Question On Floor Ruling

[Nalapoint1]

B&M MTT. Blinds are t2000/t4000.I am in the pot with both blinds. I am UTG +3.I have t20,000. SB t25,000. BB t500.
Checked to BB who goes all in for t500.I call the bet and the floor is called over for a ruling. The other players not in the hand claim I have to bet a minimum of t4000 because there is still the SB to act behind me. This is a No Limit game.


The floor rules I must bet the Big Blind as a minimum.Before I explain the logic for my argument I would like to hear some other comments please.

PS: I did place third in this MTT and I thank all of you for that. I have made 4 final tables out of 13 B&M MTTs that I have entered this year.

[Nalapoint1]

well first of all.. utg+3 is more commonly.. MP2..

and yea the floor is right.

Edited by Exitonly (09/11/05 08:24 AM)

[Nalapoint1]

There isnt any logic in that ruling and it gives the BB an unfair advantage that the other players in the pot dont have.

So it gets checked to BB who goes all in for t500.Blinds are t2000/t4000.I call his all in but am forced to bet min. t4000.SB calls t4000 which is what happened. SB and I both get t3500 back from dealer .Where I think it is unfair is that the BB gets a chance to bet t500 , because that is all he has left,into a t12,000 pot.What happens later in the game when blinds are t100,000/t200,000.Three of us see a flop with t600,000 in the pot.Checks to BB who goes all in for his last t10,000. I have a hand I dont want to call t200,000 with and same with SB but we will call t10,000.Why should the BB have the chance to bet less than the other players

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
B&M MTT. Blinds are t2000/t4000.I am in the pot with both blinds. I am UTG +3.I have t20,000. SB t25,000. BB t500.
Checked to BB who goes all in for t500.I call the bet and the floor is called over for a ruling. The other players not in the hand claim I have to bet a minimum of t4000 because there is still the SB to act behind me. This is a No Limit game.


The floor rules I must bet the Big Blind as a minimum.Before I explain the logic for my argument I would like to hear some other comments please.

PS: I did place third in this MTT and I thank all of you for that. I have made 4 final tables out of 13 B&M MTTs that I have entered this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would get more and better responses if your post was clearer. Here's what I think you're trying to say:

It's folded to you in MP and you call the 4000 BB. It's folded to the SB who calls 2000 more. Now the BB goes all-in for his last 500. You try to call that 500 extra but the floor rules you must make it a full 4000 bet.

If that's the case, the floor is 100% wrong.

If this action is taking place after the flop then the ruling is 100% correct. Players in NLH must always bet minimum the size of the big blind after the flop. this applies even if a player is all in, if there are players to act after you you must bring the bet up to the minimum bet if possible.

[Dave D]

I think what he's actually trying to say is the floor forced him to call the 500 with 4000, instead of 500. This is standard.

What the dealer should have done is take 500 from you and the sb, and BB's last 500 and make a main pot out of it. Then he should have taken the rest (3500 from you and SB) and made a side pot and you keep playing. This is standard, go online and watch what happens in these situations.

But yes, there is no way you could just call 500.

OP, your original post is really confusing because you say "it's checked to the BB" but you don't say if you called (which I assume you did). Then you say he goes all in for 500, you don't say if it's 500 EXTRA from the BB.

[ewashingtons]

this is not standard. Both players should have been able to just call the 500. If either wants to bet that round then they would need to complete the bet to 4000. The 500 doesn't even count as a full bet however.

[Nalapoint1]

SB, BB, and I see the flop.SB checks, BB goes all in for t500.This is a no limit game.The floor says if I want to call the BB t500 all in I have to put in t 4000.If I want to raise I have to put in t8000 or I can fold.And same applies to SB.

My gut feeling is this was a bad call because it gives the BB the opportunity to take a pot by betting 80% less than the players that act behind him are forced to bet.

[Xhad]

In that case the ruling is not standard at all. If BB is all in for less than the blind (as in, he is supposed to post a 4000 blind and only has 500), anyone else entering the pot needs to call an amount equal to the big blind anyway, but on all future bets you shouldn't have to call more than whatever is bet.

[WhiteWolf]

According to Robert's Rules of Poker ( link (http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/rules.php)), the floor's ruling here would be incorrect, although it is not 100% clear. I think the relevant rule would be this from the No-Limit section:

[ QUOTE ]
4. “Completing the bet” is a limit poker wager type only, not allowed at big-bet poker. For example, if a player bets $100 and the next player goes all-in for $140, a player wishing to raise must make the total bet at least $240 (unless going all-in).

[/ QUOTE ]

The floor ruling looks like they are actually requiring you to 'complete the bet' coming from the BB here. Your actual options should be: fold, call 500, or raise to 4500 (or more) total.

However, there are no "official" rules of poker, and the final authority is always the house rules in place wherever you are playing. It would be interesting to see if the poker room you were playing at had published rules, and if so, does the floor ruling agree with what is in their rules.

[Xhad]

The relevant rule is in the general rules section:

[ QUOTE ]
5. In limit play, an all-in wager of less than half a bet does not reopen the betting for any player who has already acted and is in the pot for all previous bets. A player facing less than half a bet may fold , call, or complete the wager. An all-in wager of a half a bet or more is treated as a full bet , and a player may fold , call, or make a full raise . (An example of a full raise is on a $20 betting round, raising a $15 all-in bet to $35).

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason the no-limit section only specifically mentions that there is no such thing as "completing the bet" is because that's the only part that is different. The purpose of the no-limit section is to explain what is different from limit, everything else is assumed to be the same where applicable.