Quick ruling Question?

[runout_mick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
blinds at 300/600, player A limps for 600, player B raises to 3000 and player C reraises all in for 4,200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that we've established that A can raise, I do have a follow-up question. What is the minimum raise amount for player A?

My guess is that the underraise really functions (as someone else said) as a "call plus some extra chips", in which case I would expect that the minimum raise would be calculated off of B's raise (as if C had "just called").

But this has always confused me and I can't find a clear explanation of it in Robert's (would appreciate pointer if it is in there)

[/ QUOTE ]
Player A must use the total chips that are over his original bet as a basis for a minimum raise. So that is 4200-600=3600. Player A must make it a minimum of 7800 to go.

Think of it this way. It is the same as if Player B had raised to 4200 and that just happened to be exactly what Player C had left to go all-in. It's also the same as if Player B had called Player A and then Player C pushed in for 4200.

Also think of it this way. When the action is to you after you have bet, your original bet is already part of the pot. So now to call a raise back to you, you need to put in amount X, which is the amount of the raise to you. You now need to at least double that X to make a minimum raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I believe player B set the raise increment at 2400 (since player C's all-in is treated as a call, it doesn't increase the size of the increment) and the minimum re-raise player A can make is to 6600 (current bet of 4200 + current raise increment of 2400).

Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is just my understanding of it.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
blinds at 300/600, player A limps for 600, player B raises to 3000 and player C reraises all in for 4,200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that we've established that A can raise, I do have a follow-up question. What is the minimum raise amount for player A?

My guess is that the underraise really functions (as someone else said) as a "call plus some extra chips", in which case I would expect that the minimum raise would be calculated off of B's raise (as if C had "just called").

But this has always confused me and I can't find a clear explanation of it in Robert's (would appreciate pointer if it is in there)

[/ QUOTE ]
Player A must use the total chips that are over his original bet as a basis for a minimum raise. So that is 4200-600=3600. Player A must make it a minimum of 7800 to go.

Think of it this way. It is the same as if Player B had raised to 4200 and that just happened to be exactly what Player C had left to go all-in. It's also the same as if Player B had called Player A and then Player C pushed in for 4200.

Also think of it this way. When the action is to you after you have bet, your original bet is already part of the pot. So now to call a raise back to you, you need to put in amount X, which is the amount of the raise to you. You now need to at least double that X to make a minimum raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I believe player B set the raise increment at 2400 (since player C's all-in is treated as a call, it doesn't increase the size of the increment) and the minimum re-raise player A can make is to 6600 (current bet of 4200 + current raise increment of 2400).

Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is just my understanding of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I searched the rules and I couldn't find anything that covers this scenario.

So I extrapolated my answer from another rule. The rule I used is the multiple all-in rule. That is, if an all-in isn't a legal raise, and a subsequent all-in is also not a legal raise, but the total of those two all-ins add up to a legal raise, then betting is reopened. And if the betting is reopened to raises, then I believe the minimum raise amount would be calculated as if only one player had made that raise instead of two shortstacks.

I concluded that the extra chips do actually mean something so while the short all-in raise is treated as a call within the rules, the amount of call has risen slightly and thus the minimum raising requirement has also increased should a player indeed have the option to raise.

That's my interpretation, however I could be wrong on this as well.

[steeveg01]

ok, just to clear up, player A has a tack of 20,000 he limps for 600 ,player C moves all in for 4000, player D who has a stack of 15,000 just calls the 4000 all in from player C,
player A can now move all in to make a sidepot as he has still been raised from player C, i am sure this scenario has happened lots of times to most regular players,but never gave it much thought till now,

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, just to clear up, player A has a tack of 20,000 he limps for 600 ,player C moves all in for 4000, player D who has a stack of 15,000 just calls the 4000 all in from player C,
player A can now move all in to make a sidepot as he has still been raised from player C, i am sure this scenario has happened lots of times to most regular players,but never gave it much thought till now,

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, so if you are player D, you should be ready for that. If you have AA, you call and just wait for player A to move in. If you have TT, maybe you just move in yourself to squeeze player A out and deny him his 2:1 call odds.

Of course the flip side of that is what we have been talking about. Player A bets 3000 and Player C goes all-in for 4000. Now, if Player D just calls 4000, Player A can't raise and maybe that's what Player D wants.