1/2nl... action goes like this. All pre-flop, player A limps, player B raises to 15, player C calls 15. Now, player A decides to shove all in for 23 total. Player B calls, player C now announces he wants to raise to 73 total... table erupted, multiple people saying he can/can't. Thoughts?

Is this a trick question OP.

This question has been asked countless times on this site. C can't raise.

Player A would have to make it at least 28 (a minimum raise) to reopen the betting before C could shove.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using 2+2 Forums

In NL games, A's raise must be a full legal raise to re-open the betting

B's raise is 13
A's all-in raise is 8

A did not make a full raise, betting is not re-opened.

Waiting for the floor to get confused and rule the betting is re-opened because the AI is more than a 1/2 sized min raise after YTF says Player C can't raise. Suit eventually is called over and escorts the floor out the door.

when a player goes all in he needs to have enough to make a full raise. Otherwise they can only call. no half bet house rules with all in's.

So the game is NL UNTIL you get short stacked. Then it becomes heck I don't know what it becomes Where do they have THIS stupid rule?

He either botched the wording in his post or he doesn't know what he's talking about. I suspect he meant:

in order for people to raise the all in, the all in player would have needed to make a full raise (have enough money in his stack to double the last bet) in order for someone else to raise him.

The half bet rule (when someone throws out 1.5 of the last bet which would make it an automatic full raise) does not apply here.

per consentire alle persone di ********* il tutto in , il tutto in giocatore avrebbe bisogno di fare un rilancio completo ( hai abbastanza soldi nel suo stack di raddoppiare l'ultima puntata ) in modo che qualcun altro a crescerlo .

La regola mezza puntata ( quando qualcuno butta fuori 1.5 dell'ultima puntata , che renderebbe un rilancio pieno automatico) non si applica qui .

It is funny how mods never move this question into one thread.

A legal raise is equal to the last raise, not double the last bet. If a player bets 25 and gets raised to 100 (a raise of 75), the next legal bet is 175 (a raise of 75). If instead the next player goes all in for 150, the bet can only be called, not reraised.

Does anyone know how the "double the last bet" fallacy for started? It's been around a long time and won't die despite how wrong it is.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using 2+2 Forums

I believe that this fallacy started because it is not a fallacy. It is not the rule in most US card rooms, but according to some posters it is the rule in some rooms. I've also heard that it is much more common in Europe to have the double the last bet rule. So the important lesson is that if you are in a room where you don't know the rule, make sure you find out the rule, but I wouldn't argue with the floor if he says it is different from what you think it should be.

In the US players need to double the last raise (or the last bet if it was not a raise) sorry for the confusion.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using 2+2 Forums

Player 1 bets 10. The minimum raise for Player 2 is another 10, so 20 to go. The minimum raise for Player 3 would be another 10, or 30 to go, not 40 as your post above would have it. (In my experience, your local rules may vary, not applicable where prohibited by law, etc.)

From Robert's Rules version 4, Betting and Raising, "6. Any wager must be at least the size of the previous bet or raise in that round, unless a player is going all-in."

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using 2+2 Forums

"Double it" applies to a raise. It does not apply to a re-raise. People try to apply it there.

That's where the confusion comes from.

That's exactly with Playbig is saying.

If you bet 10, and I make it 20, I'm still just raising you 10. So the next raise would have to be a minimum of 10, to a total of 30.

Problem is when poorly run rooms propagate the "half-raise on all-in reopens action" and it makes people think that's how the rule should be, then when those players visit well run rooms they think the room is doing it wrong.

Because a half-raise does reopen action on limit poker (half or more bet is treated same as full bet in structured games) some rooms "make it the same on both to make it easier for everyone"... to which I usually respond that "it's easier to build a house with no doors and no windows, but...."

Not anywhere I've played. Either:

1. This rule varies by region, or

2. You're confusing different scenarios:

- A bets, B calls, C goes all in for less than a full bet, whether it's more than a half bet or not. Or, A bets, B goes all in for less than a full bet, C calls. I've never played where A can re-raise in either scenario.

- A bets, B goes all in for less than a full bet, whether it's more than half a bet or not. C can re-raise, but how much can vary (some places allow a full bet on top of B's, others only allow C to complete up to the next integer, or some mix of those two).

- A checks, B goes all in for less than a full bet. C can definitely raise, subject to house rules. But if C calls or folds, I have played in places where A cannot check raise in any scenario.

IME the half-or-more rule comes from limit poker.

In CO we have a $100 max bet, so all games are spread-limit (or fixed limit). We use the half-or-more rule both both games. So;

A bets 50
B goes allin for 80
C calls

A has the option to re-raise. Minimum would be 130, maximum would be 180.

this ruling is often confused with the incomplete raise rule... but it's almost always the same. he cannot raise.

the "more than half" thing has to do with whether or not he has to complete the raise or have his action ruled as just a call (or have it rounded up to a complete bet for a limit game)

I simply cannot believe this. The half bet rule in limit is standard in every room I've ever played in, including some I believe you play in. I must be missing something.

Here's RRoP:

1/2 bet is standard in limit though I seem to recall someone here maybe it was pfapfap saying he worked somewhere that used the full bet for limit.

It is a reality in Europe or places who play by that European rule

Well, at least part of the confusion here is that according to RRoP, A can only complete the raise, not make a full raise on top.

For example, according to RRoP, A bets 6 chips, B raises 10 chips all in, C calls, A can re-raise to 12 chips.

It's possible you're right, and it's just uncommon enough for me to have noticed I have the rule wrong. Like even as C, I tend to coldcall a (full bet minus one chip) raise rather than 3-bet for one chip because the extra 1 chip isn't worth the narrowing of my range.

But I'm positive I've been told (as A) that I cannot reraise in both the Oaks 6/12 and the Bay 8/16. I know this because both times I held the nuts on the turn but was vulnerable to draws - and both times people commented how they knew I had the nuts because I tried to reraise when it was not allowed. (As an amusing side note, in both cases they called my river bet anyway.)