straddle is 3rd blind essentially, so min raise would be 8 correct? some guy thought it was 6 today cause he thought since it was 1-2-4, u could go to 6. i told him min raise is 8, so hopefully i was right

This is room dependent. While i think it should be $8, many places will say $6.

But I think its a silly point to get worked up about because no one should be min raising the straddle anyway.

At my casino, it would be $6 as the straddle raise was $2 above the BB, so the next raise has to be $2 more, i.e. $6. But very likely to be casino specific.

Also, worth noting that my casino won't allow a straddle at $1/$2 or $2/$3 - it's a blind bet with no option if just called.

It all depends on whether your casino considers a straddle to be a 3rd blind or a raise. What it should be considered has been argued ad nauseam on here.

If it's considered a raise to $4, then the min raise should be to $6.

If it's considered a 3rd blind, the min raise should be to $8.

Regardless, I never understand why there's an argument over this— does it really matter?

At Harrahs Chester it is 8$

If it is a live straddle it is essentially a third blind therefore the min raise is to eight. This extends to a restraddle of 8 making the first raise min 16 etc. Your mileage may vary.

AW

6

If this is in a casino, ask a couple of Floor what the house rule is.

If this is a home game, just decide and make sure everybody knows.

Only if you're a fish.

There's no official stand on whether a straddle is a min raise or a standing blind... It's really room dependent.

Or if it's inconsistent within the same room (which it is at my local room).

Should be 6

Avoid the straddle since it is a horrible play especially at 1/2.

if the guy to your right straddles, either fold or make it $15. About the third time you do this, he will stop.

I our room, it's $8 since it is considered a blind and therefore must be doubled to be a raise.

Some places $6, some places $8. It should be $8 everywhere, since a straddle is essentially a new big blind. If it were a "blind raise", then why would they get an option to raise again?
But it should be universally $8 because if it checks around, the min bet on the turn should be $4 since that is what they had to call for the BB to enter the pot preflop.

in one of the charity rooms I frequent, the minimum raise on any street, facing any bet, is the size of the BB. If someone raises to $10, than someone could reraise to $12.

There is also a 3 raise rule at this room. $1 sb, $2 bb, $4 straddle, often next guy makes it $6, and someone will cap the preflop action at $8.

Pretty stupid rule IMO, but makes it fun when the straddle comes, next player makes it $6, and I am in position to cap it at $30-$40.

This is not poker.

Are you saying a minraise is a fish move? That's a pretty sweeping generalization, especially on loose-passive tables where a minraise will be called by all sorts of trash and if you have a decent read that straddler will repop. Or sometimes a minraise will work well as a blocking bet which is useful if you want to see a cheap multiway flop with deep stacks.

Seems obvious to me.

It's about tree fiddy.

So if someone bets $25, three people call then a player goes all in for $27, the $27 would be a legal raise and reopen the betting?

Do not like.

Huh?

The way I understood his post is that in his $1/$2 game, UTG can open to $10, then UTG+1 can raise to $12.

So, presumably, in this game a bet of $25 could be "raised" to $27 and be considered a legal raise.

Any amount can be raised by 1bb.

Ok. Reread the first part of his post. You're right. Weird rule.

If it is, then Harrahs Chester changed the rule again.

When Harrahs Chester first allowed straddles, a debate about this broke out. The debate is chronicled in the Harrahs Chester thread.

The problem was that dealers were not handling the situation uniformly. I brought the issue to Norm's attention (including referring him to Robert's Rules of Poker, which makes it pretty clear that a straddle is a 3d blind). Norm consulted with another floor supervisor, and they both looked incredulous that a straddle would ever be considered something other than a blind $2 raise of the big blind instead of new big blind in and of itself. So that seemed to settle things for a while about how it would be handled at Harrahs Chester.

A days later, Norm sought me out. He said that he was consulting with some "poker authorities" in Vegas who work at Harrahs to see what their experience was. Norm said that, after receiving such input, he was going to put the issue to vote among the staff at Chester, and the results of the vote would be the rule going forward.

Norm never told me how the vote worked out, but since that time dealers have been uniformly been treating a straddle as a blind raise. So a min-raise of the straddle would be another $2, or $6 total to go.

Wow, what an incredible waste of time over something so trivial.

Whoever's in charge there should've just decided whether it's a 3rd blind or a raise and said, "this is how it's going to be."

As long as they're consistent with the amount, it makes almost no difference at all which one they choose.

Hate to see how they handle an issue that actually matters.

Sure it is. It's a bad rule set, but not only is it poker, it's a form of poker whose nuances many players won't understand well and of which a thinking player may thus be able to take advantage.

(I'm not sure how exactly I'd adjust my play to take advantage, but I'm sure I'd work it out before playing much in such a game.)


In some "friendly" home games, check raising is prohibited. This simplifies the game and imo makes it less interesting, but there are still opportunities to take advantage. (e.g., c-bet in position more; be less willing to play drawing hands out of position) It's a bad rule, but it's still poker.