Quick ruling Question?

[Under dog]

Yup I thought it was pretty straight forward stuff, just need to confirm

thanks all the same

[steeveg01]

hi underdog,it does sound confusing i agree but 1 of those rules that needs an example to explain , it does appear to me that your right,if everyone had just called player C under raise which is a bigger bet but only classed as a call ,player A could not of re raised, but as player B raised he can re raise his raise, drinks are on you underdog lol

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
hi,think your m8 may be right,if A had already acted
Glossary - Under-raise

Under-raise: This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising … going all-in to raise … has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked. The term locked here means that any player who has already acted in the round (checked, called, or raised) may no longer raise. They may only call or fold. However, players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet) may raise the expected raise for that betting round, after calling. If the under-raise is half or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sounds like a rule for Limit Holdem.

[PantsOnFire]

Here is the underlying reasoning for this sort of ruling.

Player A bets, Player C wants to call Player A. Player B in between them goes all-in but it is not a full legal raise. It is therefore treated as a call (under-raise if you will). So now Player C still wants to call so he puts in the identical amount that Player B did. Now Player A cannot raise.

Your buddy is correct to say that you can't raise an under-raise (since it is technically an oversized call). However, in your scenario, Player A is not facing an under-raise, he is facing a raise from Player B and a call of that raise from Player C. So he can in fact re-raise Player B.

[kerr]

This is pretty simple guys. Ask yourself if the total amount a player has to call constitutes a raise of his bet? If so, then he can re-raise.

A bet 600. He now has to call 3600. 3600 > 600 thus A can raise.

If A flat calls, B has a further 1200 to call. 1200 < 3000 thus B cannot raise.

However, if B was a forward-thinking tricky fellow, and could predict what his opponents would do, he would have first raised to 2400 rather than 3000, allowing himself to re-raise and isolate A when the betting got back round to him.

[foal]

will someone please tell me what LDO stands for?

[kerr]

[ QUOTE ]
will someone please tell me what LDO stands for?

[/ QUOTE ]

LDO - stands for Lebanese Development Organization, like, duh, obviously [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[kerr]

[ QUOTE ]
If A flat calls, B has a further 1200 to call. 1200 < 3000 thus B cannot raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should read "1200 < 2400 thus B cannot raise."

[OutOfCrown]

[ 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)

[PantsOnFire]

[ 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.