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?

[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.

[Spooky]

If your going to follow Robert's Rules of Poker he can only call because he was not fully raised... I'll look it up if I can, but I know thats right.

edit - this is from http://www.homepokertourney.com/betting.htm under "No-Limit Rules"
[ QUOTE ]
3. All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. A player who has already checked or called may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.) Example: Player A bets $100 and Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn’t fully raised. (Player A could have raised, because Player B raised.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[Cassius]

Exactly right... The $1 raise doesn't count for anything besides being in the pot, it has nothing to do with the big blind either - a player must raise at least $15 in this situation for it to be a real raise (and cannot raise less than that unless going all-in like B)

From Robert's http://www.diamondcs.net/~thecoach/RobsPkrRules3.htm (scroll down to no-limit rules):

"All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. A player who has already checked or called may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)

Example: Player A bets $100 and Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn’t fully raised. (Player A could have raised, because Player B raised.)"

-------

Well yeah, looks like I was a second late with this =) 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.

[Big Country]

spooky got to it before me -

The rasie was not a fullraise, so the guy with aces DOES NOT have the option to re-raise, he may merely call the extra $1. If Player C had raised, then the guy with Aces could have re-raised, but that did not happen.

[SamIAm]

Wow. Good call, Spooky. I voted incorrectly! It's almost as if popularity isn't the best way to decide a ruling decision. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I want my vote back.
-Sam

[mrmookid]

I agree with Spooky. The minimum re-raise is now 15$. The first player who went all-in (making it to 16$) never re-raised. Therefore player A has no chance to re-raise.