Re: management argue
 

I also think that most software in online poker would make the min-raise 1400. This is why so many people are of the opinion that the min raise is 1400

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
I say 1500. Although the 100 does not count as a "raise", any raise must be at least the size of the previous raise. Would the situation be different if the player went all in for 1075? It changes the dynamics of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it should be a 600 unit raise over the current 900 to call, to a total of 1,500 to be put in by the raiser.

(And I'm not just saying this because I'll probably be asking Johnny for a job soon.)

Re: management argue
 

This question has problems either way you answer it. It's a rare situation, and I can't fault anybody for ruling either way. Both views make sense.

Me, I like to include the all-in as the baseline for a new raise, but the minimum raise amount stays the same.

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably be asking Johnny for a job soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get in line, pal.

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
I say 1500. Although the 100 does not count as a "raise", any raise must be at least the size of the previous raise. Would the situation be different if the player went all in for 1075? It changes the dynamics of the hand.

Bob Ciaffone actually wrote an article about this, as well as the aggregate total of sevreal all ins that eventually go over the full bet threshhold(which he felt reopened the betting). Wow was that a bunch of unclear crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just woke up thinking about this. The 1500 had to be right. I mean I don't think anyone would be arguing for the 1400 if the all-in had been to 1300 and there is no difference in NL between a raise to 900 and a raise to 1300.

Re: management argue
 

1500 has to be right because the all-in rules protect players against colluders reopening the betting for paltry amounts.

If you allow players to complete the bet, then they could complete the bet to 1400 after an underraise to 1350 and 8 calls, reopening the betting. Clealy a situation that should not be allowed. The minimum raise then would be 600 more to 1950.

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT THE PLAYER CAN RAISE? 1.) raise to 1400? 2.) raise to 1500?

[/ QUOTE ]

On a side note, players min raising or even worrying what a min raise is after a bet/raise/mini all in, would raise a flag about collusion to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on Photoc, You know there are lots of players out there who really don't get it, and just always make the minimum raise unles sthey are pushing all-in

Re: management argue
 

the action to the player in question is 900 to go
... a raise of 700.

the correct min raise would be to 1600 (700 + 700 + 200)

the initial raiser's action is void because the raise of the all in player is greater.

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
an all in for 100 more than a 600 raise does not qualify as a raise, only as a call as far as betting action goes so the minimum the next player can raise should be 1400.

[/ QUOTE ]

fail

Re: management argue
 

[ QUOTE ]
the action to the player in question is 900 to go
... a raise of 700.

the correct min raise would be to 1600 (700 + 700 + 200)

the initial raiser's action is void because the raise of the all in player is greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

The all in player didn't raise. He went all in for less then a full raise, so his action is treated as a call. This closes the action if no one else raises behind him and players who have already acted can only call the all in or fold.