Two Plus Two Poker Forums Confusion on NL rule
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Video Directory TwoPlusTwo.com

 Notices 2013 Two Plus Two Party at South Point BET RAISE FOLD screening at 3PM in lounge next to poker room. July 6th Party registration at 5PM. Food served at 6PM

 Brick and Mortar Discussions of brick and mortar gambling venues

 08-06-2012, 03:54 PM #1 stranger   Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 13 Confusion on NL rule I am confused with a couple of betting situations when someone raises all in for less than a full raise and I have seen different floor persons make different rulings.... SCENARIO 1) 1/2 NL Player A checks. Player B bets \$50. Player C goes all in for \$58. Player A has \$80 left and wants to go all in. Can he, or is he only limited to folding or calling the \$58? I got a ruling: because he already checked, he can only fold or call, is that accurate? SCENARIO 2) 1/2 NL Player X bets \$50. Player Y goes all in for \$58. What are player Z's options? I was told since player Z hasn't had a chance to act yet, all of his options are still open (fold, call, raise)...but if he is allowed to re-raise, what is the minimum raise he has to make? \$100? \$116? Or does he not have a re-raise option? Please help...haha
 08-06-2012, 04:23 PM #2 old hand   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,201 Re: Confusion on NL rule If the all in bet is less than a full raise, just think of it as a "call" for the purpose of re-opening the action. So in 1) A can raise, I _think_ he can make it \$100 minimum. If A calls or folds, then B can either call or fold. When A flats B can never raise. In 2) Situation is _exactly_ the same as 1), all options open for Z. So the floor ruling is totally wrong (based on the house rules that I've seen, YMMV). I'm about 75% sure that A/Z's minimum raise is to \$100 ... but I've never actually seen that scenario ruled on. (It's usually an overshove when it comes up.)
08-06-2012, 04:29 PM   #3
Cant Cflat Aint My Tone

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Team Blue Shark Optics @friscochris
Posts: 10,413
Re: Confusion on NL rule

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Cautioner I am confused with a couple of betting situations when someone raises all in for less than a full raise and I have seen different floor persons make different rulings.... SCENARIO 1) 1/2 NL Player A checks. Player B bets \$50. Player C goes all in for \$58. Player A has \$80 left and wants to go all in. Can he, or is he only limited to folding or calling the \$58? I got a ruling: because he already checked, he can only fold or call, is that accurate? SCENARIO 2) 1/2 NL Player X bets \$50. Player Y goes all in for \$58. What are player Z's options? I was told since player Z hasn't had a chance to act yet, all of his options are still open (fold, call, raise)...but if he is allowed to re-raise, what is the minimum raise he has to make? \$100? \$116? Or does he not have a re-raise option? Please help...haha

Player A can open the action back up (although technically the action would be done because 2 out of 3 players are arrr in, ldo). He can go all in right there. That ruling is not accurate.

Second scenario Z can raise min \$100 all the way up to arrr in.

Last edited by AcePlayerDeluxe; 08-06-2012 at 04:32 PM. Reason: edited this post 1 mirrion times... Sheesh!

08-06-2012, 04:42 PM   #4
Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Motor City!
Posts: 4,259
Re: Confusion on NL rule

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Cautioner I got a ruling: because he already checked, he can only fold or call, is that accurate?
This ruling is correct, where I play, if u checked ur option, u can't re-open the betting for less than the bet/raise

08-06-2012, 04:44 PM   #5
Cant Cflat Aint My Tone

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Team Blue Shark Optics @friscochris
Posts: 10,413
Re: Confusion on NL rule

Quote:
 Originally Posted by AcePlayerDeluxe That ruling is not accurate.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by playertee This ruling is correct
Ruh roh...

I am pretty sure the player A still has the option of opening the action.

 08-06-2012, 04:47 PM #6 Pooh-Bah     Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Motor City! Posts: 4,259 Re: Confusion on NL rule Yeah nvm I was wrong, this is from Robert's rules: All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. my bad
 08-06-2012, 04:52 PM #7 Carpal \'Tunnel   Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: I've been all over. Now Seattle. Posts: 10,669 Re: Confusion on NL rule The floor in hand 1 is woefully confused. Both situations are effectively the same. In each case, the player to act (A, Z) has had action reopened to him by a legal bet by another player (B, X) with an intervening all-in (C, Y) to confuse things. Just throw out player C and see how absurd ruling #1 is. -A checks -B bets \$50 -A wants to raise - "because he already checked, he can only fold or call, is that accurate?" That's absurd, unless we're going back to the dark ages when some rooms actually outlawed check/raise (and cash games were all limit, but nvm). The fact that another player "called" for \$58 in no way closes action back to A. People get so confused about action being reopened to A because action is closed to B. Same thing, take out player C: -A checks -B bets \$50 -A calls -B wants to raise. Looking at it that way, it's obvious that B can't make another raise.
 08-06-2012, 05:02 PM #8 stranger   Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 13 Re: Confusion on NL rule Ok, I guess it does make sense when you look at player C's action as a "call". Now we just don't know what the minimum raise could be if A or Z decided to be an idiot and click it back.
08-06-2012, 05:12 PM   #9
Cant Cflat Aint My Tone

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Team Blue Shark Optics @friscochris
Posts: 10,413
Re: Confusion on NL rule

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Cautioner Ok, I guess it does make sense when you look at player C's action as a "call". Now we just don't know what the minimum raise could be if A or Z decided to be an idiot and click it back.
Well A only has \$80 so he is making a less than min bet...

Z has to make a min \$100 bet (\$58 is not considered a raise).

08-06-2012, 11:56 PM   #10
banned

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: the banks of the rubicon
Posts: 3,254
Re: Confusion on NL rule

Quote:
 Originally Posted by AcePlayerDeluxe Ruh roh... I am pretty sure the player A still has the option of opening the action.

APD is correct.

If the action went

player A bets 50
player B calls 50
placer c goes all in for 58

then it would not re-open the action.

However when player A checks then player B bets, the legal bet by player B reopens the action for player A. Player C's action is irrelevant.

Think of it this way--If player c was not there, would player A be live to raise? Of course. Player C's all in does not take that away.

incidentally, here is a thread i started in BM a while ago asking the same question but for a different game

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27...-live-1041419/

Quote:
 Originally Posted by AcePlayerDeluxe Well A only has \$80 so he is making a less than min bet... Z has to make a min \$100 bet (\$58 is not considered a raise).
but not infallible. This varies from room to room but far and away the most common policy is the min raise is 108. It is 58 to call. The min raise is 50. 58+50=108. The 58 was not a legal raise, but you still count up from 58, not 50, when adding the legal raise to the amount to call.

Probably the second most common way to do it is to use the limit rule where

If the AI is >50% of a legal raise, the min reraise is the AI+the in legal raise
if the AI is<50% of a legal raise, the min reraise is the initial bet x 2 (ie, a completion)

Last edited by AEPpoker; 08-07-2012 at 12:14 AM.

 08-07-2012, 12:30 AM #11 Referee     Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Living on the air in 3 forums Posts: 15,709 Re: Confusion on NL rule Thread now in right location
 08-07-2012, 12:56 AM #12 Carpal \'Tunnel     Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 7,056 Re: Confusion on NL rule Scenario 1-A can raise Scenario 2-Z can raise Min raise is 108.
 08-07-2012, 06:17 AM #13 old hand     Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Samson Simpson, l stick by my story Posts: 1,949 Re: Confusion on NL rule If player y hadn't gone all in and called the \$50, then the min z can make it would be \$98 and not \$100, as x raised \$48 on top of the BB. So shouldn't it be a min raise of \$106 and not \$108?
 08-07-2012, 06:23 AM #14 old hand     Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Samson Simpson, l stick by my story Posts: 1,949 Re: Confusion on NL rule Dunno why people always think that a min reraise preflop has to be twice the amount of the initial raise. If blinds are x/2x, and someone makes it 4x, then a minraise would be 4x+(4x-2x), or 6x, and not 2(4x), which is 8x.
08-07-2012, 06:27 AM   #15
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vegas
Posts: 9,190
Re: Confusion on NL rule

Quote:
 Originally Posted by abracadabrab If player y hadn't gone all in and called the \$50, then the min z can make it would be \$98 and not \$100, as x raised \$48 on top of the BB. So shouldn't it be a min raise of \$106 and not \$108?
Nothing in this thread suggests that the action is preflop.

We are told Player X bets \$50. That language (as opposed to player X raises to \$50) would suggest that this is not preflop and therefore your assumption that is wrong.

However you are correct that if in fact Player X raised the BB to \$50 then in fact the minimum raise would be to \$106.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are Off Forum Rules

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:04 PM.

 Contact Us - Two Plus Two Publishing LLC - Privacy Statement - Top