Weird question about pokerrules! (betting amounts)

[FiSheYe]

Okay this is somewhat specific about betting amounts and how to proceed. Recently in a NL400 game I had a situation which I try to reconstruct:

I had a strong hand, guess it was QQ or so.
Amounts where like
UTG $400
Button Hero $400
BB $80

Ok so UTG bet's standart 16$, I raise to standart 52; BB goes all in, UTG calls and I can either fold or call the remaining 28.. Why isn't it possible to reraise? Would it have been possible to reraise if I would just have min raises ? I understand that BB cannot bet more, therefor I can only call him.. but UTG has plenty more chips and I would love to reraise him big or even shove it...
I also had that occuring on situation in fixed limit with retarded amounts like the guy raises my bet of let's say 30$ to 31.56$ total, someone else calls him and I would love to reraise to 60 but can only call the remaining 1.56 or fold it. I would just love to understand the mechanism behind this and when it won't apply, so I might be capable to set better traps.

Would the NL example apply if I raise only to 16 with a weakish let's say 33 trying to get BB moving all in so at best UTG can only call the 80 and might be pushed off a good hand with minimum eventments on my side and the possibility for myself to make a good call dependant on my read (AK, AQ, AJ with 16$ deadmoney in it). Anyone can help out? Thanks

[Kojak1984]

It's not possible to reraise because the BB's raise of 28 is an under-raise.


[ QUOTE ]
I would just love to understand the mechanism behind this and when it won't apply

[/ QUOTE ]

This will always apply, so you will never be able to re-raise in this position.

With your second example, this doesn't work, because if the BB raises from 16 to 80, this is a legitimate raise, and the UTG is entitled to re-raise behind him.

Not wanting to sound like a dick, but if you're not aware of this, I think you should be before you start thinking about elaborate (and in this case convoluted) trap strategies.

[FiSheYe]

i just don't see the reasoning behind it, there is a sidepot so why does it apply to the other players at the table, too.
So you say if he has 80 left and I reraise to let's say 40 instead of 52, and UTG calls BB then I can reraise because BB raised exactly the min amount and it wasn't a under-raise?
Actually I used to play a lot fixed limit before and this never had any real meaning to me and wasn't important at all. But in NL it can make a huge difference.. Say I have AA and figure UTG has QQ or so but wouldn't stick it in.. I raise to 40, BB moves in UTG calls and I can reraise again to give UTG a hard time.

[Kojak1984]

The reasoning behind it simply is that the all-in raise is below the minimum size necessary to reopening the betting.

In NL the 'minimum size necessary' would fulfill both these conditions:

1. Be at least the size of the minimum bet at the table
2. Be at least the size of the largest previous wager on that round.

So, UTG bets 16, you pop it to 52 dollars, a raise of 36 dollars. The BB must now have 88 dollars to raise an amount equal to the largest previous wager.

The reasoning behind it is to stop players from 'double acting', ie. effectively being allowed to raise themselves in one round of betting.

HOWEVER, if say this occurs:

UTG bets 16
You raise to 52
SB goes all-in for 80

The BB is still entitled to raise, because he hasn't acted yet in this round. He must raise to at least 88, but can raise up to any amount.


To sum up, the underraise is essentially a call rather than a raise. All the players who have acted already can do is call the under-raise, so that no player can re-raise their own raise.

[Kojak1984]

[ QUOTE ]
So you say if he has 80 left and I reraise to let's say 40 instead of 52, and UTG calls BB then I can reraise because BB raised exactly the min amount and it wasn't a under-raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're confusing the 'raise' with the total amount.

UTG bets 16
You raise to 40 (a raise of 24)
BB goes all-in for 80 (a raise of 40)

This is not the minimum raise, the min raise would be to 64.

But yes you are correct, if BB went all in in this scenario and UTG flat called, you would be entitled to re-raise.

[FiSheYe]

Thanks for your time Kojak... I wasn't fully aware of those rules because I never had to use em.. but these days I thought about it.. So next time I raise UTG to 48 so if he shoves all in that's the min raise so I can tryx to suck UTG in and then make him pay.
Another example to verifiy that I understood the concept.
UTG raises to 20, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, Button Hero raises to 120, BB moves all in for 130..
UTG/ UT+1 /Mp1 can either fold/call or reraise while Hero is faced with an under-raise of 10$ so if anyone else elect to call he can only call himself.

other example: Hero utg bets 16, UTG+1 goes allin for 20$, mp3 goes allin for 25$, CO goes all in for 30$, Button calls.. I can either call or fold.. None of those players raises the min-raise and all are under-raises so I would need Button to raise at least to 32$ so I could reraise.

And a tricky one to finish this topic:
Let's say it's a live game and I can figure my opponent has a good hand AK for example, I've got AA and I know if I apply to much pressure he isn't gonna put money in...
Villian is UTG raises 16$, Button Hero calls 16$, BB goes allin for 50$, UTG calls, Hero reraises to 150.
If I have to read that the shortstack will push it in I could call to give Villian the idea he is in a good position and might be isolated against the shortstack and then come over the top.

Thanks for patience [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Kojak1984]

[ QUOTE ]
UTG raises to 20, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, Button Hero raises to 120, BB moves all in for 130..
UTG/ UT+1 /Mp1 can either fold/call or reraise while Hero is faced with an under-raise of 10$ so if anyone else elect to call he can only call himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. If one of them raised however, the betting would be open to you again.

[ QUOTE ]
other example: Hero utg bets 16, UTG+1 goes allin for 20$, mp3 goes allin for 25$, CO goes all in for 30$, Button calls.. I can either call or fold.. None of those players raises the min-raise and all are under-raises so I would need Button to raise at least to 32$ so I could reraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the betting is locked here. This can be a bad situation for you in some situations, but it's a necessary evil in the game.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say it's a live game and I can figure my opponent has a good hand AK for example, I've got AA and I know if I apply to much pressure he isn't gonna put money in...
Villian is UTG raises 16$, Button Hero calls 16$, BB goes allin for 50$, UTG calls, Hero reraises to 150.
If I have to read that the shortstack will push it in I could call to give Villian the idea he is in a good position and might be isolated against the shortstack and then come over the top.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were certain that BB was ready to put it all in, I think this disguises your situation nicely. However in this four-handed situation I'd be surprised if the UTG AK didn't push after the BB's all-in.

But you are right, limping here when you are sure the BB is moving in gives you the maximum amount of information about UTG's hand, without you revealing the strength of your own.
There is a definite strategy to playing an underraise, I'm sure you can find an explanation of it somewhere on here. Meanwhile, I'm off to study vorticity. Joy.