1/2 NL, post flop. Player A bets 60, Player B calls 60, Player C goes all in for 92. Everyone else folds.

This room has a full bet rule for reopening action in big bet games. At this point, Player B insists that while Player A can only call or fold, he (Player B) has the option to go all in because he has not made an aggressive action.

Everyone thought it was strange and people tried explaining the rule from multiple perspectives to no avail. The strange thing about this is that Player B is a regular that I have never seen be wrong about the rules.

Does anyone know of a room or (rooms) where this situation would be true? I've visited a lot of rooms and have never once heard of this. Every place I've heard of, his time to be the aggressor would be before he called the 60.

Player B was so adamant even after speaking to three different supervisors and being shown the rules that it makes me feel like he must've encountered this strange rule somewhere before. ???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never heard of that before and don't think it would be in the spirit of the game to let player B raise if A didn't have that option.

Sounds like he was confusing this situation for another one: Player A bets, Player B calls, Player C raises, Player D moves all-in for an amount that isn't a full raise. The difference is that now he's facing a full raise that re-opened the betting. Maybe he just had a bout of temporary blindness; hopefully it subsided when he had time to think about it some more.

That ruling works for the BB preflop. If button ships 1,1BB and gets a call from SB, BB still has all options. Never heard of it postflop.

No one raised B's bet, he can't raise. He is confused.

He's wrong and he's probably trying to angleshoot Player A.

1/2 regs are the worst.

That is because the be had not acted yet in the pre flop situation. It has nothing to sue with no aggressive action. So that ruling isn't needed to support ab be raise.

That's what happened in this case. C's shove is not a full raise.

Well, he sort of got raised, but not a full raise. A call or fold is the only option for both A and B.

100% wrong barring some bizarre house rule.

It is always difficult to convince someone who knows they are right that they are wrong. However, if this ever comes up again, one way might be this:

1) If you (Player B) call and nobody else raises, do you have a chance to raise?

(I assume he would agree that he doesn't)

2) Did Player C make a legal raise based on the card room's definition? (I assume he agrees that the answer is no)

Then if you agree to 1 and you agree to 2, then you have to agree that you don't have the right to raise.

You could even add - "unless you are the stupidest person in the room".

If he doesn't agree with 2, then his argument is not about whether he can raise, but whether or not player C's action constitutes a raise, and that isn't a matter for debate, it is simply a matter of cardroom policy.

If he continues to argue, just point out that he has now admitted that he is the stupidest person in the room, and therefore there is no need to waste any more time on the topic. He may not be convinced, but he may be embarrassed enough to shutup about it.

Don't tap the glass and don't spit into the wind.

Look I have seen many people who understand the rule and the game just have a momentary lapse where they get this rule confused. If this guy is usually on top of the rules he probably just had such a moment ... not a big deal I wouldn;t assume he is stupid.

or being deceitfully angle-y

I want to say I do not recommend actually calling someone stupid - either at a table or otherwise. It is rude and serves no purpose. My main point was simply getting him to agree to the two points, and then hopefully coming to the correct conclusion.

I wouldn't have believed him for a second.

He's setting up for a check behind on the next street. Which he will tank and then check.

At least one person at the table (and that person is often the dealer) gets totally confused about this rule every single time someone goes all in for less than the full raise.

I think all of the rooms I frequent have moved away from calling this a raise and allowing BOTH Player A and Player B full options. Both cash and tournament are on equal footing with this one as well. Regardless of the room's rule, both Player A and Player B should get the same 'treatment'.

In fact, as a side note, most rooms wont allow Player C to complete the raise if he has chips behind .. even if he had put out 119. This is another practice that has faded away. GL

What? That is definitely not true.

Almost all casinos (still) force you to complete the raise (to 120) if you put in 50% or more of the required amount (i.e. 90-119), and it's not just 1 chip.

It's been a growing trend, at least in the Mid-West. I've always seen this in tournaments but it's spilling into cash. GL

Well, you certainly know more about the detroit area rooms than I do. But let's be careful generalizing that to "most rooms", or even most rooms in the Mid-West. I'd want to hear more data supporting that conclusion to go there, because it is at odds with what I've seen and read here.

Man, what are you talking about. You're claiming that on his first action in a no-limit game, there is a limit to how much a player can bet? I just don't believe this.

Huh? How could player C complete the raise he is all in. If he had chips behind he wouldn't be allin and he couldnt legally bet less than a full legal bet

He is (I think) saying that if a player puts in 119, but the min raise is to 120, it will be ruled a call, rather than requiring him to bring it up to the min raise. Which we know is the case in some rooms with very unusual rulesets such as the charity rooms he is very familiar with, but which is not, to my knowledge, a rule that is widely used. (Thank god, it is awful.)

/thread

If you ever play in a room where anything else happens, you should seriously consider moving somewhere else.