NL raise rule?

[antfurnier]

I wanted to get peoples opinion on handling an all in raise which is less than the amount of a full raise. much of the literature on the subject says that if a player goes all in for more than the bet that he is facing, but does not have enough to cover a "full" raise, then betting will not be reopened to the original better, nor anyone who has acted during that round of betting by either checking or call the initial bet. does anyone have a "good" reason for this besides the fact that roberts rules supports it as well as the TDA? Im looking for why it would be fair to not let the original better reraise if raised by at least 50% of the minimum, this is severely damaging his ability to protect his hand. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] poll is whether you believe that the original bettor should be able to reopen the betting if he is raised by an all in player by at least 50% of his bet.

[DoGGz]

No, because a raise must be at least the same amount. An All in for less then the minimum raise amount isn't a raise.

[skin city]

[ QUOTE ]
No, because a raise must be at least the same amount. An All in for less then the minimum raise amount isn't a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

its as simple as that! ITS NOT A RAISE!!

[skin city]

oh and this is an open invitation to ANYONE who clicks "YES" on the above poll....you are offically invited to my home game every tuesday night at 7:00 vegas time...bring cash

[dozer]

I'm interested in a clarification:

At my local card room, I found AA on the button in a 1/2 NL game. There were nothing but limpers to me, so I boost to $20. I get one caller before someone in EP pushes all in for $34. There's a call, and then I push my stack for about $90 more. This was allowed and not even questioned, yet the all-in did not have enough to cover a full raise. Should my raise have been allowed?

Also, the OP's poll is broken as anyone can vote for both yes AND no. NH.

[Buckeyes]

Your raise should not have been allowed but situations like this are often overlooked. My guess is that somebody at the table knew this but was hush hush. The dealer obviously missed this. All in for $38 would of been constituted as a raise.

[ShipitFMA]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm interested in a clarification:

At my local card room, I found AA on the button in a 1/2 NL game. There were nothing but limpers to me, so I boost to $20. I get one caller before someone in EP pushes all in for $34. There's a call, and then I push my stack for about $90 more. This was allowed and not even questioned, yet the all-in did not have enough to cover a full raise. Should my raise have been allowed?

Also, the OP's poll is broken as anyone can vote for both yes AND no. NH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your raise shouldnt have been allowed, however if someone else raised to 20 and the other guy raised to 34 total THEN you would be allowed to raise as you hadn't acted yet

[TexRef]

50% of a raise != a raise

If a player can open up betting again with a 50% raise by going all-in, why can't I make a 50% raise to reopen betting even though I am not all-in?

[bav]

You can argue forever about where the line should be. If someone bets $100 and the next guy goes all-in for $101, that shouldn't reopen the betting, right? That should seem clear but I've had debates with 30-year floor people about this who think any raise of any size should reopen it. There is certainly a case for "90% of a raise should be plenty--it's in the spirit of a full raise". So if you bite into that you now get to argue whether 10%, 30%, 50%, 70% or 90% of a raise is enough.

Then we can complicate things by tossing in the alternate standard that raise sequences have to go geometrically, not arithmetically. That is, the usual US standard says a bet of $5 can be raised to $10, then raised to $15, then raised to $20, then to $25. Some places think the minimum raise sequence is $5, $10, $20, $40, $80. Now you get to have all the arguments again about what size all-in should reopen the betting.

Basically, the rule is what it is. Our discussions are pretty much academic and philosophical. Some set of someone's somewhere decided this somehow some time ago so we're stuck with that.

[TheJacob]

There are tons of people who don't understand the rule as it is.

Why make it even more complicated by involving a % of the original raise.