Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

The dealer is confused. It is the BB who cannot REraise the all-in player, because the all-in player did not raise the BB the full amount. However you can raise the BB as much as you want.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

Thanks for the answers. The more I think about it, the only thing a "half bet" rule in NL can mean is if the all in amount is less than 1.5x the bet, then it is considered a call, if it is more than 1.5x the bet, then it is a raise. So the all in play should be treated as either a call or raise, and everyone else in the hand gets to act accordingly.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

next time something doesnt seem right to you- stop the action and politely insist that the floor be called in for a decision, be calm the whole time and calmly explain your position to the floor manager and abide by his ruling. Unfortunately for you, since the action passed without the floor, the decision couldnt be reversed.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the answers. The more I think about it, the only thing a "half bet" rule in NL can mean is if the all in amount is less than 1.5x the bet, then it is considered a call, if it is more than 1.5x the bet, then it is a raise. So the all in play should be treated as either a call or raise, and everyone else in the hand gets to act accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strat, this is a bit nitty, but so you aren't surprised in a game where folks do follow the rules, the half bet raise idea is a limit concept. In limit, an all-in for over half a legal raise re-opens the action. However, in No Limit, only a full size raise re-opens the action.

See Roberts Rules of Poker, Section 3 (General Rules) #7 under the betting and raising section:

[ QUOTE ]
7. In limit play, an all-in wager of less than half a bet does not reopen the betting for any player who has already acted and is in the pot for all previous bets. A player who has not yet acted (or had the betting reopened to him by another player’s action), facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may fold, call, or complete the wager. An all-in wager of a half a bet or more is treated as a full bet, and a player may fold, call, or make a full raise. (An example of a full raise on a $20 betting round is raising a $15 all-in bet to $35.) Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to individually 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 ]

And this is Rule 3, under section 14, No Limit and Pot Limit:

[ 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 fullsize 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 ]

Link to Robert's Rules of Poker

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the answers. The more I think about it, the only thing a "half bet" rule in NL can mean is if the all in amount is less than 1.5x the bet, then it is considered a call, if it is more than 1.5x the bet, then it is a raise. So the all in play should be treated as either a call or raise, and everyone else in the hand gets to act accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if it's considered a call or not, anyone who hasn't had a chance to act behind that player can still raise any amount. Your right to make a bet or raise cannot be taken away by a player acting before you.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

The dealer is so horrifyingly wrong, he should be fired.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

moronic dealer, call floor over and get his arse fired.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
If hes calling 100 on the turn with FD... He's calling it on the flop... Either way same result [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you come play in my home game? He didn't have a flush draw to call on the flop, he got it on the turn due to OPs inability to drive him out of the pot. Flush draw would not have called on the flop if OP could have bet $100.

My experience, and how we handle this in my home game, is if the raise is for more than half of the original bet, there can be reraises. So if original bet was $30, if shortstack goes all in for $15 or more on top of calling the $30 original bet than others can reraise NL, if shortstack can only reraise $14.99 or less ($0.99 is just for exactness)than there can be no reraises. It is a fair rule, you just need to know it. The beauty is when you are aware of all the stacks at the table and are able to use this rule against others trapping 3 - 4 cally wally's in the middle drawing very thin by betting an amount that if the shortstack wants to push, his raise is just a bit more than half of the original bet. It doesn't happen very often, but it is SUPER FUN when it does.

Sorry OP that it rolled out like that on you, but rules are rules, you just got to know them, which isn't easy if you play in multiple places.

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If hes calling 100 on the turn with FD... He's calling it on the flop... Either way same result [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you come play in my home game? He didn't have a flush draw to call on the flop, he got it on the turn due to OPs inability to drive him out of the pot. Flush draw would not have called on the flop if OP could have bet $100.

My experience, and how we handle this in my home game, is if the raise is for more than half of the original bet, there can be reraises. So if original bet was $30, if shortstack goes all in for $15 or more on top of calling the $30 original bet than others can reraise NL, if shortstack can only reraise $14.99 or less ($0.99 is just for exactness)than there can be no reraises. It is a fair rule, you just need to know it. The beauty is when you are aware of all the stacks at the table and are able to use this rule against others trapping 3 - 4 cally wally's in the middle drawing very thin by betting an amount that if the shortstack wants to push, his raise is just a bit more than half of the original bet. It doesn't happen very often, but it is SUPER FUN when it does.

Sorry OP that it rolled out like that on you, but rules are rules, you just got to know them, which isn't easy if you play in multiple places.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see if I understand your "rules." Before any action post flop player A bets $30. Player B only has $14.99 so he calls. Are you saying that players C, D, E, can only call player A's $30? Cuz if you are you have some retarded rules. If you aren't then please clarify?

Re: Strange NL betting rule
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you aren't then please clarify?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed- if bec1972 is saying that a short stack can effectively block raising, that's a very unusual rule (though maybe not as unusual as we thought).

Half-bet raise? Cool. Short stack blocking everyone ELSE from raising? Not cool.... even though they are giving themselves (the SS) a big disadvantage by doing so.

In a bit of a seque, I'm been somewhat of an advocate of the "1/2 raise = reopen the betting" concept.... but thinking more of bec1972's example, I'm not sure if I like the "raise so you can reraise yourself" idea. I'll have to think through that one some more.