Min Raise after an all-in?

[Headhunter13]

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

[Gonso]

1600.

It was 800 to call, but the AI guy only had 1000. If the AI had more than half of the minimum raise (after the 800 needed to call) then it would be considered a raise. This is treated like a call.

Let's say UTG called 800 before this guy pushed for 1000. If no one else raised, UTG would not get the option of raising, just calling or folding the extra 200.

You'll probably get a couple different answers on this depending on who you ask.

[tastim]

[ QUOTE ]
1600.

It was 800 to call, but the AI guy only had 1000. If the AI had more than half of the minimum raise (after the 800 needed to call) then it would be considered a raise. This is treated like a call.


[/ QUOTE ]

While your answer results in the correct decision, I have just one clarification. The half-bet rule is a Limit rule. If this is a NL tourney, everything else you said is still true, however now the All-In player must have had enough to make a complete raise (to 1600) for his action to have been considered a raise.

[flafishy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1600.

It was 800 to call, but the AI guy only had 1000. If the AI had more than half of the minimum raise (after the 800 needed to call) then it would be considered a raise. This is treated like a call.


[/ QUOTE ]

While your answer results in the correct decision, I have just one clarification. The half-bet rule is a Limit rule. If this is a NL tourney, everything else you said is still true, however now the All-In player must have had enough to make a complete raise (to 1600) for his action to have been considered a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most cases, I don't think so.

In any event, house rules on this differ, though the half-bet rule is the standard in limit and no-limit, I believe.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
...the half-bet rule is the standard in limit and no-limit, I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Robert's Rules:

[ 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 full-size 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 ]

[crashjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...the half-bet rule is the standard in limit and no-limit, I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Robert's Rules:

[ 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 full-size 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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most inconsistently applied/misapplied rule in all of live tournament poker. I agree with Roberts in that I think it is the best rule, but the "1/2 bet amount reopens the betting" rule is quite common in northern CA/northern NV.

[bav]

We had exactly this debate long ago. This isn't about half-size bets or whether the betting is reopened. It's simply asking what the minimum raise size is. Recap:

SB is 400, BB is 800, UTG all-in's for 1000.

Now if UTG+1 says raise, what's his minimum commitment? In the last discussion I recall, there were about 30 opinions about equally split between 1600 and 1800. The question is just whether the all-in micro raise has ANY impact whatsoever on subsequent betting, or is it treated like a call. When you are raising do you have to raise the previous largest bet regardless whether it was a complete raise, or do you only have to raise from the last full bet? And before you answer TOO quickly, since this was only a 200 raise, would your answer be the same if the all-in was for 1595, 795 more? Could the next player make it 5 more?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
since this was only a 200 raise, would your answer be the same if the all-in was for 1595, 795 more? Could the next player make it 5 more?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd interpret Robert's Rule to be that you can raise the previous raise amount (which doesn't include the all-in call that was almost but not quite enough to be a raise). So, the next play could make it 5 more than the all-in caller and reopen the betting to the previous raiser.

[pokerswami]

[ 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.

After all, when you say raise, you're indicating that you're raising the amount of the current bet, not the previous bet. Also, if you say the player acting after the all-in can minimum raise to 1,600 (for only 600 more than the current bet, with the big blind at 800) then you are allowing him to do something that other players likely will not be able to do, that is, raise for an amount less than the minimum raise without going all-in.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

After all, when you say raise, you're indicating that you're raising the amount of the current bet, not the previous bet. Also, if you say the player acting after the all-in can minimum raise to 1,600 (for only 600 more than the current bet, with the big blind at 800) then you are allowing him to do something that other players likely will not be able to do, that is, raise for an amount less than the minimum raise without going all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]
I definitely prefer this answer myself. It avoids some unpleasant other situations. Consider:

SB=400, BB=800, UTG allins for 1500 (700 more), UTG+1 calls 1500, UTG+2 says "raise".

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. And would that reopen the action for UTG+1? Well...any raise other than an all-in SHOULD reopen the action, but if you let UTG+2 in for 200 it doesn't; just ain't fair to let UTG+2 raise without any fear of a reraise from UTG+1. But if you were willing to let UTG+1 raise from 1500 to 1600, how can you prohibit UTG+2 facing the same bet size from doing it now?

Seems like things just kinda fall apart in some situations if you don't demand that a raise always has to be applied to the biggest action.

Course it can still be messy. Let's get silly:

SB=400, BB=800, UTG all-ins for 1500, UTG+1 all-ins for 2200, UTG+2 raises to 3000, UTG+3 all-ins for 3700. (Summary: 3 partial-raise all-ins, one real raise so far.)

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.