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

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.)

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.

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

Ruh roh...

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

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

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.

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).

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/

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)

Thread now in right location

Scenario 1-A can raise
Scenario 2-Z can raise

Min raise is 108.

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?

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.

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.