Was this ruling botched by the floor?? Player X was told by the floor that he CANNOT move his whole stack in..

Sitting down live, on 1-3 NL. ( i was not in the hand)

Villian- mid postion raise to $17 (very standard/weakish PF raise in this poker room for 1/3)
villian 2- calls
villian 3- calls
Player X- raises to $45
villian 4-calls $45
villian-moves all in for $77

Each villian calls & $77. Player X then asks if he can raise. This is when the questionable rulings start.

Dealer said no to the raise but then the question of moving all in for $500+ came from Player X. The floor was called over and they said the only options there were to call or fold...no all in...

In my casino the rule is you have to “raise the previous raise amount” to open the action up for another raise.
IE - the raise from 17 to 45 is 28, and the raise from 45 to 77 is 32, so the action (in our room) would be reopened and player X could shove.
If the all in villain only had between 46-62, this would be a raise between 1-27 and would NOT open the action back up for player X.
But once again, that’s just our room.
Did the floor explain WHY player X could t raise? Without that info it’s a little hard to tell since different rooms can have different rules.

Depends on the room. Most require an all-in to be at least the size of a legal raise to re-open the betting. Since the all-in was $32 more than the $45, and the previous raise had been $28 more than $17, that should re-open the betting in most rooms.

Others interpret it as the shove must be at least 2x the size of the last bet size in order to re-open , so it would have had to be $90. This is a misconception in my opinion, but it is a pretty common interpretation of the rule.

Still others only require the shove to have been over half the required raise amount, so in those rooms it's a slam-dunk.

Ruling is incorrect. All in is not a full raise, so is action only to all players who were previously in for 45 (ie X and 4), but is a full raise to villain and two callers after him, all of whom can raise.

player X raise was $28, then the all-in was for $32. $32 is greater than or equal to $28 right? 100% able to re-raise. Wtf ruling by floor and dealer?

This is correct. X should have all his options.

This is it, right here. the most common rule is that a full raise is required to re-open action, and a raise must be equal or larger than the previous raise. Ask the floor, next time you are there, what constitutes a minraise. If it is 2x previous bet, you have your answer. if they say equal to previous raise, then the floor got confused on your hand and muffed the ruling.

Holy **** did I misread the action. My only excuse is on was on my phone and trying to play Big O at the same time. That's like 3 cards more than I can safely keep in my head.

Don't worry dinesh .. This is what I saw while reading your post. Good thing June comes this week. We get a whole new batch of do-overs! GL

I can't see how this does not open the betting to X.

Maybe the floor totally missed the explanation and the part that started with the 17. If he only heard 45 and 77, then it would make sense that he could rule that way, assuming it's a room that requires a full raise as opposed to 50%.

Botched ruling? Yes. After the all in for $77, everyone else would be able to re-raise.

There are rooms that only require it to be over half? What rooms?

^^^^ I've played in half raise to re-open rooms.

There are a lot of dealers in my normal room that need to be corrected in spots exactly like the OP. The dealers are mostly accustomed to limit games and forget that they need to actually count the amount of raise.

It happens probably once a week.

not sure if I’ve ever played in a casino that required raises to be at least 2x the previous bet, but I’ve seen that rule in several private games.

Not saying that I think that’s a good rule, but at least it avoids controversy and calculations besides multiplying by 2.

Did they have a lot of other weird/terrible rules too? I imagine a room like that to be like a carnival.

First noticed it in Colorado. Have since seen it a couple of places.

Edit: It might actually have been Germany...

That's probably because in Colorado it wasn't a true no limit game, but a spread limit game, which plays more like no limit but has limit poker betting rules.

I think it was more common years ago when most poker managers had no experience with No Limit and were applying Limit rules

in that room you can straddle from anywhere except the blinds.