Is this normal??

[Misfire]

Had a problem today with UB. Is there a limit on how many times the bet can be raised, or did my software just mess up?

bighowie is at seat 2 with 3975.
Billygunz32 is at seat 3 with 2095.
arkrunner1 is at seat 4 with 2145.
Misfire is at seat 5 with 1320.
JaeReed is at seat 6 with 1405.
MagMotor is at seat 8 with 3650.
Peppar is at seat 9 with 410.
The button is at seat 9.

bighowie posts the small blind of 20.
Billygunz32 posts the big blind of 40.

bighowie: -- --
Billygunz32: -- --
arkrunner1: -- --
Misfire: A/images/graemlins/heart.gif A/images/graemlins/spade.gif
JaeReed: -- --
MagMotor: -- --
Peppar: -- --

Pre-flop:

arkrunner1 raises to 80.
Misfire re-raises to 300.
1 fold
MagMotor calls.
Peppar goes all-in for 410.
3 folds
Misfire calls. <font color="#CC0000">&lt;--- Here I wanted to push, but the controls disappeared.
I could only call.</font>
MagMotor calls.

[pokerlaw]

I get that on UB also. What is the deal with that?? It seems to only happen when a small stack is all in, but I dont understand why you can't push and then a side pot, if a caller obviously, opens up? strange...

[kyro]

The all-in raise was less than the initial re-raise of 220. He would have to be all in for 520 or more for you to be able to raise.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
The all-in raise was less than the initial re-raise of 220. He would have to be all in for 520 or more for you to be able to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

How's that for a load of crap. Of course I push after the flop and caller w/ AKos and catches a runner runner flush to put me out. ARGH!!!

[elonkra]

[ QUOTE ]
The all-in raise was less than the initial re-raise of 220. He would have to be all in for 520 or more for you to be able to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same scenario happened to me on Stars a couple of weeks ago. If this is a rule, I was unaware of it, and it seems really dumb to me.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The all-in raise was less than the initial re-raise of 220. He would have to be all in for 520 or more for you to be able to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same scenario happened to me on Stars a couple of weeks ago. If this is a rule, I was unaware of it, and it seems really dumb to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

let's say you raise from 100 to 500. one guy calls. guy goes all-in for 501. you really think you should be able to reraise?

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
let's say you raise from 100 to 500. one guy calls. guy goes all-in for 501. you really think you should be able to reraise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Short stack was allowed to raise less than min. If someone else is in the hand, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to create a side pot. Maybe that's just a rule I missed. Had I known some dude's all-in for less than a min raise would prevent me from pushing, I would have just put shortie all-in from the start.

[elonkra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
let's say you raise from 100 to 500. one guy calls. guy goes all-in for 501. you really think you should be able to reraise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Short stack was allowed to raise less than min. If someone else is in the hand, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to create a side pot. Maybe that's just a rule I missed. Had I known some dude's all-in for less than a min raise would prevent me from pushing, I would have just put shortie all-in from the start.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell yes.

[tjh]

A raise must be the size of the previous bet or the size of the blind.

So an all-in that is more than a bet but not a raise is a special case.

Look at it this way..

Should I be allowed to raise .25c ? This would allow me to take the last raise and keep the pot small. That is not the idea of betting.

Therefore the above rule. It is a good rule.

--
tjh

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
A raise must be the size of the previous bet or the size of the blind.

So an all-in that is more than a bet but not a raise is a special case.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would make sense, except last night I had another hand where BB was like 100, shortie raised all-in UTG to 175, and someone else was still able to come over the top.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A raise must be the size of the previous bet or the size of the blind.

So an all-in that is more than a bet but not a raise is a special case.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would make sense, except last night I had another hand where BB was like 100, shortie raised all-in UTG to 175, and someone else was still able to come over the top.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's because the re-raiser hadn't raised yet.

Say it looks like this:
Blinds 100/200
MP1 raises to 500
MP2 raises to 550 (all-in)
MP3 calls

MP3 could raise if he chose to do so, because he hasn't put in a raise yet. But if the action comes back to MP1 (as it is above, MP3 just calling), he can't raise, because he's essentially raising twice in a row. The MP2 all-in doesn't count as an actual raise because it's not a full raise. Think of it as calling for more than an actual call. Naturally if you put in a raise and everyone calls, you can't decide you're going to raise again. Same idea.

[Misfire]

That makes more sense, thanks.

[Misfire]

Ok question...

Say BB is 100, UTG raises to 400, UTG+1 pushes 425, and MP1 wants to raise. What is the min raise?

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
A raise must be the size of the previous bet or the size of the blind.

So an all-in that is more than a bet but not a raise is a special case.

Look at it this way..

Should I be allowed to raise .25c ? This would allow me to take the last raise and keep the pot small. That is not the idea of betting.

Therefore the above rule. It is a good rule.

--
tjh

[/ QUOTE ]

This post should end the discussion.

[Nick M]

pretty sure it's 700

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
This post should end the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
MP3 could raise if he chose to do so, because he hasn't put in a raise yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think later posts kept it going, sorry for forcing you to keep reading this thread.