Simple NL situation - what's the ruling?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Just for the record, this is a loaded question.

1-2 no limit.

Player one raises to $8.

Player two reraises to $40.

Player three calls $40.

Player four reraises to $80.

Player one folds.

Player two goes all-in for $100.

What are player three's options?

what if player two only went all-in for $85?

Remember, loaded question! Player three!

al

[PLOlover]

if 85 then the raiser can only call 5 dollars. But player three?

If 100 then raiser still can only call since 1/2 or more is limit rule, right? Or can he raise here?

I think player three, the caller, can raise if he wants to on either, but I'm not sure.

[Huskiez]

Player three can do whatever he wants: fold, call, or raise.

Player four reopened the action for him by reraising to $80.

Player 3 can call player 1's all in ($60 more) or fold. He can't raise because the $100 all-in is a $20 reraise - less than the minimum bet at this point of $40.

If it were an $85 all in his options would be calling $45 or folding.

But I'm sure I missed the loaded part of this question. Does Play 3 only have $45 more to start with?

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
Player three can do whatever he wants: fold, call, or raise.

Player four reopened the action for him by reraising to $80.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Randy_Refeld]

Player 3 can do whatever he wants, player 4's raise opened that action to the field. Player 2 did not raise so player 4 can only call when the action comes back to him (assuming player 3 only calls).

edit to add: Most places to raise player 3 must make it at least $140 to go. Some places he must mamke it $200 to go. The first rule is the more common rule, but the second rule is what some old timers told em is better and after hearing their reasoning, I am inclined to agree.

Player 3 is free to reraise a sum to his liking.

[ QUOTE ]
edit to add: Most places to raise player 3 must make it at least $140 to go. Some places he must mamke it $200 to go. The first rule is the more common rule, but the second rule is what some old timers told em is better and after hearing their reasoning, I am inclined to agree.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he ever have to raise to $200? I could understand some dispute as to whether Player three's minimum raise would be to $140 or $160 (I am inclined in this situation to say $160 but neither ruling would particularly offend me).

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
edit to add: Most places to raise player 3 must make it at least $140 to go. Some places he must mamke it $200 to go. The first rule is the more common rule, but the second rule is what some old timers told em is better and after hearing their reasoning, I am inclined to agree.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he ever have to raise to $200? I could understand some dispute as to whether Player three's minimum raise would be to $140 or $160 (I am inclined in this situation to say $160 but neither ruling would particularly offend me).

[/ QUOTE ]

One version of NL rules requires that the raise be at least the size of of total previous bet. The reasoning is to prevent collusion. Think of a situation with 3 players and 2 of them working togoether. They could make a series of minimum raises to go after the third players stack without the third player ever understanding the true nature of their actions.

I understand why $160 (double the $80) or $200 (double the 100), but could someone tell me why $140?

Thanks,
Will