Rule for bets when someone is all in

[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)

[Lottery Larry]

wrong

[Geoman]

Roberts Rules Version 3 and HPT use the following verbage:
"...a player who has already checked or called may not..."
Using this verbage the player would be able to go all in since he did neither, he raised.
Roberts Rules Version 5 has changed the verbage:
"...a player who has already acted and is not facing a full raise may not..."
Using the more resent verbage the player would not be able to go all in since it is his action that the other players are working on

[Lottery Larry]

"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. "

Why, exactly, was he looking to blast people out of the pot with AA to win the extra $16? Would he have been upset if they player had only called $15?

He was just steaming from the beat IMHO.

[hachkc]

I understand the point but I still don't know that I agree with it. To bad my opinion doesn't mean that the rule is wrong.

Question
Would this hold true if Player B's "All In" just happened to be $30 (call $15 + raise $15)? Would Player A be able to raise if Player C had just called? The situation is basically the same, it just happened to be that the All In was the minimum raise amount.

I seem to remember poker being so simple [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Lottery Larry]

No, the raiser has action that others are reacting to. I don't think the first version applies, but I don't know the entire passage.

[Cassius]

Player A is then more than welcome to raise. (re hachkc's situation a post above, if you're viewing this flat)

[Geoman]

I think that the verbage in version 3 was confusing and that's why they changed it in version 5 to get closer to the intent

[hachkc]

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