Or:
C) To 34 since the initial bet of 10 still stands as the only legal bet/raise when taken individually.
I still vote for A.

You're right. It certainly is different. I won't say with 100% certainty I am right here either and I love a good poker hypo.

The real question is: Why is it different because there is a raise in the middle?

Scenario 1:

A bets 10
B goes all in for 18
C goes all in for 24
D calls 24

A wants to raise the minimum. Is it a total bet of 34 (24 + original bet of 10) or 38 (24 + amount of new action which is 14). By rule it is 38.

Scenario 2:

A bets 10
B raises to 25
C goes all in for 30

A wants to raise the minimum. Is it a total bet of 45 (30 + last full raise amount of 15) or 50 (30 + amount of new action which is 20). For some reason this answer is different than the last one because the raise is in the middle. (I disagree and think it is not different)

New question: Why is the way we figure out the minraise different just because there was an actual legal raise in the middle?

My answer: I don't think it is or should be different.

If multiple all ins that are not legal raises by themselves can be added together to equal enough for a legal raise and we actually count them as a raise... Then, we should also add them to all previous raises to come to the total raise amount.


P.S. KITN to player A for wanting to minraise.

Ha ha, I agree with your P.S.!

Scenario 3:
A bets 10
B goes all in for 18
C goes all in for 24
D goes all in for 30

Now what? B's and C's illegal raises combined are enough for a legal raise. Does D's action (should) change anything?

After reading/interpreting the TDA rules, it looks like multiple illegal raises combined as a legal raise reopen the betting (as quoted by Suit in post #23) but isn't the basis for establishing the minimum raise:

So in Suit's scenario 1 above, minimum raise could still be 10 more, meaning to 34 instead of 38.

What about this situation?

Blinds 1/2

Scenario a:

Player A raise to 10

Player B all in for 17

Player C’s options?

Scenario b:

Player A raise to 10

Player B raise to 18

Player C’s options?

Player C has all of his options in both scenarios...

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

a) Min raise is to 25 (8 being last valid bet/raise).
b) Min raise is to 26 (B's raise was valid).

No, I'm not saying that. Let me start over. There are two different rules at play here.

(1) The min raise is the current action plus the last legal bet or raise amount.

Others made this example before, but let me make it again with clearer amounts.

Scenario 1: A bets 10, B raises to 20, C raises all-in to 30, the min raise for D is what? Obviously 40, right?

Scenario 2: A bets 10, B raises to 20, C raises all-in to 29, the min raise for D is what?

According to your earlier example, it would be 19+29=48. But this makes no sense, because now the min raise in Scenario 2 is higher than the min raise in Scenario 1, even though C went all in for less money in scenario 2.

The proper answer is that you figure out the legal raise amount (still 10) and add it to the current action (29), and combine them to make the legal raise to 39. Which makes intuitive sense, because C went all in for $1 less in scenario 2, and the min raise is to $39, also $1 less.

(2) Because you can have multiple all-ins that are not full raises, there is a separate rule about how to treat those to decide if betting is re-opened to previously acting players. I think everyone here already agrees about this rule and why it is needed and useful, but I'll make a few points anyway.

(a) If (using the rule mentioned in 1 above) any player makes a legal raise after the all-in raise(s) for less than a full amount, then rule 2 isn't needed because betting is unambiguously re-opened for everyone already.

Scenario 3: A bets for 10, B goes all in for 11, C makes a min raise to 11+10=21, betting is (or should be) unambiguously reopened for A.

(b) rule 2 only comes into play when multiple people go all-in for less than a full raise amount. To make it fair to earlier players, you only add up the multiple raises to see if they meet the threshold to re-open betting. Put another way, you can pretend that only the largest raise was made and all the others had folded instead of going all-in, and figure out if that raise would be enough to re-open the better to a previously acting playing. This makes sure the logic followed is consistent and doesn't get upset by other players going all-in for less earlier or later.

Scenario 4: A bets 10, B goes all in for 11, C goes all in for 19, D calls. Action not re-opened to A. If you ignore player B or pretend he folded instead, this becomes more obvious.

Scenario 5: A bets 10, B goes all-in for 15, C goes all-in for 21, D calls. Action is re-opened to A (even though neither B nor C made full legal raises). If you ignore player B or pretend he folded instead, this becomes more obvious.

As you can see, rule 2 above doesn't conflict with, or supplant, rule 1. It's needed even if we were to use alternative versions of rule 1, such as the one you had suggested earlier (in fact, it would be needed in more cases because you were suggesting the full legal raise is an even higher amount than my rule 1 does).

Anyway, hope that clarifies things.

IMO Suit's example is not the same as the action is opposite, being an all-in 'that is' a legal raise against A's bet (the current min raise amount) ... Player C most definitely raised Player A (by more than 10) so any action is available to Player A by that difference or more.

In the OP's spot the raise of 15 (to 25) was made first (by the V, not Hero) and then only the base bet was changed to 33 later. One could certainly suggest that the bet of 10 was raised by 23 and thus requires 23 to be the min raise amount. The point of contention is whether those 'extra' 8 MUST be added to the last legal raise of 15. IMO those 8 don't 'have' to be included in the next minimum bet since they weren't part of a full raise.

I'll expand Suit's spot ...

Player A - Bets 10, establishes the min raise amount of 10
Player B - Goes all in for 18, not a raise but a new 'base' bet
Player C - Calls 18
Player D - Goes all in for 24,
Player E - Calls 24

Player A has all options whereas Player C doesn't (call-fold) unless A raises to 38 (24+14) or more.

Player B didn't raise A, therefore Player C didn't raise A either by calling. Then Player D did raise A (by more than 10). But D didn't raise C by going all-in for less than a legal raise (10) over the base bet of 18.

A Player facing an adjusted base bet established by all-ins that failed to establish a new minimum raise amount should still be able to min raise by the last legal raise amount. GL

I think I'm posting this without reading all of the responses, so I may have more shortly ..

^^ A could min raise (to 34) and it would allow C to raise.

The min raise is to 38 .. 24 + 14 (24-10). And yes, action to both C and E is now open. GL

A's min raise would be $38 (C's all-in of $24 iis a valid raise of $14 over A's opening bet of $10)


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yep, my bad.

You guys have made a valid point and I think you are correct. Consider my mind changed.

Sorry to stir the pot, but I don't think this is quite right. Yes, D's all-in is 14$ more than A's, but you have a wager of 18$ (illegally raised by B and called by C) in between.

Let's say B's all-in and C's call would've been 20 instead of 18. D's all-in (and E's call) remains to 24. Then A's min-raise is suddenly 34 instead of 38?? Doesn't seem consistent for me.

I think multiple illegal all-in raises determine if betting is reopen or not, but can't be combine to establish the new min-raise.

Rule 47, paragraph A, last sentence in TDA seems to say that.
https://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/

It's not right.

The min raise amount is still 10 after all the above. Raising from 10 to 18 (all-in) isn't a full valid raise. Raising from 18 to 24 (all-in) isn't a full valid raise. The minimum raise amount after player D goes all in for 24 is still 10. The minimum raise is to 34.

The only thing unusual about the above action is that after D raises all in to 24, action is re-opened to A (even though there have been no single valid full raises since A's opening bet of 10 yet).

a20 was correct that After D goes all in for 24, A has all actions available, but C does not. He's just wrong about what the min raise is to A (it's to 34, not 38).

Furthermore, if A raises but doesn't have at least 34, but instead goes all-in for 28 or more, then betting is also re-opened for C. If he goes all in for 27 or less, then C (and E) can only call or fold.

I can buy into that ... The last 'valid' bet or raise was 10. Neither B's 'raise' of 8 nor D's 'raise' of 6 were valid against the 'base' bet they each were facing, therefore we maintain A's original bet unit of 10 as the current min raise amount.

With 24-10 being more than 10, Player A can, in an unusual set of circumstances, raise by their own standard of 10 from the base bet of 24. GL