What kind of behavior or habits would make you not want to come back? (1 Viewer)

[JustinInMN]

I've never come across this. So, if the blinds are 250/500, and I'm all in with 350, no one can raise on the current round?

Assuming Beaker meant preflop this doesn't change anything the minimum raise would be 1000 and the minimum call would be 500 unless all in as a player with 350 would be all in for less.

The key of the rule @CdnBeerLover posted is applying to players that have already acted. Say player A opens for 1000 and player C calls, then player D moves in for 1150. In this situation, barring any subsequent raises A and C cannot re-raise since they are not facing a full raise, (1000 to 1150), when anyone else at the table would have had to make it 1500 unless going all in.

However every player acting for the first time (say players E, F, G, H) after the short all in is facing a full raise (0 to 1150) and has all options available.

The rule is there to prevent A and C from an opportunity to reraise a bet that is only legal because of the all in exception.

 

[BGinGA]

Say player A opens for 1000 and player C calls, then player D moves in for 1150. In this situation, barring any subsequent raises A and C cannot re-raise since they are not facing a full raise, (1000 to 1150), when anyone else at the table would have had to make it 1500 unless going all in.

Actually, that last part (regarding the bet amount for those yet to act) is incorrect. It will never be 1500, except as noted below.

If blinds are 250/500 and A raises to 1000 followed by B's 1150 all-in, the minimum raise amount has not changed and is still 500 -- and any subsequent player facing first action can either fold, call 1150, or raise anywhere from 1650 to all-in. The current bet amount is 1150 and the current minimum raise amount is 500, so the only way one of those yet-to-act players can bet 1500 is if that is all they have and 1500 puts them all-in.

Similarly, if blinds are 500/1000 and A calls for 1000 followed by B moving all-in for 1150, any subsequent players yet to act may fold, call the current 1150 bet, or raise to at least 2150 up to all-in (since the current minimum raise amount is still 1000).

In either case above, the all-in player's bet is less than a full raise, and does not change the minimum raise amount that was in effect prior to his wager.

 

[JustinInMN]

Actually, that last part (regarding the bet amount for those yet to act) is incorrect. It will never be 1500, except as noted below.

If blinds are 250/500 and A raises to 1000 followed by B's 1150 all-in, the minimum raise amount has not changed and is still 500 -- and any subsequent player facing first action can either fold, call 1150, or raise anywhere from 1650 to all-in.

Similarly, if blinds are 500/1000 and A calls for 1000 followed by B moving all-in for 1150, any subsequent players yet to act may fold, call the current 1150 bet, or raise to at least 2150 up to all-in (since the current minimum raise amount is still 1000).

Yes you are correct. What I meant was the full raise would have been 1500 if D hadn't moved in for 1150. You are right about the short all in changing the legal raise to 1650.

When I said "anyone else at the table would have had to make it 1500 unless going all in" I was referring to a world where D doesn't make the short all-in, which is correct.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Actually, that last part (regarding the bet amount for those yet to act) is incorrect. It will never be 1500, except as noted below.

If blinds are 250/500 and A raises to 1000 followed by B's 1150 all-in, the minimum raise amount has not changed and is still 500 -- and any subsequent player facing first action can either fold, call 1150, or raise anywhere from 1650 to all-in. The current bet amount is 1150 and the current minimum raise amount is 500, so the only way one of those yet-to-act players can bet 1500 is if that is all they have and 1500 puts them all-in.

Huh - if this is true, I've been doing it the wrong way for a long time. I'd've sworn up and down that 1500 was still the legal min-raise. It's one of those things that comes up so rarely in practice that it's almost a non-issue. Who min-raises over a shove ever?

@BGinGA, do you have a reference for this? Not saying you're wrong, but it's a change to the way my Tuesday night game plays, and I know a couple people will want something to back it up (including me ).

 

[BGinGA]

The rules for minimum raise amounts are in the TDA rules, and RRoP also references something similar. It is slightly different for Fixed-Limit vs No-Limit, since the bet only has to be 1/2-size to be considered a full bet in Limit.... plus the next bet size in Limit is always twice the previous amount (unlike No-Limit). A bet in No-Limit is only considered 'complete' if it meets the minimum raise amount (or a combination of subsequent raises brings the total to completion).

The rules also stipulate what reopens the action, and for whom. For example:

blinds 250/500
utg calls 500
utg+1 folds
mp1 raises to 1200
mp2 calls 1000 all-in
mp3 raises to 1500 all-in
hijack calls 1500 all-in
cut-off
button
sb
bb

At this point, the cut-off player can fold, call 1500, or raise to at least 2200 (700 is the minimum raise amount, since the mp1 raise was 700 more than the previous bet amount of 500). If the cut-off player does not raise, the button has those same options. Same for the small blind or big blind, if nobody raises before their action -- they can still raise, because they have not yet acted.

If nobody else raises, utg can still re-raise, because they are facing a 1500 bet -- a 1000 raise of their initial 500 call.

However, if nobody else raises, mp1 can only call or fold, since 1500 is not a full raise of their previous 1200 raise amount (a complete bet would be facing 1900 or more). But if somebody had raised to at least 1900, it would open their action. For example, if the button had raised to 1900 all-in, followed by no more raises, then mp1 would be facing a full raise of 700 over their previous bet of 1200, and could re-raise (because even though that 700 total came about in two different actions, it still 'completes' the minimum raise amount). But if they only call, then hijack can only call or fold, since they are facing only a 400 raise over their original 1500 call.

Clear as mud? Basically, the rules exist to protect players who have not yet acted, and to ensure that a player cannot re-raise if has already acted unless facing a full minimum raise amount over his prior bet amount. Just remember those two details and it's easy to work out. And it's a textbook example of why all bets should be kept in front of the respective players until ALL action is complete.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

The rules for minimum raise amounts are in the TDA rules, and RRoP also references something similar. It is slightly different for Fixed-Limit vs No-Limit, since the bet only has to be 1/2-size to be considered a full bet in Limit.... plus the next bet size in Limit is always twice the previous amount (unlike No-Limit). A bet in No-Limit is only considered 'complete' if it meets the minimum raise amount (or a combination of subsequent raises brings the total to completion).

The rules also stipulate what reopens the action, and for whom. For example:

blinds 250/500
utg calls 500
utg+1 folds
mp1 raises to 1200
mp2 calls 1000 all-in
mp3 raises to 1500 all-in
hijack calls 1500 all-in
cut-off
button
sb
bb

At this point, the cut-off player can fold, call 1500, or raise to at least 2200 (700 is the minimum raise amount, since the mp1 raise was 700 more than the previous bet amount of 500). If the cut-off player does not raise, the button has those same options. Same for the small blind or big blind, if nobody raises before their action -- they can still raise, because they have not yet acted.

If nobody else raises, utg can still re-raise, because they are facing a 1500 bet -- a 1000 raise of their initial 500 call.

However, if nobody else raises, mp1 can only call or fold, since 1500 is not a full raise of their previous 1200 raise amount (a complete bet would be facing 1900 or more). But if somebody had raised to at least 1900, it would open their action. For example, if the button had raised to 1900 all-in, followed by no more raises, then mp1 would be facing a full raise of 700 over their previous bet of 1200, and could re-raise (because even though that 700 total came about in two different actions, it still 'completes' the minimum raise amount). But if they only call, then hijack can only call or fold, since they are facing only a 400 raise over their original 1500 call.

Clear as mud? Basically, the rules exist to protect players who have not yet acted, and to ensure that a player cannot re-raise if has already acted unless facing a full minimum raise amount over his prior bet amount. Just remember those two details and it's easy to work out. And it's a textbook example of why all bets should be kept in front of the respective players until ALL action is complete.

Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with most of this, I just never realized that the less-than-a-raise amount of an all-in player was included if another player wanted to re-open action.

I went to the sources. RRoP v11 doesn't say anything about this specific situation, so it's unclear there. However, TDA Rule 48 Example 2 covers exactly this scenario and agrees with you:

Example 2. Short all-in, 2 scenarios.
NLHE, Blinds 2000-4000. Pre-flop A calls the BB and puts out 4000. B folds and C pushes all-in for 7500 total (an increment of 3500 above the 4000 BB). It’s folded around to the SB who also folds.

Example 2-A. It’s 3500 more to the BB who has not yet acted on his option. The BB can fold, smooth call the 3500, or raise by at least 4000 for a total of 11,500. The BB smooth calls and it’s 3500 more to A. A has already acted and is facing 3500 which is not a full raise. Therefore, A can only fold or call the 3500, he cannot raise because it is not “at least a full bet when the action returns to him”.

 

[Beakertwang]

The rules for minimum raise amounts are in the TDA rules, and RRoP also references something similar. It is slightly different for Fixed-Limit vs No-Limit, since the bet only has to be 1/2-size to be considered a full bet in Limit.... plus the next bet size in Limit is always twice the previous amount (unlike No-Limit). A bet in No-Limit is only considered 'complete' if it meets the minimum raise amount (or a combination of subsequent raises brings the total to completion).

The rules also stipulate what reopens the action, and for whom. For example:

blinds 250/500
utg calls 500
utg+1 folds
mp1 raises to 1200
mp2 calls 1000 all-in
mp3 raises to 1500 all-in
hijack calls 1500 all-in
cut-off
button
sb
bb

At this point, the cut-off player can fold, call 1500, or raise to at least 2200 (700 is the minimum raise amount, since the mp1 raise was 700 more than the previous bet amount of 500). If the cut-off player does not raise, the button has those same options. Same for the small blind or big blind, if nobody raises before their action -- they can still raise, because they have not yet acted.

If nobody else raises, utg can still re-raise, because they are facing a 1500 bet -- a 1000 raise of their initial 500 call.

However, if nobody else raises, mp1 can only call or fold, since 1500 is not a full raise of their previous 1200 raise amount (a complete bet would be facing 1900 or more). But if somebody had raised to at least 1900, it would open their action. For example, if the button had raised to 1900 all-in, followed by no more raises, then mp1 would be facing a full raise of 700 over their previous bet of 1200, and could re-raise (because even though that 700 total came about in two different actions, it still 'completes' the minimum raise amount). But if they only call, then hijack can only call or fold, since they are facing only a 400 raise over their original 1500 call.

Clear as mud? Basically, the rules exist to protect players who have not yet acted, and to ensure that a player cannot re-raise if has already acted unless facing a full minimum raise amount over his prior bet amount. Just remember those two details and it's easy to work out. And it's a textbook example of why all bets should be kept in front of the respective players until ALL action is complete.

So if a player loses a big pot against a slightly smaller stack, and doesn't have enough for the big blind (as happened to me last night), this rule would not be in effect, right?

 

[BGinGA]

Even if you don't have enough chips to post the big blind amount, the minimum raise amount remains the same -- the amount of the stated big blind amount, on top of the stated big blind amount.

If blinds are 250/500 and you can only post 350 all-in from the bb seat, anybody who wants to call must pay 500. The minimum raise amount is 500, making the total minimum raise = 1000. The main pot (for which you can compete) is 350 from every bet on the table (250 from the sb, if he folds). The excess chips go into at least one side pot, pending other action.

 

[DRacula]

Having seen it all, the only two things that bother me are:

Really really slow play

Firearms at the table

 

[trever]

I've got a really high tolerance for shenanigans at the table, particularly from friends or inexperienced players.

But, I did quit two fun, soft games.
#1 had an angle shooting and outright cheat of a player and
#2 had two players who were negotiating a drug deal right at the table.