charakteru pokerowych rozgrywek. Polski Związek Pokera korzysta wyłącznie z International Rules Of Poker.

Antonio Esfandiari :

No magic or discrepancies, so play with the International Poker Rules, period.

Govert Metaal :

Of course playing poker on an international level needs to be guided and played with International Rules.

David Ulliott:

I have witnessed so many bad decisions over the years, and then Management apologizes after. At least with one set of International Rules it’s consistent for all.

Nicky Roeg:

No Raise? Why do I have to show first? To avoid these questions we need International Rules. I support FIDPA!

Tony Hachem:

It is important for the players to have one global set of International Poker Rules regulated and supported by the poker industry as a whole. 

Ruben Visser:

Finally a standardized set of International Rules for all tournaments I compete in!

Maryann Morrison:

Women should all support FiDPA. We have long advocated equal treatment in poker.

Myra Marento:

Can't forget the WSOP 2009, with so many dealers and rules from everywhere...nice experience, but really frustrating. I hope it's better now.

Danijela Matusinskij:

To have fair and consistent decisions globally based on International Rules will gain credibility with governments, leading to better acceptance of the game.

Pantea Persepolis:

Product quality is a must for any business to be successful, so we at Pokerlicious support International Poker Rules.

Patty Tolk:

Starting to play international poker events has shown me the importance of the International Poker Rules as a basic guideline.

Steve Wong:

Playing with international poker rules globally is a must to safeguard the future of poker for players and operators.

Johnny de Mol:

Any international event should be guided with International Rules, especially today, as we have become global competitors.

Natalie Hof:

International Poker Rules eliminates the emotional tension or stress, and brings in a transparent standard of fair play for the global poker industry.

Valerie Ross:

Playing with International Poker Rules will ensure fairness and fun, period!

Marco Traniello:

Poker rules must be basically the same all around the world, with respect to the local gaming laws as well.

Vanessa Selbst:

I've learned to play by the rules, and playing by International Poker Rules will be the most consistent and fairest way for all to compete.

Phil Ivey:

It's Poker I play globally, so one set of International Poker Rules is the most consistent and fairest way for everyone.

Jan Heitmann:

International Poker Rules?  Of course! No matter if you are Italian, Russian, German, from China or elsewhere, it's the fairest thing to do.

Paul Dransfield:

In every game or sport, it is vital you know the rules. Those that do will without doubt have an edge over the ones that don't. To have one global set of recognized poker rules will make this great game even bigger and more fun to play.

Jim Webster:

A level playing field for everyone, with fairness for all no matter what country you happen to be playing in.

Dennis Waterman:

It would be wonderful playing under one set of rules, no matter where you go.

Alex Japy:

Managing events of high quality, I love to work with IP Rules of course. They're simple, fair and transparent.

Patrik Antonius:

Add credibility and fairness to the game of poker globally, and play by International Poker Rules.

Sam Trickett:

Poker rules should be international, consistent, and fair for all players, and available in writing before an event starts - just like FIDPA requires.

Kristy Gazes:

Rules by the players, for the players, FIDPA is the answer.

Freddy Deeb:

It's always better to know the Rules are International, and so fair for all.

TJ Cloutier:

Poker rules should always be international, especially in international events.  
 

Joe Beevers:

One set of International Poker Rules would make it so much easier globally for the players and everyone that is working in the poker industry.

Mel Judah:

The International Poker Rules is what we need globally in any Casino that runs a poker tournament, whether they have first time, relatively inexperienced, or seasoned dealers handling the cards.

Johnny Chan:

Playing with International Poker Rules is fair and consistent, and the best protection for players, amateurs and pros alike!

Layne Flack:

Is that a real question? Of course we need one set of international rules to play by, and FIDPA offers them for free!

Danny Ryan:

I strongly support FIDPA and the standardization of Internnational Poker Rules across borders and cultures.

Phil Hellmuth:

Poker: a great international game that should be played the fairest way possible at all times, with International Rules!

John Duthie:

To ensure that a universal set of transparent, international poker rules are adopted by all live venues for tournament poker, all credible casinos or card rooms should be using the IP Rules,

and players should check that these rules are in place before playing at any venue.

Paul Jackson:

Bluffing is not my strongest part so i like the protection of playing by the International Poker rules from FIDPA.

Rob Hollink:

Poker will be at its most consistent and fairest for all when International Poker Rules are used, of course!

Thommy Lam:

Well thought out and clear poker regulations. It should be the standard everywhere, and FIDPA is a huge plus for the game.

Chris Moorman:

 

It is dumb that there is not one set of International rules for poker currently. This needs to be fixed ASAP for the sake of the game so we can make sure that poker continues to grow throughout the world.

FIDPA Endorsed Members