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?

[Lottery Larry]

wrong

[hachkc]

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

[Lottery Larry]

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

[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.

[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. 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.

[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)