management argue

[Rick Nebiolo]

As Randy and others have mentioned the answer seems to be in dispute (and I've heard it both ways over the years).

Here's the applicable written rule from an LA rulebook (Ciaffone's is similar).

"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. A player who has already checked or called may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the amount of the last bet or raise. For example: Player A bets $100. Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn’t fully raised. However, Player A can raise — after Player C goes all in — because he was fully raised by Player B. If Player A does raise, then the betting is reopened, and Player B can raise again."

IMO the written rule is unclear. But if rewritten I'd prefer the raise to be to $1500 unless you want to go to the "double the bet you are facing" approach in which case it would be to $1600.

~ Rick

Edit to say this thread would be better (easier to find) with a more descriptive title (e.g., "Min reraise after short allin raise").

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The answer is so clearly 1400 it's not even funny. 1500? Kick 'em in the nuts. Then let him know that it's ok to sometimes not smoke that stuff on his break.

Al

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

How much does it cost the player to call? 900
What is the minimum raise? 600 +
________________________________________________
1,500


class dismissed
LOL

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

Someone rationalize and logically convince me why it's supposed to be 1400.
I want to be enlightened

[Twistofsin]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is so clearly 1400 it's not even funny. 1500? Kick 'em in the nuts. Then let him know that it's ok to sometimes not smoke that stuff on his break.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it so clear?

Everyone agrees he is facing a bet of 900.

Everyone also agrees that the min raise in this situation is 600.

Are you saying that we can now "complete" an all in to a full raise in NL?

[Dynasty]

It's not important that the minium raise is to either 1,400 or 1,500. It's only important that you decide which it is at your casino and enforce it consistently.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not important that the minium raise is to either 1,400 or 1,500. It's only important that you decide which it is at your casino and enforce it consistently.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may not be important for these specific raise amounts but let's say Player A bets 200, B raises to 800, C calls 800, D then goes allin for 1300. Do we want Player E to be be able to raise to 1400 and reopen the betting for Players B or C?

This assumes a "half or more" rule doesn't apply to no limit (since it usually doesn't).

~ Rick

[Al_Capone_Junior]

It's no different here than it would be in a limit game.

Suppose 3-6 limit on the turn. Player bets 6. Next raises all-in to 7. The dollar doesn't count for squat because it's not enough to qualify as a bet. In limit, it must be half or more to qualify at which point it counts as a full bet. "Complete" is just a word, not some all-binding principle that has far reaching effects.

In no limit, most houses will use the full bet rule (as in tda). Thus any portion less than the amount needed to qualify as a full bet doesn't really matter and does not qualify as a "bet on top." It wouldn't make any difference if the 50% rule was used, same principles would apply.

Take the op's example, assume 100% rule: blind 200, raise to 800. Next raise would be minimim 1400. If some goes all-in for 900, that's only 100 on top, not near enough to qualify as a full bet. But if you forced the next min raise to go to 1500, you have essentially qualified that 100 extra as a full bet. You'd have the blind, the first raise, the extra 100, and the reraise all as separate entities. The extra 100 should merely be absorbed by the reraise, not let stand as another bet on top of the blind and the first raise.

"Complete" essentially means the same as "make another full raise on top of the first raise," thus absorbing the trivial extra amout left dangling by the all-in player.

What I find really odd about this whole situation is that I've never seen anyone argue or do it differently than I'm describing. I suppose for the whole devil's advocate thing it's interesting to present a different spin on what was presumed to be the "only" way to do something.

I'm not sure of whether this exact situation is covered in robert's rules. I'm gonna "pull a sklansky" and let others elaborate (i.e. I'm too dang lazy to do it myself. I should kick myself in the nuts for that one, but I'm too lazy for that today either).

Al

[Twistofsin]

[ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure of whether this exact situation is covered in robert's rules. I'm gonna "pull a sklansky" and let others elaborate (i.e. I'm too dang lazy to do it myself. I should kick myself in the nuts for that one, but I'm too lazy for that today either).

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I perused Roberts NL section yesterday to see if I could find something referencing this specific situation but I couldn't.

I give your opinion on NL rulings a lot of respect and if betting rules are the same for NL and FL then you are right here as well.

[Small Fry]

[quote}

In no limit, most houses will use the full bet rule (as in tda). Thus any portion less than the amount needed to qualify as a full bet doesn't really matter and does not qualify as a "bet on top." It wouldn't make any difference if the 50% rule was used, same principles would apply.

Take the op's example, assume 100% rule: blind 200, raise to 800. Next raise would be minimim 1400. If some goes all-in for 900, that's only 100 on top, not near enough to qualify as a full bet. But if you forced the next min raise to go to 1500, you have essentially qualified that 100 extra as a full bet. You'd have the blind, the first raise, the extra 100, and the reraise all as separate entities. The <u>extra 100 should merely be absorbed</u> by the reraise, <u>not let stand as another bet</u> on top of the blind and the first raise.

"Complete" essentially means the same as "make another full raise on top of the first raise," thus absorbing the trivial extra amout left dangling by the all-in player.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I find your argument interesting. But isn't the extra 100 an amount that does need to be acknowledged. It is seperate. So while technically not a bet, it is still a wager that needs to be recognized. No player, wanting to just call, can put in 800. They must put in 900.

The amount is not enough to effect the action of the original bettor such that it reopens betting to him, he can only call or fold. But any player left to act behind must acknowledge this amount in their action, as must the original bettor should he want to continue in the hand.

Another scenario would be UTG bets 800, player A all in for 900. Everyone folds. Back to UTG. Does he not have to put in another 100 to stay in the hand? Yes he does. It stands as a legitamate wager. On it's own.

And shouldn't complete mean to either bet a full, correct amount, or bring the bet up to the full correct amount. For The third player to merely complete the bet here he needs to put in 900. To make a complete raise then would be to add 600 to this.

But lets assume you're correct. I'm lost on how you can ignore this additional 100 when considering a raise but include it for a call? Other than "absorbtion" factor. For the call it appears you acknowledge it's existance as a seperate bet but if raising you ignore it.

ps, can someone please ban that Tod guy.

edit - looks like that was taken care of.....