I'm going to keep this message as short and concise as possible. I have run into a poker conundrum. That is, a situation in blind based poker games(holdem) that comes up rarely and seems to be misunderstood completely between all poker players. I have searched for a clear cut rule to this and while I do gain some support from Roberts rule of poker (Line #3 of Betting and Raising) Only to read WSOP rules that seem unspecific and create more gray area.(WSOP 86A) I still believe there is misconception and misrepresentation going on and I would like to set the record straight and bring the situation into the light. Thank you.

Here is the Situation:

Game: 1/2 No-Limit Holdem

Player A: Limps Under the gun

Player B: Raises to $10

Player C: Calls $10

Player D: Moves all in for $13

Everyone else folds to Player A

CAN PLAYER A RAISE?


Alternately:


Game: 1/2 No-Limit Holdem

Player A: Limps Under the gun

Player B: Raises to $10

Player C: Calls $10

Player D: Moves all in for $8

Everyone else folds to Player A

CAN PLAYER A RAISE?



Thank You for your time!

Yes and Yes.

Best put, player A has not had an option to act on the $10 raise, so player D's all-in size is irrelevant to player A. It IS, however, relevant to the other two players. If the all-in was for $18 or more, players B and C would have the option to re-raise.

Player A can raise in both cases. Here is a shortcut for figuring out if a player can raise after an all in (where the all in is clearly not a valid full raise):

Pretend the all in player folded instead of going all in. If the player can raise, then they can still raise after the all in player.

It's really that simple folks.


Note that in both of your examples, player A can raise, but player B cannot raise in either. If the all in player had raised to $18 or more, then that counts as a raise and opens the betting for player B to re-raise.

And that's if Player A folded or Called instead of raising correct? Cause say Player A made it 20? Then Player B could raise cause it would be re-opened to him.

correct.

Correct. Glad to see that all of the early responses are the right ones.

Of course he can raise.

I looked up WSOP Rule 86A because I couldn't believe it would be ambiguous about this. It turns out that it is kind of worded confusingly for someone who doesn't know the rule, so I'll try to clarify:

I bolded the key word here. The technical wording of this rule is correct: in your examples, it is not the all-in wager that reopens the betting for Player A; it is the original raises that reopen it. The betting is already reopened for Player A by the time the all-in wager is made. Get it?

The rule is correct, but worded awkwardly. I hope this helps.

"An allin wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted."

Another example of how nearly impossible it is to put into print some of the very basic rules we take for granted, and how a literal reading of the rules without any understanding of how the game is actually played can lead to bad places.

The literal interpretation of this would state that in OP's examples, because in all cases player A had, in fact, already acted, he can't raise. That's not the intent.

In OP's examples Player A had acted by limping, yes, but the action changed after he had done so. So Player A hadn't yet had the opportunity to act on the most current action.

There are other examples like this in the WSOP and TDA and RRoP rule sets. They do try hard to make the rules correct and clear, but it's ridiculously hard to get it exactly right. Ask me to write computer code to do the right thing and I can do it. Ask me to put into plain English what that entails and it's typically harder without resorting to pseudo-code.

The problem is: what does "reopen the betting" mean? If you define it as "gives the player the option to raise", then it is clear. Especially if you look at the action in the hand.

Player A checks.
Player B bets 100. This "reopens the betting" for Player A and when it gets back to him, he will be able to raise.
Player C goes all in for 120. This does not "reopen the betting" for Player B. It does not "reopen the betting" for Player A but Player A already has the option to raise due to Player B's action. Player C's action cannot take away Player A's options.

Hi,

I haven't read other replies but will put in own experience

#1: A can raise, B/C cannot

#2: A can raise, B/C cannot

Based on moderate experience in cash games and tournaments through 4 continents, underground/casinos and various online networks.
This would be the rule in all of them and I would strongly disagree/call floor in any case it hasn't been, because it's the only logical option.

There has definitely been cases where dealer makes a mistake and gives options to B/C but this would in general be called out and correctly debated from experienced players.



To construct a situation where A would not have option,

Game: 1/2 No-Limit Holdem

Player A: Raises to $6

Player B: Calls $6

Player C: Calls $6

Player D: Moves all in for $9

Everyone else folds to Player A


-A/B/C cannot raise. If D had $10, everyone would be able to raise. It has to be double. $6 is $4 on top of the BB, and $10 is $4 on top of $6 where $9 is only $3 more.


And a perhaps not-so-obvious situation where everyone gets option,

Game: 1/2 No-Limit Holdem

Player A: Limps Under the gun

Player B: Raises to $5

Player C: Calls $5

Player D: Moves all in for $8

Everyone else folds to Player A


-A/B/C can all raise. The original raise was $3 more, the All-in matched the minimum $3 for re-opening.

Imo, ignore any of the intervening "all-in" moves. That's just unnecessarily adding confusion, and ultimately doesn't matter.

From my perspective, the only question that needs to be answered is this: "Has said player's previous action on that betting street been raised?" If yes, then he has full option. If no, he cannot raise.

In both examples, A's limp was explicitly raised, so he gets his opportunity.

Yes

DING! Thank you. Now the light bulb comes on. Yes, the rule, as written, is now perfectly clear.

We're still in that "while it's possible to come to the correct result from the wording of the rule, it's hard" territory. This is probably why I am not a lawyer.

Seems like a pretty standard situation. I think everyone got it right so far in the replies. I think the biggest confusion comes more from the situation where someone doesn't say raise and puts out enough chips for half of a raise. I think that is a more confusion situation, at least in my experience. Many dealers just can't do the math (I know, I know, but it is true).

I will piggy back with a question. Flop action...

Player A bets 25

Player B raises to 48 all in

Player c asks: if I call can A raise?

I thought he answer was obvious but the dealer gave a different answer.

In NL, usually no.
In Limit, usually yes.

If it's No Limit then the answer is no. If it's Spread Limit the answer is yes (spread limit follows limit rules, which uses the 50% rule).

I think there are a few people who have the opinion that the dealer should not answer that question.

This is a good point. Answering that question could be considered violating OPTAH. Since the answer could influence the players action, it might be wiser to abstain from answering until the player has acted.

A player should always be able to ask "what are the rules". It's hugely important to game play, and if a player is aware enough to ask the question then you aren't putting ideas into his head. I think you must answer it. Or at least provide to the player the rule and let the player do the math himself, but that's getting a bit silly.

On the other hand, it would be violating OPTAH if the dealer or another player were to volunteer "that all-in doesn't reopen the betting" without anyone having asked. That puts ideas into people's heads and could easily be seen as suggesting to someone how to play. Sorta like saying "hey, wife, the opener can't shove behind you so if you have any sorta draw you need to call given the pot odds you're getting".

I happen to agree with you, but it doesn't surprise me anymore if I hear that someone else thinks differently.

Yes!! Let's play "Gotcha" instead of poker.

Until all the clubs standardize their rules ( think aerial bacon ) or have rulebooks available to learn their idiosyncratic variations, dealers should answer factual questions about the rules.

Okay, so I took a comment by Psand and considered the possible consequences out loud. I offered what I thought MIGHT be the way to handle it.

Does it mean it's the right choice? Maybe not but could the follow up be a discussion instead of a lynch mob?

well the guy who posted the question indicated the dealer gave a non-obvious answer so i was thinking it might be along those lines.