Unable to re-raise on PokerStars like I can on UB

[maddo]

Hi. I made a deposit with PokerStars, and played for the first time on there today after playing mainly on UB. But something happened that seemed odd.

I had AA in MP. Blinds = 10/20. EP limped, I raised to 80, LP called, SB (who had 100) went all-in. EP called the extra 80. Now all I am able to do is call the extra 20. This confused me! On UB I can re-raise here, which is what I wanted to do, to get a lot more into the pot pre-flop. Is this something that only PS does? Or is it UB that does things differently? I thought that in NLH you can keep reraising as long as it's more that the minimum bet?

Can someone shed some light on it for me?

Cheers.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi. I made a deposit with PokerStars, and played for the first time on there today after playing mainly on UB. But something happened that seemed odd.

I had AA in MP. Blinds = 10/20. EP limped, I raised to 80, LP called, SB (who had 100) went all-in. EP called the extra 80. Now all I am able to do is call the extra 20. This confused me! On UB I can re-raise here, which is what I wanted to do, to get a lot more into the pot pre-flop. Is this something that only PS does? Or is it UB that does things differently? I thought that in NLH you can keep reraising as long as it's more that the minimum bet?

Can someone shed some light on it for me?

Cheers.

[/ QUOTE ]

this isn't considered a raise by the guy who goes all in, you should only be able to call, like you did, or atleast complete to 160. UB shouldn't allow you to reraise, actually.

[citanul]

Different houses use different rules.

The rule as it was applied in this case is the one that most people consider "correct." That being that if the all-in raise is under 50% of the bet to him, it cannot be used to create further action. I don't know what stars' policy on this is. In fact, I don't know what ub's policy is either. I just know that in general, the rule of thumb in a lot of places is as I stated, and it is consistent with what occurred.

Also, isn't it illegal in NL to raise less than the amount bet to you? So even on your line of reasoning, his raise would not have been "the minimum bet."

citanul

[PlayerA]

[ QUOTE ]
UB shouldn't allow you to reraise, actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure they don't.

[AAmaz0n]

[ QUOTE ]
Different houses use different rules.

The rule as it was applied in this case is the one that most people consider "correct." That being that if the all-in raise is under 50% of the bet to him, it cannot be used to create further action. I don't know what stars' policy on this is. In fact, I don't know what ub's policy is either. I just know that in general, the rule of thumb in a lot of places is as I stated, and it is consistent with what occurred.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the way I've seen it applied in every B&M card room that I've played in. You can't use a less than 50% raise from an all-in player to re-raise.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, isn't it illegal in NL to raise less than the amount bet to you? So even on your line of reasoning, his raise would not have been "the minimum bet."

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

You can always raise less than the minimum if you are going all-in. It just doesn't create a situation where anyone can complete the bet in NL.

I don't play limit a lot, so I'm curious what the situation would be there. I think that I've been able to complete raises ( but not re-raise) that were less than 50% from someone all-in in cash games.

Shauna

[Randy_Refeld]

"The rule as it was applied in this case is the one that most people consider "correct." That being that if the all-in raise is under 50% of the bet to him, it cannot be used to create further action."

That is strictly a limit rule. The rule for pot limit or no limit is if a player goes all in for less than a complete raise this does not reopen the action. Example: A bets $50 B calls $50 C goes all-in for $99 A and B may only call the $49 more they may not raise. The TDA has adopted the limit rule for tournaments probably becasue most players are more familiar with the limit rule.

Randy Refeld