|
|
|
|
#1
11-29-2007, 08:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: management argue
[ QUOTE ]
I say 1500. Although the 100 does not count as a "raise", any raise must be at least the size of the previous raise. Would the situation be different if the player went all in for 1075? It changes the dynamics of the hand. Bob Ciaffone actually wrote an article about this, as well as the aggregate total of sevreal all ins that eventually go over the full bet threshhold(which he felt reopened the betting). Wow was that a bunch of unclear crap. [/ QUOTE ] I just woke up thinking about this. The 1500 had to be right. I mean I don't think anyone would be arguing for the 1400 if the all-in had been to 1300 and there is no difference in NL between a raise to 900 and a raise to 1300. 
|
|
#2
11-29-2007, 09:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: management argue
1500 has to be right because the all-in rules protect players against colluders reopening the betting for paltry amounts.
If you allow players to complete the bet, then they could complete the bet to 1400 after an underraise to 1350 and 8 calls, reopening the betting. Clealy a situation that should not be allowed. The minimum raise then would be 600 more to 1950.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
