Yet Another Rule Question (1 Viewer)

[Jaywa]

I've seen this twice now, both at my game and at a friends game.

Player A pushes all in pre-flop with just less than the BB (BB was $2k, he pushed his last $1,500).

Two players call (We'll call them B and C). Player D then decided to also push all in with about 15BB (I'm guessing on this one, he had a lot of chips).

It's said that Player D is not allowed to do this. That since Player A's all-in wasn't a full BB the only option Player D has is to call the All-In. After the flop he may then bet however he wants to.

I don't understand this rule in a NLHE game. What is it attempting to prevent? Is it even a rule?

 

[bentax1978]

Unless I misunderstood your post, Player D can absolutely push all-in preflop for whatever amount he/she wants. The fact that Player A doesn't have enough to call the full BB isn't relevant.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Whoever said that lacks an understanding of the rules. Player D can certainly raise in that scenario. If D had limped in before player A went all-in, he couldn't then raise, but he is always allowed to check (call) raise or fold the first time action is on him.

Edit: In addition, player A (the short stack) is only able to win $1500 from each player, so there will be a side pot regardless of what D decides to do.

 

[Joe Harris]

In this situation, I believe player D can raise. Here's a different scenario where he probably can't:

Player A starts with $5k. Everybody else, $100k.

BB: $2k
Player A: Calls for $2k ($3k left)
Player B: Fold
Player C: Call for $2k
Player D: Raise to $4k
Fold to A.

Now the action is on A. He can fold or go all-in for an additional $1k
Player A: All in
Player C: Now has the option to call $3k or fold. A's raise did not exceed the minimum bet so the betting action is closed.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Doesn't make sense to me unless I'm ignorant of something. Even though player A pushed all-in, the chips he is putting in the pot aren't even enough to fully call the big blind, let alone to initiate a first-in raise himself. As such, the action going to D has essentially all been calls of the big blind, so he should be able to raise.

 

[Ronoh]

In this situation, I believe player D can raise. Here's a different scenario where he probably can't:

Player A starts with $5k. Everybody else, $100k.

BB: $2k
Player A: Calls for $2k ($3k left)
Player B: Fold
Player C: Call for $2k
Player D: Raise to $4k
Fold to A.

Now the action is on A. He can fold or go all-in for an additional $1k
Player A: All in
Player C: Now has the option to call $3k or fold. A's raise did not exceed the minimum bet so the betting action is closed.

Player C absolutely can raise.

 

[catalyzeme]

There are some strange situations where you cannot raise an all-in because if it's multi-way, you were the last raiser before the all-in, and the all-in was not large enough to constitute a raise, but if you have not yet acted you can always make a raise.
EDIT: or if you have already called but there was no legitimate raises before it comes back to you to call the all-in "raise."

This is not the case in your example. It sounds like they were just trying to avoid having to calculate the side pot.

 

[Joe Harris]

Player C absolutely can raise.

Really? What about D, if C called?

 

[T_Chan]

My understanding is that player D is allowed to raise in this situation. If player A raised $1500 all in, so called the $2k and then short raised another $1500 then no other players are allowed to raise, they can only call. However in your scenario, it was a short call, not a short raise.

 

[Poker Zombie]

OK, easy to understand, difficult to explain...

In the OP, if D had not yet acted, he may rise. If he had checked, he may not raise, because his all-in was less than a re-raise. An all-in does not re-open the action unless it is at least 50% of a legal raise. Dont feel bad about being confused, it is one of the few rules that the TDA printed an addendum for.

TDA rule 44: Re-Opening the Bet. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing at least a full raise when the action returns to him. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted.

Addendum:
Rule 44: Re-opening the bet. Example 1. Series of short all-in wagers that add up to a full raise and thus re-open betting: NLHE, Blinds 50-100. Postflop, A opens betting for the 100 minimum. B goes all in for a total of 125. C calls the 125, D goes all in for 200 total and E calls 200. Action returns to A who is facing a total raise of 100. Since 100 is a full raise, the betting is reopened for A who can fold, call, or raise here. Note that neither B’s increment of 25 or D’s increment of 75 is by itself a full raise, but when added together they total a full raise and thus re-open the betting to “a player who is facing at least a full raise when the action returns”. Example 1-A: At the end of Example 1 above, A smooth calls the 200 total (another 100 to him). The bet is now on C who is only facing a 75 increment. C called the 125 previously and is now facing 200 total (a 75 increment). Because 75 is not a full raise, the betting for C is not reopened and C can either put out an additional 75 or fold, he cannot raise. Example 1-B: At the end of Example 1 above, A raises the minimum (100), and makes it 300 total to C. C already has called 125 so it’s an additional 175 for C to call. 175 is more than a full raise. Since C already acted and is “now facing at least a full raise”, the betting is reopened to C who can fold, call, or re-raise here. 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- © Copyright 2015: All Rights Reserved, Poker Tournament Directors Association. See use policy at PokerTDA.com. 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”. Example 2-B. The BB raises the minimum (4000), for a total of 11500. It is now 7500 to A and because 7500 is more than a full minimum raise, betting is now re-opened for A who can fold, call, or re-raise

 

[abby99]

PZ is correct.

It's worth repeating that the 50% rule (at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted) applies to limit games only. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've seen players try to apply this rule in NL/PL games.

 

[jbutler]

It's worth repeating that the 50% rule (at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted) applies to limit games only. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've seen players try to apply this rule in NL/PL games.

Interesting - I never knew this. The 50% rule is applicable in cash games at Borgata and Parx. I wonder if it's an example of something being done incorrectly literally a trillion times and therefore becoming accepted as the rule.

 

[abby99]

Interesting - I never knew this. The 50% rule is applicable in cash games at Borgata and Parx. I wonder if it's an example of something being done incorrectly literally a trillion times and therefore becoming accepted as the rule.

Oops, forgot to add that not all card rooms follow the "standard" rules, which for me is RROP. House rules rule.

Edited to add: It's important to know what rules apply where you play because it could have a significant impact on your bet sizing decisions in certain situations, especially if you don't want a shortie's shove to reopen the betting.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

You sure you're not just playing limit games without realizing it?

 

[Jaywa]

TDA rule 44: Re-Opening the Bet. In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen betting for a player who has already acted and is not facing at least a full raise when the action returns to him. In limit, at least 50% of a full raise is required to re-open betting for players who have already acted.

Okay, so if I understand that correctly, if Player A had pushed all in for say, $3k, which wouldn't be a full "legal" raise of the BB. Then Player D wouldn't have the option or re-raising or pushing all in?

As I said (OP Here) this is the second time I've seen this and still don't understand the ruling.

 

[BGinGA]

For the discussion, let's assume that player A is UTG and player D is on the button, with SB and BB posting the blinds.

Player A pushes all in pre-flop with just less than the BB (BB was $2k, he pushed his last $1,500).

4000 in the main pot, 500 in the side pot, one player all-in, five players yet to act.

Two players call (We'll call them B and C).

B and C call for 2000 each (not A's 1500 all-in amount). 7000 in the main pot, 1500 in the side pot. Three players yet to act.

Player D then decided to also push all in with about 15BB (I'm guessing on this one, he had a lot of chips).

Player D has every right to raise here, anywhere from a 2000 raise amount (4000 total) up to the size of his stack (30,000 total). Raising all-in puts 8500 in the main pot with 31,500 in the side pot. Two players yet to act (SB and BB), with action then moving to Player B (followed by Player C).

Okay, so if I understand that correctly, if Player A had pushed all in for say, $3k, which wouldn't be a full "legal" raise of the BB. Then Player D wouldn't have the option or re-raising or pushing all in?

Incorrect. Player D will always have the option of raising when action is on him for the first time. Here's how it plays out:

Player A pushes all in pre-flop for 3000 (blinds = 1000/2000).
Player B can fold, call the 3000 all-in amount, or re-raise to 5000 (the minimum raise amount is 2000). The fact that Player A's all-in raise is less than the minimum is irrelevant.
Regardless of what Player B and Player C do on their action (unless they raise), Player D can still raise anywhere from the minimum 2000 (to 5000 total) up to the size of his stack. If B or C raise, it only changes the minimum raise amount needed for D to put in, but he can still raise.

 

[BGinGA]

Player D will always have the option of raising when action is on him for the first time.

^^ This is the key component of the discussion. To see how it differs when Player D has already acted, let's look at this scenario where Player A is the button and acts after Player D:

Blinds 1000/2000
Player B folds or calls 2000.
Player C folds or calls 2000.
Player D calls 2000.
Player A raises all-in for 3000.
assume everyone else calls.
Player D cannot re-raise, because Player A's raise was less than the full minimum raise amount (2000) and Player D has already acted.

Player B and Player C cannot re-raise either, for the same reasons. But note that both the SB and BB do have the right to raise, since they have not yet acted in this hand. If either SB or BB makes a legal raise, it would re-open the action to Player D who could then re-raise when action returned to him.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Okay, so if I understand that correctly, if Player A had pushed all in for say, $3k, which wouldn't be a full "legal" raise of the BB. Then Player D wouldn't have the option or re-raising or pushing all in?

As I said (OP Here) this is the second time I've seen this and still don't understand the ruling.

Incorrect. If player D hasn't acted yet, healways has the option to raise. However, if player D called first, then player A went all-in for less than a full raise, then D no longer has the option to raise (unless someone else who still had the option to raise before it got back to player D did so).

 

[Jaywa]

Holy hell this is confusing!

So, it comes down to whether or not Player D is taking his/her first action in the betting?

So, in my above example. If it went this way.

Player A is UTG. Pushes all in for $3000. Blinds are 1k/2k.

Players B and C call the $3k.

Player D can raise if he's on the button and hasn't acted in the betting yet. But, if he's in the blind, can only call? (Hope I explained that correctly).

 

[bentax1978]

Holy hell this is confusing!

So, it comes down to whether or not Player D is taking his/her first action in the betting?

So, in my above example. If it went this way.

Player A is UTG. Pushes all in for $3000. Blinds are 1k/2k.

Players B and C call the $3k.

Player D can raise if he's on the button and hasn't acted in the betting yet. But, if he's in the blind, can only call? (Hope I explained that correctly).

If Player D hasn't acted yet, whether on the button or in the blinds, he can raise.

 

[Poker Zombie]

What they said. If D as not acted, he may re-raise. Placing the blind is not an action, so if D was in the BB, he may still raise.

In short, if a player raises all in, but it is not enough to be a legal raise, treat it as if it were just a check. Then it becomes easy to understand.

 

[BGinGA]

What they said. If D as not acted, he may re-raise. Placing the blind is not an action, so if D was in the BB, he may still raise.

In short, if a player raises all in, but it is not enough to be a legal raise, treat it as if it were just a check. Then it becomes easy to understand.

Well, except for the amount of the next raise required. That will be different than if he checked (or called).

 

[Jaywa]

Well, except for the amount of the next raise required. That will be different than if he checked (or called).

Okay..I think I have it now.

Now, the second part of my question. What is this rule preventing?

 

[abby99]

This might be easier to understand:

If the amount that a player needs to make a call is less than the amount of the last legal raise, the player can only call or fold. If the amount needed to call is greater than the amount of the last legal raise, the player can raise because the betting has been reopened.

This doesn't have to be the player's first action on that street if the amount needed to call is greater than the amount of the last legal raise.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Okay..I think I have it now.

Now, the second part of my question. What is this rule preventing?

It's not about preventing anything, its about allowing all players to bet their hand (if they so desire). If a player hasn't acted yet he shouldn't be limited on his actions because of another person's circumstances.

 

[catalyzeme]

Okay..I think I have it now.

Now, the second part of my question. What is this rule preventing?

SCENARIO A:
Let's say you bet $200 (your stack is $800). Next guy calls. Next guy calls. Now what if you had the chance to raise again, and essentially start a new round of betting? Obviously the rules prevent this. You can't just keep starting new rounds of betting.

SCENARIO B:
Now how about if you bet $200, next guy goes all-in for $201, next guy calls $201. Now it's your turn again, but if we give you the chance to raise again, we essentially have the same thing as scenario A. You would be starting a new round of betting with no real raise against you, for all intents and purposes.

So a threshold has to be chosen for what constitutes a legitimate raise and reopens your action. That threshold I think can be a house rule, but it's usually a full raise or a half a full raise.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Like Abby said, a half raise is usually the threshold for limit games, and a full raise is the threshold in no-limit games (except in backwards places like Philadelphia and Jersey apparently). here's a link that may help you.

http://neilwebber.com/notes/2013/07...tood-poker-rule-nlhe-incomplete-raise-all-in/

 

[BGinGA]

except in backwards places like Philadelphia and Jersey apparently

It's a joint comprehension/efficiency issue. Can't be bothered with having two different rules, or having to hire people capable of distinguishing them.

 

[lherron]

I've seen this twice now, both at my game and at a friends game.

Player A pushes all in pre-flop with just less than the BB (BB was $2k, he pushed his last $1,500).

Two players call (We'll call them B and C). Player D then decided to also push all in with about 15BB (I'm guessing on this one, he had a lot of chips).

It's said that Player D is not allowed to do this. That since Player A's all-in wasn't a full BB the only option Player D has is to call the All-In. After the flop he may then bet however he wants to.

I don't understand this rule in a NLHE game. What is it attempting to prevent? Is it even a rule?

Assuming player D hadn't acted yet, he can raise as normal. However, if he had limped in front of the shove (which was less than a BB), then no, he does not get to act again preflop.

 

[lherron]

This might be easier to understand:

If the amount that a player needs to make a call is less than the amount of the last legal raise, the player can only call or fold. If the amount needed to call is greater than the amount of the last legal raise, the player can raise because the betting has been reopened.

This doesn't have to be the player's first action on that street if the amount needed to call is greater than the amount of the last legal raise.

This is the far more interesting question. Obviously a player will always have a chance to raise if he hasn't acted yet. But what's much more commonly misunderstood is that the betting/action is not "re-opened" unless a player makes a legal raise.