Quick ruling Question?
 

A situation came up where me and a friend disagreed on regarding the Under raise.

In this situation with blinds at 300/600 in a live MTT player A limps for 600, player B raises to 3000 and player C reraises all in for 4,200.

Now my friend states that player A can only call the extra 3,600 as player C's all in is an underraise of player B's raise. I agrued that once player A limped, the fact player B made a normal raise (more than the BB amount of 600) that now player A has the options Call Raise or Fold open to him again?

I thought this was pretty standard but he is isnt backing down on this one, just keeps saying "ya cant raise an underraise!"

So amirite?

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

hi,think your m8 may be right,if A had already acted
Glossary - Under-raise

Under-raise: This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising … going all-in to raise … has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked. The term locked here means that any player who has already acted in the round (checked, called, or raised) may no longer raise. They may only call or fold. However, players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet) may raise the expected raise for that betting round, after calling. If the under-raise is half or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply.

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

Hey Steeve ,
Thanks for that
Is there a link from where you got that info please. It seems from that glossary that my friend is right, just be happy to get more confirmation on it before i hand him the monies it now lookin like i owe him [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

hi underdog, i found a better link, i would of thought you where right till i checked up,i cant understand the point of this rule myself, say you had pp aces ep and limped setting a trap knowing maniacs are allways raising,this rule would stop you from moving all in with a bigger chip stack to isolate, not very good having say 4 callers to pocket aces,

http://poker.ladbrokes.com/rules_intro

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

Plqayer A can raise whatever amount he wants, since he limped and player B raised. The lock situation would occur if player A were to call the 4200, then player B would not be able to do anything except call as he technically was not raised.

Since A limped and was legitimately raised by B, he is not locked by the under reraise by C.

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

Your friend is correct.

If the all-in raise is not double the last bet, it counts only as a call, not a raise. And you can't re-raise a call.

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Plqayer A can raise whatever amount he wants, since he limped and player B raised. The lock situation would occur if player A were to call the 4200, then player B would not be able to do anything except call as he technically was not raised.

Since A limped and was legitimately raised by B, he is not locked by the under reraise by C.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In this situation with blinds at 300/600 in a live MTT player A limps for 600, player B raises to 3000 and player C reraises all in for 4,200.
...

I thought this was pretty standard but he is isnt backing down on this one, just keeps saying "ya cant raise an underraise!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course Player A can reraise in this scenario.

Player A is reraising player B's raise, not C's underraise.

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

Thanks Kurn,
[ QUOTE ]
Plqayer A can raise whatever amount he wants, since he limped and player B raised. The lock situation would occur if player A were to call the 4200, then player B would not be able to do anything except call as he technically was not raised.

Since A limped and was legitimately raised by B, he is not locked by the under reraise by C.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I thought
and:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course Player A can reraise in this scenario.

Player A is reraising player B's raise, not C's underraise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Steeve to quote from the Ladbrokes link

[ QUOTE ]
If the player under-raising - going all-in to raise - has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round , the betting round is locked.

[/ QUOTE ]

The betting round in front of Player C was a 5 x BB raise, he of course can not double that (therefore locking Player B's options) but the betting round (from Player A's stance) is still a 5 x BB raise (obv greater now with the all in on top) but he has to react to the betting round [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I just reread that and it sounds very confusing but basically I dont think that defintion of Under raises states my friends agrument to be true.

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

your friend is wrong ldo

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

Yup I thought it was pretty straight forward stuff, just need to confirm

thanks all the same

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

hi underdog,it does sound confusing i agree but 1 of those rules that needs an example to explain , it does appear to me that your right,if everyone had just called player C under raise which is a bigger bet but only classed as a call ,player A could not of re raised, but as player B raised he can re raise his raise, drinks are on you underdog lol

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

[ QUOTE ]
hi,think your m8 may be right,if A had already acted
Glossary - Under-raise

Under-raise: This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising … going all-in to raise … has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked. The term locked here means that any player who has already acted in the round (checked, called, or raised) may no longer raise. They may only call or fold. However, players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet) may raise the expected raise for that betting round, after calling. If the under-raise is half or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sounds like a rule for Limit Holdem.

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

Here is the underlying reasoning for this sort of ruling.

Player A bets, Player C wants to call Player A. Player B in between them goes all-in but it is not a full legal raise. It is therefore treated as a call (under-raise if you will). So now Player C still wants to call so he puts in the identical amount that Player B did. Now Player A cannot raise.

Your buddy is correct to say that you can't raise an under-raise (since it is technically an oversized call). However, in your scenario, Player A is not facing an under-raise, he is facing a raise from Player B and a call of that raise from Player C. So he can in fact re-raise Player B.

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

This is pretty simple guys. Ask yourself if the total amount a player has to call constitutes a raise of his bet? If so, then he can re-raise.

A bet 600. He now has to call 3600. 3600 > 600 thus A can raise.

If A flat calls, B has a further 1200 to call. 1200 < 3000 thus B cannot raise.

However, if B was a forward-thinking tricky fellow, and could predict what his opponents would do, he would have first raised to 2400 rather than 3000, allowing himself to re-raise and isolate A when the betting got back round to him.

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

will someone please tell me what LDO stands for?

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

[ QUOTE ]
will someone please tell me what LDO stands for?

[/ QUOTE ]

LDO - stands for Lebanese Development Organization, like, duh, obviously [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If A flat calls, B has a further 1200 to call. 1200 < 3000 thus B cannot raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should read "1200 < 2400 thus B cannot raise."

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

[ QUOTE ]
blinds at 300/600, player A limps for 600, player B raises to 3000 and player C reraises all in for 4,200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that we've established that A can raise, I do have a follow-up question. What is the minimum raise amount for player A?

My guess is that the underraise really functions (as someone else said) as a "call plus some extra chips", in which case I would expect that the minimum raise would be calculated off of B's raise (as if C had "just called").

But this has always confused me and I can't find a clear explanation of it in Robert's (would appreciate pointer if it is in there)

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
blinds at 300/600, player A limps for 600, player B raises to 3000 and player C reraises all in for 4,200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that we've established that A can raise, I do have a follow-up question. What is the minimum raise amount for player A?

My guess is that the underraise really functions (as someone else said) as a "call plus some extra chips", in which case I would expect that the minimum raise would be calculated off of B's raise (as if C had "just called").

But this has always confused me and I can't find a clear explanation of it in Robert's (would appreciate pointer if it is in there)

[/ QUOTE ]
Player A must use the total chips that are over his original bet as a basis for a minimum raise. So that is 4200-600=3600. Player A must make it a minimum of 7800 to go.

Think of it this way. It is the same as if Player B had raised to 4200 and that just happened to be exactly what Player C had left to go all-in. It's also the same as if Player B had called Player A and then Player C pushed in for 4200.

Also think of it this way. When the action is to you after you have bet, your original bet is already part of the pot. So now to call a raise back to you, you need to put in amount X, which is the amount of the raise to you. You now need to at least double that X to make a minimum raise.

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
blinds at 300/600, player A limps for 600, player B raises to 3000 and player C reraises all in for 4,200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that we've established that A can raise, I do have a follow-up question. What is the minimum raise amount for player A?

My guess is that the underraise really functions (as someone else said) as a "call plus some extra chips", in which case I would expect that the minimum raise would be calculated off of B's raise (as if C had "just called").

But this has always confused me and I can't find a clear explanation of it in Robert's (would appreciate pointer if it is in there)

[/ QUOTE ]
Player A must use the total chips that are over his original bet as a basis for a minimum raise. So that is 4200-600=3600. Player A must make it a minimum of 7800 to go.

Think of it this way. It is the same as if Player B had raised to 4200 and that just happened to be exactly what Player C had left to go all-in. It's also the same as if Player B had called Player A and then Player C pushed in for 4200.

Also think of it this way. When the action is to you after you have bet, your original bet is already part of the pot. So now to call a raise back to you, you need to put in amount X, which is the amount of the raise to you. You now need to at least double that X to make a minimum raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I believe player B set the raise increment at 2400 (since player C's all-in is treated as a call, it doesn't increase the size of the increment) and the minimum re-raise player A can make is to 6600 (current bet of 4200 + current raise increment of 2400).

Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is just my understanding of it.

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
blinds at 300/600, player A limps for 600, player B raises to 3000 and player C reraises all in for 4,200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that we've established that A can raise, I do have a follow-up question. What is the minimum raise amount for player A?

My guess is that the underraise really functions (as someone else said) as a "call plus some extra chips", in which case I would expect that the minimum raise would be calculated off of B's raise (as if C had "just called").

But this has always confused me and I can't find a clear explanation of it in Robert's (would appreciate pointer if it is in there)

[/ QUOTE ]
Player A must use the total chips that are over his original bet as a basis for a minimum raise. So that is 4200-600=3600. Player A must make it a minimum of 7800 to go.

Think of it this way. It is the same as if Player B had raised to 4200 and that just happened to be exactly what Player C had left to go all-in. It's also the same as if Player B had called Player A and then Player C pushed in for 4200.

Also think of it this way. When the action is to you after you have bet, your original bet is already part of the pot. So now to call a raise back to you, you need to put in amount X, which is the amount of the raise to you. You now need to at least double that X to make a minimum raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I believe player B set the raise increment at 2400 (since player C's all-in is treated as a call, it doesn't increase the size of the increment) and the minimum re-raise player A can make is to 6600 (current bet of 4200 + current raise increment of 2400).

Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is just my understanding of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I searched the rules and I couldn't find anything that covers this scenario.

So I extrapolated my answer from another rule. The rule I used is the multiple all-in rule. That is, if an all-in isn't a legal raise, and a subsequent all-in is also not a legal raise, but the total of those two all-ins add up to a legal raise, then betting is reopened. And if the betting is reopened to raises, then I believe the minimum raise amount would be calculated as if only one player had made that raise instead of two shortstacks.

I concluded that the extra chips do actually mean something so while the short all-in raise is treated as a call within the rules, the amount of call has risen slightly and thus the minimum raising requirement has also increased should a player indeed have the option to raise.

That's my interpretation, however I could be wrong on this as well.

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

ok, just to clear up, player A has a tack of 20,000 he limps for 600 ,player C moves all in for 4000, player D who has a stack of 15,000 just calls the 4000 all in from player C,
player A can now move all in to make a sidepot as he has still been raised from player C, i am sure this scenario has happened lots of times to most regular players,but never gave it much thought till now,

Re: Quick ruling Question?
 

[ QUOTE ]
ok, just to clear up, player A has a tack of 20,000 he limps for 600 ,player C moves all in for 4000, player D who has a stack of 15,000 just calls the 4000 all in from player C,
player A can now move all in to make a sidepot as he has still been raised from player C, i am sure this scenario has happened lots of times to most regular players,but never gave it much thought till now,

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, so if you are player D, you should be ready for that. If you have AA, you call and just wait for player A to move in. If you have TT, maybe you just move in yourself to squeeze player A out and deny him his 2:1 call odds.

Of course the flip side of that is what we have been talking about. Player A bets 3000 and Player C goes all-in for 4000. Now, if Player D just calls 4000, Player A can't raise and maybe that's what Player D wants.