It has recently come up as a topic of discussion on what a dealer response should be regarding dead raises.

My understanding/feeling:

1) A dealer should be able to directly answer "can I raise?"
2) A dealer should be able to explain/describe the dead raise rule in general (if the all-in is less than a minimum raise, then only players who haven't put in the last amount before the all-in can raise)

3) I feel like "is that a dead raise?" is a bit less sketchy to answer than "will player A be allowed to raise?" or "Which players can raise over that bet?" even though they are asking basically the same question.

So what about it? Anyone disagree with my first 2 points, or have opinions on answering the questions in 3 violating OPTAH?

What is a dead raise?

When a player goes allin for an amount larger than the previous bet, but not enough to be a full raise. This raise is dead the players who have put in the previous amount.

EXAMPLE: Player A checks, Player B bets 50, C calls 50, D goes allin for 75, action on Player E.

Players E and A can raise. Players B and C cannot (presuming NLHE, in limit games they can raise, because it only has to be 1/2 of a full bet to reopen action). This frequently confuses players (and sometimes dealers and floors).

So, if Player E says "can I raise?", I feel very comfortable that the dealer can and should say yes. Similarly, if the action gets back to B and they ask "can I raise?", I feel very comfortable that the dealer can and should say no.

If Player E asks "is that a dead raise?", I feel very comfortable that the dealer can say "To reopen the action to players who already acted, the bet must be a full legal raise." I'm less comfortable that they can say "yes, to Players B and C."

If Player E asks "can B reraise?" I don't feel super comfortable saying "no" or if they ask if A can raise, saying yes. My lean is just to explain the procedure of the rule in the general sense.

Never heard the term "dead raise" before. But yes a dealer can answer the question, and yes he can explainthe rule if a player doesnt understand why the betting is or is not reopened. Ithas nothing to do with OPTAH.

In fact, RROP specifically addresses this

Agree, "dead raise" is not a term that is universally known, or in any way standard. Sounds like a regional thing.

Yes, dealer can tell you whether 1 or more all-in for less than a full raise will re-open betting to a given player, but in general should only answer your question when it is your turn to act.

While it might, in some small way, affect action, so does answering any procedural question a player might have. Nonetheless, a dealer should answer these questions when they are asked while it is that player's turn to act. Rules should not be kept secret.

LOL I feel like I'm taking crazy pills that "dead raise" isn't a known term.

Dinesh, to clarify, you are OK with Player E asking "Can Player B re-raise" and answering that question?

To clarify my own position, I don't personally object to answering any of those questions. I'm more playing defense against the occasional bonkers OPTAHNITS who fly off the handle at things like dealers reading tabled hands (OMG you are influencing action, must not read tabled hands until ALL are tabled), announcing bet sizes, etc.

I am. I understand why some might think that is over the line, but trying to make a superfine distinction between explaining the full rule so that the player can do the math and just telling them who can raise is just wasting time to me. I'd be OK if a room made it a policy that the dealer could only explain the general rule. I would not be OK if the room prevented explaining the rule, when asked a question like this.

The proper term for "dead raise" is "action only", for the record. But I doubt most people know what that is, either.

Thx, appreciate it.

I've been playing poker in New England since 2005 and have never heard the term "dead raise" before, but of course I know and understand the concept. Anywhere I played the question asked would only be "Can I/he/she raise?", simple as that

"dead raise" is a straddle in a room that doesn't allow live straddles?

I kinda figured this was what you meant, but I have only heard it used like this...
Or when someone raises a live straddle in the dark.

I agree that the dealer should answer the question, but the person asking the question should wait until action is on them.

I don't want to make another thread for this, but this thread sparked this question in my mind:

NLHE

Player A- All in for 50
Player B- Calls 50
Player C- All in for 90
Player D- Calls
Player E- All in for 125
Player B- Calls 125

What are player D's options?

Call or fold. B can raise. If B raises, D can reraise.

D hasn’t been raised, a full raise is 130. If D raises, he’s basically raising himself.

Where I play in Northern California, the UTG player can put out a live straddle in limit Omaha/8 games as long as it's not a kill pot. In kill pots, the UTG player can make a blind raise, but it's a dead raise (i.e., not live).

I agree with your answer except for the bolded. A full raise would be to 140.

1) I agree that the term 'dark' is more widely used than 'dead'. I only know of 'dead' SB and B in our area. (As well as 'dead money' from chips of Players who have folded out of hand.) I can see the correlation of live v dead .. just not used around here in MWest.

We use '(Front) Straddle' for UTG, 'Live Straddle' for B, 'Dark Bet' for any other position.

2) Although a Player may be 'offering' information to the rest of the remaining Players by asking questions. They should be afforded those answers when action is on them. I will sometimes make a point to ask in an effort to keep Players in the hand and help my pot odds.

3) The A to E example above is a spot on 'Dealer Test' question ... for NL. In Limit I believe that both Players all-ins would be considered raises. What I don't know is if D would have to put in 100 (not 90) and/or if B would have to put in 150 (not 125) in response to the all-ins. Anyone? GL

Gahhhh yeah clearly. Oops!!!

It depends on what the limit stakes were. The bet size has to be at least 50 on this street (so 25-50 on the turn, or 50-100 on the flop) since A went all in for 50 with an initial bet.

If it was 25-50 on the turn, then the all in for 50 is a bet, the all in raise to 90 is considered a raise (because it's more than 50% of the required amount for a full raise, or 75). the all in to 125 is also a raise (because it's more than 90+25=115), and there is one raise remaining (in a 4 bet cap room), to 125+50=175.

If it's a 100-200 game on the flop, then we're betting in increments of 100. So the first bet of 50 is considered a full bet. The raise to 90 is only 40 more, so it is not a raise, it is action only. The next raise would be a complete to 150 if the player had enough chips - but he only has 125, so he puts that in, and since that is more than 100, that is now considered a completed 2nd bet (raise). Now there are still two raises remaining, and the next player to raise has to make it 125+100=225.

All the above assumes that the chips play in $5 increments or lower. In a real 100-200 game they would often agree that only $25 chips play, which would change what is allowed by each of the all ins on each street. In the example above, the first all in to $90 could actually only be to $75, and his remaining $15 would not play in the hand. The second all-in to $125 would be fine, and would still be considered a completion for the 2nd bet, since it's at least $50 more than the initial ($50) bet. If he had more chips, a normal raise would be to complete the $75 action only bet up to $150.

Did you make up this term?

One of the obvious signs that your "dead raise" term is non-standard that the extra action isn't a raise at all. It's not a live raise, a dead raise, or any kind of raise. Even the suggested question, "Can Player B re-raise?" is nonsensical, because there is no raise. Using non-standard terminology just leads to confusion.

I see that someone above suggested this could be a regional expression. That makes sense; as poker popularity grew in the last two decades, a lot of strange things crept into the game. My first thought was that it was your home game term.

Floormen are so bad when it comes to this rule. Calling it a dead raise overly complicates matters. You’re not facing a dead raise because it’s not a raise at all.

Never heard the term. Been playing casino poker since 1974. Dealing since early 90s.

Dead money implies that it's money that doesn't count towards the bet/raise.

Like when you post your missed blinds. The BB is live, the SB is dead.

Would any floors\dealers here consider it a violation of OPTAH if a player not facing action (or even not in the hand) asks 'Does that bet reopen action?'

Also, I have been told by a few dealers that they cannot answer questions on specific situations 'Is player 4 allowed to raise?' but they can answer house rules questions 'What size raise is required to repopen action to the original opener?
'

I'm fairly certain that in our room we allow this kind of information to be given to players. Whether or not a person can raise in a certain situation is based on house rules in many cases, so it would just be application of those house rules. We try not to play tricks on players.

I'm not sure 'what' it violates, but no person (in hand, at table folded, not at table) should be making inquires unless action is on them. Correcting possible errors during/immediately after the fact is different and should be addressed as quickly as possible in an effort prevent further issues.

Room dependent on how correct your English needs to be to get desired answers. Answering 'Who can raise if I call?' is a lot quicker than going from Player to Player and breaking down the size of each bet and raise size ... and then the Player tank while he does the math. At least at lower limits lets try to be reasonable with the relevant information to keep the hand moving. IMO it's more appropriate to talk about bet sizing than specific Players, even if it's obvious in some cases that it's the same thing.

In our PLO games, a Dealer is only supposed to answer about the size of the bet a Player is facing, the amount of any all-ins and what amount a pot bet would be. The Player is then responsible for breaking it down from there. This is much tighter than in a 1/2 NL table in the same room.

We had an 'incident' where a Dealer wouldn't tell an acting Player if UTG had just limped or raised with a green chip when UTG+1 had 5 reds in front of him. Player was required to figure it out based on the 'pot' question. The obvious back door is to challenge the size of the pot and then the Dealer has to break down the bets!! GL