Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK. I agree with bav, then. The raise amount is on top of the previous all-in "call" amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about:

400/800 blinds. UTG goes all in for 1500. UTG+1 goes all in for 2200. What is the minimum raise UTG+2 can make? UTG+1 only did a 700 raise on UTG's 1500 "call", but it was a 1400 raise on the BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Opinions will differ on this, but I am of the opinion that the minimum raise here should be $800 making it $3,000. However If a floor ruled that it was $3,600 I wouldn't find that to be a terrible decision (as long as it is consistently ruled that way).

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK. I agree with bav, then. The raise amount is on top of the previous all-in "call" amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about:

400/800 blinds. UTG goes all in for 1500. UTG+1 goes all in for 2200. What is the minimum raise UTG+2 can make? UTG+1 only did a 700 raise on UTG's 1500 "call", but it was a 1400 raise on the BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Opinions will differ on this, but I am of the opinion that the minimum raise here should be $800 making it $3,000. However If a floor ruled that it was $3,600 I wouldn't find that to be a terrible decision (as long as it is consistently ruled that way).

[/ QUOTE ]

If UTG goes all-in for 1600, and UTG+1 goes all-in for 2400, then UTG+2 can definitely raise to 3200. So, I think it shouldn't be more than that for sure. So, something between 3000 & 3200 I guess. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK. I agree with bav, then. The raise amount is on top of the previous all-in "call" amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about:

400/800 blinds. UTG goes all in for 1500. UTG+1 goes all in for 2200. What is the minimum raise UTG+2 can make? UTG+1 only did a 700 raise on UTG's 1500 "call", but it was a 1400 raise on the BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Opinions will differ on this, but I am of the opinion that the minimum raise here should be $800 making it $3,000. However If a floor ruled that it was $3,600 I wouldn't find that to be a terrible decision (as long as it is consistently ruled that way).

[/ QUOTE ]

If UTG goes all-in for 1600, and UTG+1 goes all-in for 2400, then UTG+2 can definitely raise to 3200. So, I think it shouldn't be more than that for sure. So, something between 3000 & 3200 I guess. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Minimum legal raise is still +800 since nobody's raised any more than that. If it had been 400/800, raise +800 to 1600, raise +800 to 2400, then the legal next raise remains +800 more to 3200. So in your example, add 800 to the last bet of 2200; 3000 it is.

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
3000 it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that makes sense. And it's consistent so hopefully shouldn't be confusing.

Situation came up this past weekend:

$1/$2 NL; 2 limpers, 60+ yr old raises to $20; One guy goes all-in for $23 and 1 limper calls. Old man wants to raise again, and is upset when he finds out he can't. When it's explained to him why, he said "that's just nitty". LOL. His pocket KK held up, though. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK. I agree with bav, then. The raise amount is on top of the previous all-in "call" amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about:

400/800 blinds. UTG goes all in for 1500. UTG+1 goes all in for 2200. What is the minimum raise UTG+2 can make? UTG+1 only did a 700 raise on UTG's 1500 "call", but it was a 1400 raise on the BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Opinions will differ on this, but I am of the opinion that the minimum raise here should be $800 making it $3,000. However If a floor ruled that it was $3,600 I wouldn't find that to be a terrible decision (as long as it is consistently ruled that way).

[/ QUOTE ]

If UTG goes all-in for 1600, and UTG+1 goes all-in for 2400, then UTG+2 can definitely raise to 3200. So, I think it shouldn't be more than that for sure. So, something between 3000 & 3200 I guess. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is that if you have to aggregate the two All-In bets to get enough to reopen the betting, then I can certainly see the argument that the betting should be aggresgated for this purpose as well --- essentially saying that you ignor ethe first UTG "action" and treat UTG+1 as raising from $800 to $2200 which is a $1,400 raise. As I said I prefer to see the ruling be $3,000. I think $3,200 is the worst possible ruling because it relies on the notion of completing bets which doesn't make sense in a No Limit Game.