Rule for bets when someone is all in

[varoadstter]

I was playing at a home game last weekend when the following happened:

Game is $1/$2 NLHE

Preflop:

Player A bets $15
Player B goes all-in for $16 (a $1 raise of the original bet)
Player C calls

Player A tries to go all-in for about $50 more but is told by someone at the table that he can't raise because the all-in before him was for less than the big blind. The guy running the game is not present so a free-for-all argument breaks out among the players about whether or not Player A can raise for $50 or not.

Eventually, he relents and the hand goes on. He was holding AA and lost to a straight on the river. He was furious, cashed out, and left.

Eventually the guy who is running the game comes by wondering what the hell happened and the people at the table fill him in. He says, "Of course he could have gone all in!"

Now, I completely understand that if the house says he can go all-in, then that's the rule. That's not my question. My question is what is the "normal" way this situation would be handled? I would appreciate written responses as well as poll responses.

Thanks. I'm trying to learn about this in case it every comes up at my home game.

[warewulf]

Since there's a call to his bet and a raise, he is protecting his hand by raising even more.

[hachkc]

You can raise the max anytime there is a bet to you.

By chance, was the guy who said he couldn't raise still in the hand. Maybe there was an ulterior motive going on here?

[jojobinks]

this is indeed a house rules situation. my understanding, however, and the way we play at my game, is that an all-in less than the minimum raise is not a raise. so the all in for 16, all the way up to 29.5, wouldn't be subject to a reraise.

other things i've heard:
half a minimum raise is a raise.
any raise is a raise (16 all in to a 15 raise).

your boy that was furious about AA getting cracked? tell him to get over it. it happens sometimes. he raised 7xbb, and some fishies called. that's not so bad. it didn't work out this time; oh well.

[Spooky]

If your going to follow Robert's Rules of Poker he can only call because he was not fully raised... I'll look it up if I can, but I know thats right.

edit - this is from http://www.homepokertourney.com/betting.htm under "No-Limit Rules"
[ QUOTE ]
3. All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. A player who has already checked or called may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.) Example: Player A bets $100 and Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn’t fully raised. (Player A could have raised, because Player B raised.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[Cassius]

Exactly right... The $1 raise doesn't count for anything besides being in the pot, it has nothing to do with the big blind either - a player must raise at least $15 in this situation for it to be a real raise (and cannot raise less than that unless going all-in like B)

From Robert's http://www.diamondcs.net/~thecoach/RobsPkrRules3.htm (scroll down to no-limit rules):

"All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. A player who has already checked or called may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)

Example: Player A bets $100 and Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn’t fully raised. (Player A could have raised, because Player B raised.)"

-------

Well yeah, looks like I was a second late with this =) oh well

[hachkc]

Two points here:
1. Homepokertourney - Discusses this and says that Player A shouldn't be able to raise. I don't agree with it but its in black and white here HPT - Betting (http://www.homepokertourney.com/betting.htm). If Player C had raised, Player A then could have gone all in.

2. Personally, I don't see how this isn't a raise, Player A still has to either call or fold. Plus, Player A & Player C can now have a side pot.

[Big Country]

spooky got to it before me -

The rasie was not a fullraise, so the guy with aces DOES NOT have the option to re-raise, he may merely call the extra $1. If Player C had raised, then the guy with Aces could have re-raised, but that did not happen.

[SamIAm]

Wow. Good call, Spooky. I voted incorrectly! It's almost as if popularity isn't the best way to decide a ruling decision. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I want my vote back.
-Sam

[mrmookid]

I agree with Spooky. The minimum re-raise is now 15$. The first player who went all-in (making it to 16$) never re-raised. Therefore player A has no chance to re-raise.

[mrmookid]

hachkc,

$16 is more than $15 (and that is why you consider this to be a raise)

However a raise in Hold'em must equal AT LEAST the big-blind. If faced with a raise the minimum re-raise is the amount to call PLUS the amount of the last raise.

Or just think of it this way.

Blinds are 10/20. I am first to act. I can either fold, call the $20, or raise. If I raise I cannot raise $1 (making it $21). I must make the raise at least $20 (making it $40 to play)

[Spooky]

[ QUOTE ]
Or just think of it this way.

Blinds are 10/20. I am first to act. I can either fold, call the $20 or raise. If I raise I cannot raise to $21. I must make the raise at least $20 (making it $40 to play)

[/ QUOTE ]
And if you had raised it from $20 to $100, for the next person to raise it needs to be at least to $180 (you effectively raised it $80 and he needs to raise you at least that much)

[Lottery Larry]

wrong

[Geoman]

Roberts Rules Version 3 and HPT use the following verbage:
"...a player who has already checked or called may not..."
Using this verbage the player would be able to go all in since he did neither, he raised.
Roberts Rules Version 5 has changed the verbage:
"...a player who has already acted and is not facing a full raise may not..."
Using the more resent verbage the player would not be able to go all in since it is his action that the other players are working on

[Lottery Larry]

"your boy that was furious about AA getting cracked? tell him to get over it. it happens sometimes. he raised 7xbb, and some fishies called. that's not so bad. it didn't work out this time; oh well. "

Why, exactly, was he looking to blast people out of the pot with AA to win the extra $16? Would he have been upset if they player had only called $15?

He was just steaming from the beat IMHO.

[hachkc]

I understand the point but I still don't know that I agree with it. To bad my opinion doesn't mean that the rule is wrong.

Question
Would this hold true if Player B's "All In" just happened to be $30 (call $15 + raise $15)? Would Player A be able to raise if Player C had just called? The situation is basically the same, it just happened to be that the All In was the minimum raise amount.

I seem to remember poker being so simple /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Lottery Larry]

No, the raiser has action that others are reacting to. I don't think the first version applies, but I don't know the entire passage.

[Cassius]

Player A is then more than welcome to raise. (re hachkc's situation a post above, if you're viewing this flat)

[Geoman]

I think that the verbage in version 3 was confusing and that's why they changed it in version 5 to get closer to the intent

[hachkc]

I admit I was wrong, just don't tell my wife I said that.

[MrGrob]

EXP:

Player A raises -- player B must now raise AT LEAST THAT AMOUNT...play C at LEAST THE AMOUNT of player B's raise.

EXP: PA raise to 100 -- player B can raise another 100 (200) or more, so lets say he reraises to 300 -- Player C may now reraise also, but it must be a raise that is AT LEAST 200 more (as was player B's). If player C does raise, then BOTH player A and B have a right to reraise when the betting gets back to them no matter what.

If player C just calls, then it is back to player A that CAN raise again if he wishes, as player B had raised him, and if player A just calls, the betting is over.

What happened in your home game is different. Here is why.

Player A canNOT reraise again, because Play B's raise (ALL IN) was LESS THEN 1/2 of the bet before him. Because his bet was less the 1/2 of player A's raise, and player C then just called, player A canNOT reraise here. An ALL IN has to be at least 1/2 the incriment for betting for it to reactivate any reraising.

Now, if player C (who has the right to raise because player A had raised) raises here, the min raise is still $15 (not 16, as B's was not a raise) which totals $31. Player A can reraise here, as player C's valid raise reactivated the betting.

Bottom line:

Any raises must be at least the size of the last raise, and any ALL INs must be at LEAST 1/2 of the current raise limit to activate any further raising from the player making the last raise before his all in (all him BOB). After he acts all in for less then 1/2 the current limit, only raising by other players after him, or who are to react again before BOB, can make it possible for further raising by reraising the last current correct raise amount. Side note, if player D's ALL IN was at least 1/2 the limit, it is a riase, but it does not make the raise limit any higher for the next raise...it ONLY makes it possible for other after to raise again as noted.

final EXP:

A calls the blind
B raises 100
C reraises 100
D goes all in for 225 total
E (has opt to call 225, or raise another 100 to 325)

if E calls,
A can call 225, or raise himself

if A calls,
B can call or raise again

if B calls,
C CAN ONLY CALL, as there were no further activating raises after D was put all in for less the 1/2 the current raise limit.

I will let you figure out who can do what with the different options I did not type out.

DISCLAIMER: PLEASE correct me if I am not correct 2+2'ers, but I believe this is correct. Thanks!!!

[Trantor]

As pointed out earlier in the thread the 1/2 bet rule you describe is for limit holdem. The original question asked about the rules for nolimit holdem.

[slamdunkpro]

Player A can only call since player B's all in was less than a full raise ($30). In other words you can't raise yourself.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
If your going to follow Robert's Rules of Poker he can only call because he was not fully raised... I'll look it up if I can, but I know thats right.

edit - this is from http://www.homepokertourney.com/betting.htm under "No-Limit Rules"
[ QUOTE ]
3. All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. A player who has already checked or called may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.) Example: Player A bets $100 and Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn’t fully raised. (Player A could have raised, because Player B raised.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


don't know why there is any argument here. Player A simply cannot re-raise. He can only call the extra $1 bet by Player B. In order for Player A to be able to Re-Raise, there must have been another raise at least equal to or greater than the full amount of the last full bet ($15).

Oh and by the way, the person that stated the minimum raise is equal to the amount of the Big Blind is wrong. This is true if there has not already been a bet or raise. However, if there has been a bet or raise, then the minimum amount to raise is the amount of the previous bet/raise.

[Lottery Larry]

I won't if you won't tell mine the next time I'm wrong! :P

[Lottery Larry]

"However a raise in Hold'em must equal AT LEAST the big-blind. "

This is true, but only by accident. Since the minimum opening bet at any time is the big blind amount, of course a raise has to at least double the previous bet and therebye equal to the BB amount.

As Stew mentioned below..

[MrGrob]

Ah, thank you!!! That is what I always thought till I was corrected incorrectly some time ago. Figures I should have double checked that advise...but he had played more then I had at that time, and having not played NL that much after, I never tought about it again till now.

[MrGrob]

And, dang, I read this WRONG last night. Guess I should have had more sleep before typing up a long winded "I shoud have RTFF" post /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Sorry all, I won't waste any more of y'alls time after this.

Peace...

[3rdEye]

To the best of my knowledge, he can only call, since the raise was was less than the original bet/raise. The size of the BB has nothing to do with it, since we are dealing with postflop action.

Or at least that's how I understand it.

[bolgenmod]

My question is: why didn't Player A bet all-in after the flop? That might have gotten Player C out. I assume it was Player C who made the straight on the river, because since B was all-in, there was no way to raise him out of the pot (and thus no need to be furious when A lost!).

By the way, this kind of situation is why it's a good idea to have a written set of rules -- you don't think you need them until it is too late!