Well recently I was playing 1/2 at a casino and I'm curious on the ruling and want to see what others think.

There's like 5 way action to flop im bb it's limped around I check with 10 4 of diamonds. Flop is AKJ of diamonds. I flop 2nd nuts. I check utg man bets 12$ man on button makes it 70$ I think for a minute and flat the 70$. I'm sitting with around 300$. Utg man reraised allin for 114$ and instantly guy who raised to 70$ shoves all his chips in and I'm just stunned and thinkIng am I drawing dead. Dealer is looking away and I can't see he's talking to the button man who was in seat ten and he's telling him it's not a valid raise since the all in didnt double the bet. well I've flipped my cards at this point just letting the table know I'm debating on my hand and finally seat ten I see is pulling his chips back and I'm told it's 44$ to me and I have no option to raise. I want to get it all in and not see a diamond peel off and have another decision for the rest of guys stack which is 140$ or something.

My question is should his all in stand? What if i mucked right away because of his shove I mean I feel intended action kind of like wsop when the pl players weren't all in but it was accepted.

The hand went in my favor I just wanted to clarify for down the road especially a 2/5 game or something if Someone bets 200$ then I call and someone goes all in for like 350$ and someone raises over top for higher stales

The must make a full raise rule varies by house. If you're playing somewhere a lot it would be good to learn the rule.

But I've seen the variant where if someone goes all-in and it is less than a full bet, that caps the action. This means the only options available to other players are call and fold. Thus, his all-in bet isn't allowed to happen.

Don't flip over your cards.

Most places the UTG shove does _not_ open the action. An all-in that results in an incomplete raise is treated like a call for the purpose of the other players' options. (Some rooms a complete raise is double the bet, other it's double the raise, house rules.)

As it stands, it should probably be $44 to you without the option to raise, and the guy that bet $70 is capped at $114. So it's a pretty easy call now, and call/bet on any turn card.

You _really_ need to learn the house rules where you play, or at least read the sign if you're playing in a new room. Some rooms will KILL your hand for exposing it. (The validity of this rule has been debated to death, but it _does_ exist.)

I might be reading this wrong, but didn't you say that the button guy, who originally bet 70, then tried to shove, pulled his chips back? Do you mean he folded, since you don't say he called the 114 shove? If so, then aren't you and the all in guy the only ones left?

Or are you saying the button guy left out enough chips to call the 114, but couldn't raise? That's the correct ruling, and you can't reraise. You never should have flipped your cards over anyway. Why in the world would you feel the need to show your cards "to let the table know I am debating my hand"? If you haven't insta-called, they know you are thinking about your hand. You shouldn't show your cards for that.

Dealer was right, it was a short bet and can't be reraised.

That is still open for raising providing the last someone isn't the first someone.

Basically you can't raise yourself. Let's say you bet, player B goes all in for just a little bit more, player C calls and it's back to you. Nobody put in a valid raise so you'd be raising yourself and you can't do that.

$70 man raised $58. In order for him to be able to raise again, he must be raised to ($70+$58=)$128 for his action to re-opened. Shorty's shove of $114 was only a call and action, not a raise.

Your fault imo.

Immediately from reading this hand, my first thought when I read "Utg man reraised allin for 114$" I said to myself no one can raise any further. So, when someone else shoves, I'm left asking myself why the hell would you expose your cards and kill your hand and all your action? You need to wait until the dealer settles this obvious dilemma and keep your cool.

Your fault imo

Protect your cards, protect your action, clarify the action. 3 hard and fast rules.

Dealer was correct.

Yeah, I had trouble with the syntax here too, but this is still room rule dependent.

A lot of places could consider this action offered and accepted. His illegal raise might stand once you call it.


The default rule is, of course, that the shover was already the last raiser, and can't raise himself.

Basically the real answer to the OP is that he is assumed to know the rules once he starts playing and he is required to pay attention to the action so he should know that it wasn't a legal raise and should wait for the dealer to straighten the bets out before he acts. OP's mistake to expose his cards.

Dealer is correct in this spot, but this situation is one of the most frequently misunderstood and misplayed spots in live poker if you dont know the house rules. As mentioned above, you must be sure of these things whenever you sit down at a table, especially playing somewhere new.

Ive played at places where a full raise was required to re-open action, and some where only a half a raise or 70% raise was required. I was once playing somewhere and a guy 3-bet and then a short stack shoved. It was over a half bet which was what i was used to at the time for reopening betting. So out of fear of the 3-better re-shoving on me I folded, then spoke of my reasoning after the hand played out and I would have made a set and scooped. The dealer then informed me that this was a full raise table and that the 3-better could not have shoved on me. Ever since then, whenever I play somewhere new that is my first question when I sit down at the table.

Now there is another scenario here that some rooms allow and some dont. And that is that action is reopened to some players and not others. Those facing at least a full bet can reraise and those who arent cannot.

EXP..... Player 1 checks. Player 2 bets $100. Player 3 shoves for $125.

In this spot, Player 1 has the option to reraise since his call is at least the amount of a "full bet". However if Player 1 smooth calls or folds, Player 2 can only complete the $125.

Myself being burnt by something similar in the past is what has made me very aware of these rules as I'm sure you will be going forward. Live and learn...

This has been debated in another thread (can't find the link).
That's actually a very common rule, since Player 1 hasn't had a chance to act on the $100 he can still raise. There is a little bit of variation in how much his minimum raise can be ($200, $225, or $250 total), but I've never seen a room where he _didn't_ have the option.

I laugh at people deliberately exposing their hands to "prove" how hard a decision was, and doubly so when the correct decision is so trivial that exposing their hand gives away a ton of information about their decision-making process.

Please see the IWTSTH threads - any information gathered from exposed hands is worthless, and not a fair and representative sample of a player's play.

The thing is, the rules of statistical significance still apply whether or not you believe in them.

That said, I agree with Callip that it is stupid to turn cards over while facing a decision. Just put your opponent on a range and decide.

Yeah, this is all ego related. Basically, OP just wants the table to sit back and say, "Wow, he is such a good player, he is actually thinking about folding the second nuts...Ohhhh Ahhhh OOOOOO we are in the presence of a great poker master. We should be thankful that such a master has graced our presence..."

OP, you know you will have evolved when you can make big laydowns or calls without the "need" to show.

About a year ago I turned a royal flush and come river there was four to a flush on the board and villain shoved all-in for $500 or so dollars. I of course snap call him and he insta mucks his hand. And then I did something that changed the way I played the game...

I scooped the pot and then I MUCKED my royal flush. So the table didn't see what I had (and obv there was no high hand at the casino).

I can't tell you the impact that has had on my game, it helped give me mastery of my ego.

Perhaps you should play poker in a game where there's no showdown. Every player just hands their cards to the dealer in secret, and the dealer pushes the pot to the winner without announcing the winning hand.

Or, you know, seeing hands is useful.

Ok I get what you're tryingto prove here, but maybe that's not the best example. I'd show the royal not for the ego or anything, but just the the statistical improbability of it. Though I have no problem with you not showing yours.

I'm a tight player, and have always felt one of the biggest reasons I profit is that I can get off big hands. I don't show my big laydown 99% of the time. The only time I may show a big laydown has nothing to do with ego. It would be because something has happened at the table and I need to show that hand to try to get back some of my intended table image. Whether Ive actually done anything to change it or not.

You always gotta think before showing those big hands though when laying them down. Especially if you're at a table with some very strong players. They will zone in on that, and see that you're willing to get off huge hands, and may end up exploiting you for that later on. Of course, that could work to your advantage too. I've just always been of the thought that "less is more" when it comes to giving info, unless under extreme circumstances.

I don't know how to explain it, when I mucked that royal flush my third eye opened and I became the MASTER of my emotions and the cards. And as such, whenever the "need" to show a big laydown comes over me, I can shrug it off like water off a ducks back. In fact, its almost like a game to me, I love mucking or folding big hands without showing the table...


I will agree that showing a big laydown can and will impact your image as you show the table that you are a "good player" able to make the big laydown.

The debate is whether we are doing that primarily for ego related reasons OR in order to manipulate the table.

To be honest, I have shown big laydowns and then gone on to use that laydown to get better reads off my villains in the future hands. i.e. if villain shoves against me then he is trying to fold me out since he saw me make a good laydown vs if villain value bets me he is trying to get me to call...

If you are the better player than showing the laydown can be beneficial, so I can agree with that point.

But, I think we are lying to ourselves to some extent if we are trying to say that ego has "no" part of showing a big laydown. There is a plus to it but there is also a con and that con is we give our villains information that they can use against us...

It's quite zen-like, validating your ego through inaction rather than action

Absolutely

gotta use my ego against itself

I don't know about you guys, but i'm always in a never ending battle against my ego. Every so often, it sneaks out and gets the best of me and I hate it!!!