Saturday, January 16, 2010

Again with the "reraise"

Just a couple of months ago I whined about people who say "reraise" when the action described is really just an ordinary raise. As it turned out, that was kind of a repost of another time when I had made the same objection, which I had forgotten about when I wrote the October post.

Well, I'm gonna do it again--this time knowing that it's ground I've covered before. There's a reason.

I just finished watching the first episode of season four of the Full Tilt Million Dollar Cash Game. As with season three, the lineup is stellar and the poker is mesmerizing. Top flight all the way.

But also as with season three, the commentators are kind of weak and annoying. In particular, they described ordinary raises as "reraises" every single time when there was a bet followed by a raise on or after the flop. I suppose I should at least give them credit for being so devoted to this mistake.

What made this error really stand out, though, was that they got the on-screen graphics guy in on it, at least once:



He, however, wasn't consistent like the commentators, and all the other times he correctly labeled the second action as just a "raise," like so:




I can't figure out what this particular pair of television commentators (David Tuckman and Gary Jones) have against the word "raise." Maybe they're part of a religious cult in which it's a forbidden word. Whatever the reason, they're seriously annoying me.

I really don't understand it. What's so difficult here? If there's no raise, there can be no reraise. On and after the flop, the action of the second player to act cannot ever be a reraise. How can you not know this? Are you also in some doubt as to whether a straight beats a flush?

If you don't understand poker enough to know the difference between a raise and a reraise, you shouldn't be sitting in the booth doing commentary for television. Get somebody who has some clue what the terminology means.

5 comments:

Grange95 said...

The misuse of "reraise" bothers me more than nails on a chalkboard. Then again, any use of the word "reraise" makes me reach for the taser. Especially at small stakes cash games or small buy-in tourneys, it sounds pretentious. What is wrong with just saying "raise", no matter how many raises have occurred in front???

BTW, I also hate football announcers who misuse "reverse" for a simple end around play, or "double reverse" for what is actually a reverse. The ball has to change direction of action to be a reverse.

Short-Stacked Shamus said...

From a reporter's POV, I can tell you from where I think this error comes... has to do with getting tripped up between describing preflop & postflop action.

Preflop when that first person bets an amount larger than the BB's forced bet, it is a raise. Then the next raise is a reraise. Clear enough.

Then after the flop, that first bet is not a raise, but a bet, and the second one a raise (not a reraise). But the reporter/commentator is affected, I think, from how the action would have been described preflop, and thus comes the error. The making of which I'm generally willing to forgive (but then I've got extra sympathy for the reporter/commentator's plight).

Then again it might be that cult thing.

Michael said...

Ahh I find this sooo annoying. They are getting paid, therefore they are PROFESSIONAL commentators you would expect them not to make mistakes you would expect on a micro stakes online cash table

Brett said...

What about the term "open-raise" to describe post flop betting? I see this used in articles by poker writers quite often. If you open-raise then is the next raise a reraise? Just wondering ;)

Grange, I can't agree with you more on the end around/reverse/double reverse thing. I would be willing to bet it is called incorrectly by announcers the majority of the time. Irritating.

Rakewell said...

I've never noticed "open raise" used for the first post-flop action. I have seen it used for the first pre-flop action, though.