Min Raise after an all-in?
 

Playing a tournament, and blinds get to 400-800. UTG moves all-in for 1000. Next player wants to raise and asks what the minimum raise allowed is. Floor was totally confused by the all-in.

What should the ruling have been?

Thanks,
--Headhunter

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

1600.

It was 800 to call, but the AI guy only had 1000. If the AI had more than half of the minimum raise (after the 800 needed to call) then it would be considered a raise. This is treated like a call.

Let's say UTG called 800 before this guy pushed for 1000. If no one else raised, UTG would not get the option of raising, just calling or folding the extra 200.

You'll probably get a couple different answers on this depending on who you ask.

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
1600.

It was 800 to call, but the AI guy only had 1000. If the AI had more than half of the minimum raise (after the 800 needed to call) then it would be considered a raise. This is treated like a call.


[/ QUOTE ]

While your answer results in the correct decision, I have just one clarification. The half-bet rule is a Limit rule. If this is a NL tourney, everything else you said is still true, however now the All-In player must have had enough to make a complete raise (to 1600) for his action to have been considered a raise.

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1600.

It was 800 to call, but the AI guy only had 1000. If the AI had more than half of the minimum raise (after the 800 needed to call) then it would be considered a raise. This is treated like a call.


[/ QUOTE ]

While your answer results in the correct decision, I have just one clarification. The half-bet rule is a Limit rule. If this is a NL tourney, everything else you said is still true, however now the All-In player must have had enough to make a complete raise (to 1600) for his action to have been considered a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most cases, I don't think so.

In any event, house rules on this differ, though the half-bet rule is the standard in limit and no-limit, I believe.

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
...the half-bet rule is the standard in limit and no-limit, I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Robert's 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. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a full-size wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or 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.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...the half-bet rule is the standard in limit and no-limit, I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Robert's 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. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a full-size wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or 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.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most inconsistently applied/misapplied rule in all of live tournament poker. I agree with Roberts in that I think it is the best rule, but the "1/2 bet amount reopens the betting" rule is quite common in northern CA/northern NV.

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

We had exactly this debate long ago. This isn't about half-size bets or whether the betting is reopened. It's simply asking what the minimum raise size is. Recap:

SB is 400, BB is 800, UTG all-in's for 1000.

Now if UTG+1 says raise, what's his minimum commitment? In the last discussion I recall, there were about 30 opinions about equally split between 1600 and 1800. The question is just whether the all-in micro raise has ANY impact whatsoever on subsequent betting, or is it treated like a call. When you are raising do you have to raise the previous largest bet regardless whether it was a complete raise, or do you only have to raise from the last full bet? And before you answer TOO quickly, since this was only a 200 raise, would your answer be the same if the all-in was for 1595, 795 more? Could the next player make it 5 more?

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
since this was only a 200 raise, would your answer be the same if the all-in was for 1595, 795 more? Could the next player make it 5 more?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd interpret Robert's Rule to be that you can raise the previous raise amount (which doesn't include the all-in call that was almost but not quite enough to be a raise). So, the next play could make it 5 more than the all-in caller and reopen the betting to the previous raiser.

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Playing a tournament, and blinds get to 400-800. UTG moves all-in for 1000. Next player wants to raise and asks what the minimum raise allowed is. Floor was totally confused by the all-in.

What should the ruling have been?

Thanks,
--Headhunter

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it should be a minimum of 800 raise to 1,800.

To me, it's obvious the minimum raise amount is 800.

I believe the minimum raise amount should be applied to the current total bet of 1,000.

After all, when you say raise, you're indicating that you're raising the amount of the current bet, not the previous bet. Also, if you say the player acting after the all-in can minimum raise to 1,600 (for only 600 more than the current bet, with the big blind at 800) then you are allowing him to do something that other players likely will not be able to do, that is, raise for an amount less than the minimum raise without going all-in.

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
To me, it's obvious the minimum raise amount is 800.

I believe the minimum raise amount should be applied to the current total bet of 1,000.

After all, when you say raise, you're indicating that you're raising the amount of the current bet, not the previous bet. Also, if you say the player acting after the all-in can minimum raise to 1,600 (for only 600 more than the current bet, with the big blind at 800) then you are allowing him to do something that other players likely will not be able to do, that is, raise for an amount less than the minimum raise without going all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]
I definitely prefer this answer myself. It avoids some unpleasant other situations. Consider:

SB=400, BB=800, UTG allins for 1500 (700 more), UTG+1 calls 1500, UTG+2 says "raise".

If you earlier said it was ok for UTG+1 to raise to 1600 in this situation, then is it still ok for UTG+2 to raise to 1600? That would be seriously unfair to UTG+1 to allow UTG+2 to bump it only 100. And would that reopen the action for UTG+1? Well...any raise other than an all-in SHOULD reopen the action, but if you let UTG+2 in for 200 it doesn't; just ain't fair to let UTG+2 raise without any fear of a reraise from UTG+1. But if you were willing to let UTG+1 raise from 1500 to 1600, how can you prohibit UTG+2 facing the same bet size from doing it now?

Seems like things just kinda fall apart in some situations if you don't demand that a raise always has to be applied to the biggest action.

Course it can still be messy. Let's get silly:

SB=400, BB=800, UTG all-ins for 1500, UTG+1 all-ins for 2200, UTG+2 raises to 3000, UTG+3 all-ins for 3700. (Summary: 3 partial-raise all-ins, one real raise so far.)

UTG+4 says "raise". Other players say "he can't, there have been 4 raises so it's capped." UTG+4 says "there has been 1 raise, none of the all-ins were complete." Gulp--figure out an answer. Now repeat it where each all-in added 100 instead of 700--does that same logic apply? Suddenly seems like the limit half-bet rules would make sense here.

Gotta loves rules lawyering.

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]

UTG+4 says "raise". Other players say "he can't, there have been 4 raises so it's capped." UTG+4 says "there has been 1 raise, none of the all-ins were complete." Gulp--figure out an answer. Now repeat it where each all-in added 100 instead of 700--does that same logic apply? Suddenly seems like the limit half-bet rules would make sense here.

Gotta loves rules lawyering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple solution: There is no cap on the number of raises in a no limit tournament.

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Simple solution: There is no cap on the number of raises in a no limit tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doggone the rules lawyers are getting crafty. Change my interrogatory to use dollars instead of unspecified betting units and tell me what the cash game rule is.

I think part of the TDA changes this year altered the rule controlling number of raises and spelled out that raises are uncontrolled in NL. Prior to that it was not clear and many tourneys played with house rules on number of raises allowed. Nice they spelled it out, finally.

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing a tournament, and blinds get to 400-800. UTG moves all-in for 1000. Next player wants to raise and asks what the minimum raise allowed is. Floor was totally confused by the all-in.

What should the ruling have been?

Thanks,
--Headhunter

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it should be a minimum of 800 raise to 1,800.

To me, it's obvious the minimum raise amount is 800.

I believe the minimum raise amount should be applied to the current total bet of 1,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the problem with that, though:

400/800 blinds. UTG raises to 1600 (800 raise). UTG+1 goes all in for 2300 total (700 more, not a full raise, UTG can not re-raise when it gets back to him). If we say the minimum raise is now to 3100 (2300 + 800), then what happens when UTG+2 goes all in for 3000? Can UTG re-raise now (since his raise to 800+800 is now 3000)? Nobody has put in a "minimum raise".

To stay consistent, I think you have to treat the UTG+1 all-in as a call (plus some extra), and still keep the minimum raise at 2400 (1600 + 800).

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you earlier said it was ok for UTG+1 to raise to 1600 in this situation, then is it still ok for UTG+2 to raise to 1600? That would be seriously unfair to UTG+1 to allow UTG+2 to bump it only 100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it unfair? UTG+1 can call the extra 100, or can now re-raise the UTG+2 tard.

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can UTG re-raise now (since his raise to 800+800 is now 3000)? Nobody has put in a "minimum raise".

[/ QUOTE ] Of course he can reraise, even though no single player put in a raise that the combined raise was a legal raise.

Robert's rules addresses this as
[ QUOTE ]
Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you earlier said it was ok for UTG+1 to raise to 1600 in this situation, then is it still ok for UTG+2 to raise to 1600? That would be seriously unfair to UTG+1 to allow UTG+2 to bump it only 100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it unfair? UTG+1 can call the extra 100, or can now re-raise the UTG+2 tard.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Because the UTG+2 tard only "completed the bet" adding 100 to it. That shouldn't reopen the betting for UTG+1. You shouldn't allow UTG+1 to call a 700 raise, then faced with a raise of 100 more effectively raise himself. And think about UTG+3 and other players involved...they may really want to call UTG+2's extra 100, but not if they know UTG+1 is free to pop it again.

So it's unfair to UTG+1 to let random following players put in subsize raises "completing the bet" limit style, unless you reopen the betting to UTG+1. But it's unfair to everybody else to let UTG+1 reraise if faced with a piddly 1/8th size raise. I've never liked the limit "complete the bet" concept, anyway, and when applied to no limit I REALLY don't like it.

The only way I find to do this that doesn't make my head assplode is to require every raise to be based on the previous largest action, whether it was a complete raise or not.

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can UTG re-raise now (since his raise to 800+800 is now 3000)? Nobody has put in a "minimum raise".

[/ QUOTE ] Of course he can reraise, even though no single player put in a raise that the combined raise was a legal raise.

Robert's rules addresses this as
[ QUOTE ]
Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Min Raise after an all-in?
 

[ 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.

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 ]

As correctly related by psandman above:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course he can reraise, even though no single player put in a raise that the combined raise was a legal raise.
.
Robert's rules addresses this as
.
[ QUOTE ]
Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

In your example [ QUOTE ]
UTG+1 only did a 700 raise on UTG's 1500 "call"

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not a "call", it is a short raise. The two short raises in your example added together qualify as at least a minimum raise (they're actually much more than the minimum), and thus reopen the action to players who have previously acted on their hands.

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 ]

As correctly related by psandman above:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course he can reraise, even though no single player put in a raise that the combined raise was a legal raise.
.
Robert's rules addresses this as
.
[ QUOTE ]
Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

In your example [ QUOTE ]
UTG+1 only did a 700 raise on UTG's 1500 "call"

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not a "call", it is a short raise. The two short raises in your example added together qualify as at least a minimum raise (they're actually much more than the minimum), and thus reopen the action to players who have previously acted on their hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand it's a raise, and would reopen the action. The question was:

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.

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.