NL raising, confused

[TheMuppet]

3 players to the flop, we call them A, B & C - Player A is first to act, B is second, and C is last.

Player A bets $20

Player B raises to $60 ($40 more)

Player C calls all-in for $75 total (the $60 raise to $15 more)

Player A now has option of calling, folding and raising (so much is clear). But what is the minimum total amount that Player A can raise to here?

Is is $115 total ($20(A bet)+$40(B raise)+$15(call with additional chips)+$40).

Or is it $100 total ($20(A bet)+$40(B raise)+$40(A raise, ignoring C's additional chips).

Also any raise all-in that is not at least 2x the bet/raise in front is it, is always concidered a call with additional chips? ($60 to call the raise is $40 and he has $99, that would still be a call with additional chips?)

[psandman]

The minimum raise Player a can make is to $115.

I am not sure what your second question means what is a call with additional raise? I have never heard that language and it confuses me. IN NL in most places an All-In "raise" that is not the whole size of a legal raise constitutes "action" but not a "raise".hat is it does not reopen the betting to player who has already acted.

[sirpupnyc]

C's action is a call-plus because it doesn't reopen the betting, it's just calling plus adding some extra chips. Maybe a little clearer than saying "raising all-in" since his all-in bet doesn't constitute a raise.

B hasn't been re-raised, so he can't do anything more than call the extra chips.

A hasn't yet had a chance to act on B's raise, so he can re-raise, though not because of C's action. (But he can't be denied the chance to respond to B's action by C.)

[TheMuppet]

A call with additional chips is well just that. A call of the bet/raise but with additional chips. As opposed to a raise, which constitutes a call (maybe 0 if your opening action) and some amount chips that constitutes the raise.

Calling it "a call with additional chips" is to avoid confusing with a raise. A raise is a raise and re opens actions, where as a call with additional chips does not.

So in essens my question is, in NL a raise is only concidered a raise if the amount>=preceding bet. If it is < then it becomes a call with additional chips and does not reopen action.

For the 3 player A,B & C this would have the implication, that if B called the AI from C, player A would NOT be allowed to raise, he would only be able to fold or call.

(AFAIK in FL a raise can be less than the preceding bet/raise, as long as it is ½ or more it constitutes a riase - In NL it must be the full amount or more)

Btw. now that I thinkt about it, logic dictates that the amount must be $115.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
For the 3 player A,B & C this would have the implication, that if B called the AI from C, player A would NOT be allowed to raise, he would only be able to fold or call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this makes no sense because in your example Player A acts before Player B.

For what its wort think calling anything a "call with additional chips" is confusing and a poor way to refer to the situation.erhaps it would make sense to refer to it as an All-IN raise of less then the minimum required raise.

[TheMuppet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the 3 player A,B & C this would have the implication, that if B called the AI from C, player A would NOT be allowed to raise, he would only be able to fold or call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this makes no sense because in your example Player A acts before Player B.

For what its wort think calling anything a "call with additional chips" is confusing and a poor way to refer to the situation.erhaps it would make sense to refer to it as an All-IN raise of less then the minimum required raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reversed A and B, sorry about that

This is what it should have said:

For the 3 player A,B & C this would have the implication, that if A called the AI from C, player B would NOT be allowed to raise, he would only be able to fold or call.

[metsandfinsfan]

I like to call it an incomplete raise

[GMontag]

I'm curious as to the logic behind saying that the minimum raise for player A would be to make the bet $115. When this happens in limit, a player who can raise has to complete the all-in player's raise before someone else can make a full raise. An example to clarify:

$20/$40 limit game
Action after the flop
Player A bets $20
Player B makes an incomplete raise all-in for $28 (less than half a bet)
Player C now has the options, fold, call $28, or complete Player B's raise and make the bet $40.

Analagously, in the OP's NL example, Player A should be able to complete Player C's incomplete raise to $100, or make it anything above that.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to the logic behind saying that the minimum raise for player A would be to make the bet $115. When this happens in limit, a player who can raise has to complete the all-in player's raise before someone else can make a full raise. An example to clarify:

$20/$40 limit game
Action after the flop
Player A bets $20
Player B makes an incomplete raise all-in for $28 (less than half a bet)
Player C now has the options, fold, call $28, or complete Player B's raise and make the bet $40.

Analagously, in the OP's NL example, Player A should be able to complete Player C's incomplete raise to $100, or make it anything above that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completing a bet is only a limit concept that would make no sense in a no limit game. In fact if we were really go to apply the analgy your conclusion would be wrong, In limit a player who has an option to complete does not have an option to raise beyond Completeing. So if you were to apply the Limit completeion rules, if Player A bet $100, Player B goes All-in for $199 Player puld only be able to Complete thet and Make it $200, not as you say raise beyond that amount. And that would not make sense in a No loimit game.

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to the logic behind saying that the minimum raise for player A would be to make the bet $115. When this happens in limit, a player who can raise has to complete the all-in player's raise before someone else can make a full raise. An example to clarify:

$20/$40 limit game
Action after the flop
Player A bets $20
Player B makes an incomplete raise all-in for $28 (less than half a bet)
Player C now has the options, fold, call $28, or complete Player B's raise and make the bet $40.

Analagously, in the OP's NL example, Player A should be able to complete Player C's incomplete raise to $100, or make it anything above that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completing a bet is only a limit concept that would make no sense in a no limit game. In fact if we were really go to apply the analgy your conclusion would be wrong, In limit a player who has an option to complete does not have an option to raise beyond Completeing. So if you were to apply the Limit completeion rules, if Player A bet $100, Player B goes All-in for $199 Player puld only be able to Complete thet and Make it $200, not as you say raise beyond that amount. And that would not make sense in a No loimit game.

[/ QUOTE ]

My conclusion would right. In a limit game, you can only raise to the minimum raise. In a no limit game, you can raise to the minimum raise or anything above that. In limit you'd have to complete the raise. In no limit, you should be able to complete the raise or make it anything above that. I don't see why completing a raise makes no sense in a no limit context.