Help me settle this discussion I had with a friend about minimum raises.

1/3 NLHE

Scenario 1: Player A goes all in for $15. Player B goes all in for $40. Player C goes all in for $50. What is the minimum raise for player D?

Scenario 2: Player A goes all in for $15. Player B goes all in for $25. Player C goes all in for $40. What is the minimum raise for player D?

1. 75

B's raise amount is 25. C's all in is not a full raise. So the min raise amount D must raise is still 25. But you add that 25 to the 50 of C to get 75.

2. 55

C's 40 is raise of 15 over B's 25. So D must raise at least 15 on top of C's 40, or 55 total.

Scenario 1: A 25 dollar raise to 75

Scenario 2: A 15 dollar raise to 55.

In scenario 2, what is key is that C's raise of 15 over B's 25 is equal to A's bet of 15. If A had gone all in for 20, then D would have to raise 20 on top of C's 40 for 60 instead of 55.

In California the rules are different than most of the US, which seems to be the source of a lot of confusion.
1) 65 in CA because C's bet is considered incomplete. 75 anywhere else.
2) Still 55.

Yup. Although it would still be 75 in some rooms.

CA is a bit wierd.

$75

The raise amount is $25 from going from a $15 Bet to a $40 (all in) raise. Player C doesn't bet enough for a full raise (they'd have to bet $65), so the minimum raise for player D is $25 on top of the Action he's facing ($25+$50=$75).

$55

Player A bet $15 so the minimum raise amount is $15 on top of that. Since player B didn't make it to the minimum raise in his all-in, the minimum raise for player C would be $15 on top of player B's all-in which would be $40. Since C raised to at least that amount (or higher), player D's minimum raise would be $15 on top of the $40 or $55.

I went to dealing school in California and had to spend an additional 3 months compared to Vegas schools because of their unintuitive half-bet rules. That was a decade ago though but I think the California rules still work the same and only apply to limit. The major takeaway of California's half-bet rule is that you reevaluate whenever there is an all in.

Imagine you're playing 3/6 limit with 4 players, and you're on the flop (so $3 betting round).

Player A bets 3.
Player B goes all-in for 5.
Player C calls the 5.
Player D goes all-in for 7.
Player A calls the 7.

In California, C can't raise; everywhere else they can. Here's how the reevaluation works; pay attention to capitalization as 'Bet' and 'Action' are different than 'bet' and 'action.'

Player A bets 3 (which is one Bet).
Player B goes all-in for 5 (this is two Bets, one Bet of 3 and one Bet of 2; the 2 is considered a Bet and not Action because it is over half of 3)
Player C calls the 5
Player D goes all-in for 7 (we reevaluate here without reference to previous action: 7 is two Bets of 3 and Action of 1, it's considered Action because it's less than half of a full Bet)
Player A calls the 7 (though he does have the option to raise as he has one Bet in front of him and he's facing two Bets)

Remember that the rule of raising is that you cannot raise unless you are facing an additional Bet. In California, Player C can't raise because after B went all in for 5 (two Bets), player C called those two Bets. Player C in facing the all-in from Player D is facing 2 Bets plus Action of 1 more. The reevaluation only affects the all-in bet, not any of the prior betting. Player C with two Bets in front of them is facing two Bets plus Action. Since they are not facing an additional Bet, they cannot raise and can only call the additional Action or fold. Anywhere else outside California, the all-in for 7 is 3 Bets, one Bet of 3 and two Bets of 2 so when it gets back to C, they have two Bets in front of them and are facing 3 Bets and can therefore raise in addition to calling or folding.

Wow that is a strange rule but my pea brain initially read your post in a way that would have been even more strange. I initially thought you were saying that player C did not have the option to raise in his initial action after B went all in for 5. I quickly realized that you meant that C could not raise after the action returned to him following D and A’s action, but since you are familiar with the CA rules, it raised a question that I was curious about. Suppose C did raise instead of calling the $5 all in. What would the raise amount be? Would it be $8 ($5 from previous action+$3 raise amount) or would it be $9 (3 bets at $3 each)?

$8. You're not completing the all-in bet from B because the $3+$2 is already two Bets. You'll raise by adding an additional Bet on top of the $5.