Min Raise after an all-in?

[crashjr]

[ 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.

[bav]

[ 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.

[KipBond]

[ 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).

[KipBond]

[ 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.

[psandman]

[ 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 ]

[bav]

[ 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.

[KipBond]

[ 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.

[KipBond]

[ 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.

[pokerswami]

[ 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.

[KipBond]

[ 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.