I apologize if there is a more appropriate section for this question/scenario.


The scene:
Home game, 1/2 NLH.
Button straddles $5.
3 callers, around to button who raises to $25.
SB has $27 left and goes all-in with it.
EP Folds.
Question now is for the MP player who called the $5 straddle initially.
Now that the pot has been raised by the button, and incompletely re-raised by the SB, it's understood that the button couldn't re-raise.

But the MP player can!
Or can he?

He's in the pot for $5, with the betting reopened by the raise(es).
It's $22 for him to call, shouldn't the MP player have the option to 4-bet here, since only having the options to fold or call limit his options in a way that is contrary to NLH poker?

Seems that he may desire to 4-bet a huge amount ($200 or so for a pot sized raise) for a few strategies.

What's the rule?
Is it different for tournament vs cash game situations?

Only players who have been raised can rearaise
Anyone who limped can raise. The BTN cannot.

MP who has only called $5 up until this point has the option to raise, call, or fold in this scenario.

Thanks for the replies so far.
Is there a cash game rule reference to this? I wasn't able to find one.

These sort of questions usually are asked in the Brick + Mortar forum.
I played in a card room where they had this rule and refused to change it. It made the game ****ty since their was so many short-stackers. Left that one pretty quick.

Standard rules are that MP has the right to re-raise (the button raise re-opens action to him).

However, the SB's jam does not reopen action for the button if the action is still $27 back to him.

Ok lets pretend that the player didn't go all-in for $27. Lets pretend he called for $25 and still had chips.

Can you find the rule that says MP can reraise.

When you find that rule you have found the rule you are looking for.

You're overthinking it, Op. You just have to consider if a given player's previous action on the street of play has been raised.

MP's previous action of $5 has been raised, so all action is open him. Btn's previous action of $25 has not been raised, so he can only call or fold (assuming MP doesn't raise, of course).

Robert's Rules of Poker

NO-LIMIT RULES

3. All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)

The red part answers your question.

A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise.

In your OP the player in MP IS facing a fullsize wager (it went from $5 to $27), so he has all options available. Raise, call, or fold.

That's weird. At my local card-room, it doesn't matter if you weren't the initial raiser or not. If there is an all in raise from anywhere on the board, betting is closed for raising.

Example: OTB straddles $5 and SB and MP calls 5. OTB raises to $25 and SB raises for $30 total all in. MP does not have the option to raise here, only complete, and so does OTB.

From what I've heard from everyone else, betting is still open to MP but not open to the initial raiser who was OTB. Weird. I'm gonna ask the floor next time if they are wrong and check their rules.

The key is that the question is not "does the bet close action"?

The question is "does it reopen action that was already closed?"

Sent from my SCH-I535 using 2+2 Forums

Ask the Floor:
Player A bets 100.
Player B raises to 300.
At this point Player A will be able to reraise Player B.
Now Player C does X.

Ask the Floor how what Player C does can take away Player A's right to re-raise?

X = fold ... clearly doesn't affect it
X = call 250, all in, clearly doesn't affect it.
X = call 300 ... clearly doesn't affect it.
X = all in for 310 suddenly takes away Player A's right to raise?

Never heard of it done like this. This is very strange and you shouldn't play there. Serious action killer and it takes away your oppourtunity to isolate an allin player. So you get stuck PF with a monster and you can't raise and end up in a 5-way pot cuz someone ahead of you went all in for $12.

Do they also not allow check-raises there?

Yep, they allow check-raises. Weird how in other places I have played in I have never really came into this situation now that I think about it.

I've only heard of it (a short all-in raise shutting ALL raising down) occuring on PokerTek electronic tables when they first came out about six years ago.

However, I played a lot on them in 2008-2009 and never saw the "bug," so they must have swiftly corrected the error.

On the other hand, as of the Fall of 2011, Party Poker software was still incorrectly re-opening the action in certain spots. For example, SB checks, MP goes all-in for 10% of the big blind, button calls, SB is allowed to check-raise.

Thanks. There was a decent debate at the table that night. I argued in favor of MP being able to make any bet/raise for the reasons Suit, Psand, and Angus responded. In this case it was awkward because the host was in the hand (MP) so the non-playing dealer became the floor for the hand. He ruled that MP was not allowed to raise, but only call the all-in bet. I've been bothered about it since then. Ultimately it didn't change the action for the 3 of us because MP didn't have enough behind him to push me off the hand, but the situation bothered me for exactly the reason Suit just described....being able to isolate the short-stacked all-in player by a huge overbet would be a decent strategy in this situation sometimes.

I'm not really sure why it is ... but this rule really confuses people.

X = allin for 500 suddenly gives Player A again the right to raise?

Is this representation accurate? Anyway, what's the reasoning behind an incomplete raise? Seems so random given these scenarios.

It doesn't "suddenly" give A the right to raise. A has the right to raise as soon as B made it 300. C can't do anything to undo that right.

The reasoning is simple. To be a complete raise, a raise has to be at least as much as the previous bet or raise. An all in for less than a full amount is an incomplete (or "action only") raise which any player who is not already facing a full raise can only call or fold to. Multiple all ins for less can combine to form a complete raise (if they do).

It changes the total amount of the min-raise though, doesn't it?

If X is all-in for 310, the min raise is still 200, but put on top of the 310, so it would total to 510. Is this correct?

Had a situation come up like this one time in FL.

I asked the dealer "can i raise?" - was my first time in the room.

Dealer said "i can't tell you"

Me - "so i have to raise and you say if it's legal or not?"

Her - "yes"

Bad customer service imo I would stiff this dealer for the next hand or two. I don’t see why they can’t tell you you’re options unless there’s some specific house rule against it.

Yes that is correct. If A bets 100, B raises to 300 (raise amount of 200), C goes all in for 310 (action only), then the next player who wants to raise has to raise the current action (310) by the current min raise amount (200) to be a full raise, or a raise to at least 310+200=510.

Sometimes that is exactly a bad room policy. Sometimes it's a dealer (mis)construing the OPTAH rule.

IMO as long as a player waits to ask until the action is on them, it is a question that can be answered, as are any rule-specific questions (particularly ones that are often different room by room, which this one is not really). A player is entitled to know the rules of the room.

Note that some devious players can use leading questions like this to try to influence the action of other players, i.e. they might ask if they can raise, not because they want to do so themselves, strategically, right now, but because they want to plant the seeds of this possibility in the brain of some other player (most likely because it benefits them, e.g. if a player right behind them could raise all in and it would be enough for this player to then trap any intervening callers with a reraise). There isn't much you can do in the moment, and this is such a rare and unlikely event in the first place, but if you have players who bend the rules like this you give them a warning after the fact and then give them time off if they continue to abuse it, just like with many other rules and angles.

Also note that some experienced dealers disagree with the above, and come down on the side of answering it being a OPTAH violation. I don't agree with them, but it's not a firmly settled point.

I don't know if punishing him by not tipping is the answer here. I would prefer to just talk to him or his supervisor on the side and explain to him that they should be allowed to answer questions about the rules of the game. He probably didn't know any better, and not tipping him doesn't really solve the problem.

The dealer was clearly female.