So here's the situation...

SB .25
BB .5
Straddle 1

Utg calls 1
Utg+1 raised 1.25...
Utg+2 calls...

Is betting capped for Utg?

If the room treats the straddle as a raise, action should be rolled back to UTG+1, and he has to make it 1.5. UTG+2 has his full range of options, as does every other player.

If the room treats the straddle as a third blind, UTG+1's bet isn't suffiecent for a raise, he just called, UTG+2 called, and only SB, BB, and the straddle have their full range of options.

I'm not at all following your amounts or numbering (generally, UTG is the one straddling, and UTG+1 would be the one calling). Having said that:

* The amount of a min raise of a straddle is sometimes a topic of contention. Some people/rooms consider the straddle to be a third blind, in which case the min raise is at least the straddle amount (i.e. to 2x the straddle amount, or 4x the BB). Some rooms consider it to be a live raise, in which cause the min raise is by the difference between the BB and the straddle (i.e. to 3x the BB).

* Having said that, if your example is that the UTG+1 raise is less than the min raise (whichever one of the two above rules your room uses), and is also an all in (so that it cannot be corrected to a full min raise), then it is considered a raise and reopens action to UTG if the amount of the raise is at least half of the amount of a min raise, whatever that would be in your room.

Sorry Dineshbut your limit play is clouding your response. Here is my interpretation
SB 0.25
BB 0.50
UTG straddle to 1.0
UTG +1 calls the 1
UTG +2 goes all in for 1.25
As you said if this is a fixed limit game and the 0.25 is considered half of the raise amount then everyone's adtion, including UTG+1, is open and they have all their options.

But if it is a NLgame then even if the 0.25 is half a min raise that does not matter. The 0.25 is not a raise so while everyone up to and including the UTG straddle still have their full range of options. But the UTG+1 call cannot now raise unless someone before his turn comes make a complete raise.

First, let me apologize... I wrote that in haste...

The game is PLO... UTG+1 is all in for 1.25

Fore, the way you explained it makes sense... The confusion was around wether an incomplete bet after a straddle constitutes a raise and opens the options for UTG...

About half of the times I've seen this come up the dealer/floor seem to get it wrong and I end up arguing with them over it...

Only a full raise will re-open the action, so regardless of how the room treats a straddle the 1.25 AI doesn't re-open action for anyone that has acted on the straddle's 1. UTG can not re-raise.

If the room treats the straddle as a raise, 1.5 would have been enough to re-open the action; if the room treats the straddle as a blind, 2 would have been enough re-open the action. Less than a legal min-raise never re-opens the action unless the room has highly non-standard rules.

It might help for you to understand this better if stop saying things like is the betting capped?

Capped betting is a limit concept which involves a maximum number of raises allowed in a betting round.

The question you should be asking is "Does the all-in bet reopen the betting for UTG player"

I really think keeping it clear like this is helpful in understanding why the all-in bet would not reopen the betting in this circumstance

OP is still not really clear even after the clarification, but if you are asking if the straddler himself (UTG) can raise, of course he should be able to; limit, NL, PL, doesn't matter. He could have raised even if everyone else in the hand just called, that is the opportunity that straddling gives and the reason it is not called just a blind raise. The fact that someone else has gone all in for less than a complete raise shouldn't take away his option.

So who was the straddler? It says UTG called the straddle, so it can't be him. But if he was somehow, then of course action is open to him. But I don't think he was the straddler. Or OP are you calling the guy first to act after the Straddle the UTG? i'm confused.

I think he refers to the player following the straddle as utg

You're right, I assumed it was limit because he mentioned the betting being capped, as psand noted. I should have realized it was a terminology problem, though, because he clearly didn't show enough raises to cap the betting.

Yea, I was a little unclear in referring to utg+1 as utg instead of refering to the straddle as utg... And my usage of terminology like "capped"...

In any case it is now clarified, thanks!!!

The limper shouldn't get to raise as his previous action (calling straddle) was not properly raised.