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