|
View Poll Results: shave it? | |||
yes | 6 | 27.27% | |
no | 16 | 72.73% | |
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rule for bets when someone is all in
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) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rule for bets when someone is all in
[ 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) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rule for bets when someone is all in
wrong
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rule for bets when someone is all in
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rule for bets when someone is all in
"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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rule for bets when someone is all in
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] |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rule for bets when someone is all in
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.
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rule for bets when someone is all in
Player A is then more than welcome to raise. (re hachkc's situation a post above, if you're viewing this flat)
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rule for bets when someone is all in
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
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rule for bets when someone is all in
I admit I was wrong, just don't tell my wife I said that.
|
|
|