management argue

[fatshark]

[ 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 ]

I agree with this. The min. raise would come to a total of 1400. 200 blind, raise 600 more to 800. Min raise would be 600+600+200.

[pokerdoug1973]

Thank you for your responses. It is my belief, that the players raise all in for 100 more is action only and does not count as a bet or a raise, so the minimum raise of 600 units still applies. 1400 was my answer.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

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.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

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

[pokerswami]

[ 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.)

[pfapfap]

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.

[youtalkfunny]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Get in line, pal.

[RR]

[ 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.

[Alex-db]

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.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Didn't that article primarily address limit issues? For example $80 betting round Player A bets 80, B calls, C allin for 100, D allin for 130, A calls, action now reopened for B since the total of both allin raises is greater than half the original bet (which means a full bet in limit).

Of course the same concept could be applied to no limit when two allins amount to a full raise.

~ Rick