No-Limit Hold'em Tournament Ruling

[jdlca]

I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this questions, but I would appreciate input on the correct ruling for the following No-Limit Hold'em tournament situation:

Blinds are T200 - T400, UTG raises to T1000. SB calls and BB goes all in for T1200. UTG then reraises all-in for T2900 total. It is my belief that because the BB only raised T200 (minimum non all-in raise would be T600 more), UTG does not have the option to reraise. He can only call the T200 raise. Is this correct? If so, what would be the minimum all-in raise that that would allow the UTG player to reraise?

Thanks in advance.

[Nottom]

You might want to try the tournement forum for this, but since you're here I'll give my thoughts.

I think you are correct that the all-in raise here doesn't open up the bidding again for the initial raiser. The original bet was 600, so in most cases I think the all-in raise needs to be at least half that or 300 in this case to reopen the betting.

In this case it sure sucks for the SB.

[SevenStuda]

Unfortunatly, your wrong. In limit games when there is a short raise the next action is bet completion. However in no limit, a short all-in raise can open up the flood gates like you experienced in your example.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Not true. The blinds still have the option to raise, but not the UTG player, since technically he hasn't been raised and can't raise himself. Even in NL, a raise has to be at least double the previous bet. UTG bet 1000 if the next player is all-in for 1499 or less, he hasn't reraised and all UTG can do (if the blinds don't reraise) is call.

[MrGrob]

If a raise had to be 2x the 1st raise, then would not that all-in for less then 2x the 1st raise NOT BE ALOUD TO RAISE? If he cannot go over 2x the 1st raise, for a legal raise, then he can't raise. I would think that ANY RAISE, can then open up ANYONE to RERAISE THAT. It would be very unfair for the UTG player to NOT be able to reraise that raise to him. Saying it have to be 2x more doesn't seem right.

Unless that is to protect the players somehow, I can't see that it makes sense...but I am no NO LIMIT expert, so don't take my word for it.

[slamdunkpro]

Kurn is correct. An All-In is different than a raise. Since UTG was the original raiser and was called, then all in'ed for less, it's just considered a call on both counts. You can't raise yourself

[tpir90036]

as others have said, the all-in has to at least be half of the raise to open up the betting again. in some places it has to be a full raise and if it is even one chip short the all-in doesn't reopen the betting. but most every place i have ever heard uses the 1/2 raise rule.

[MrGrob]

So, when there are 3 players left, and someone raises all-in for less then 1/2 the opening bet or last raise, as long as the last raise is the ONLY raise, then he can go all in, and no one can raise. I would think the only time that a reraise would be ok then is if A made it 50 to go, B raises to 150, C goes all in for 175, then A should have the opt, to reraise then, as he is looking at a raise that is more then 1/2 of his last raise. And, if A made it 50, B called, then C went all in for 70, then calling would be the only option now. Do I have this right now?

[Nottom]

Maybe.

Here are some situations with the standard 1/2 bet to reopen the pot rule.

Player A bets 100, Player B raises to 200, Player C goes all-in for 240.

Player A can reraise because he was raised by Player B. If Player A calls, Player B cannot reraise.

If Plaver C had 270 and went all-in then either player could reraise.

[tpir90036]

yes, that is what i meant, but he said it in a much more succinct manner. thanks nottom /images/graemlins/smile.gif

-tpir

[MrGrob]