blonde poker forum

Surely i should get the chance to reraise the big stack pre flop, obviously not.

Multi-Table Tournament
Table Name Hand ID Game Stakes
MTT Table 11 13652772-62 Holdem No Limit 100/200
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Hand Start.
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Seat 1 : vndghs has $2,785
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Seat 2 : colinhh has $8,720
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Seat 3 : BOOGIELHC has $3,900
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Seat 4 : yoyo_jigga has $23,830
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Seat 5 : Court02 has $3,250
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Seat 6 : gsf13 has $535
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Seat 7 : Zispin! has $6,810
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Seat 9 : PDee has $3,950
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : yoyo_jigga is the dealer.
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Court02 posted small blind.
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : gsf13 posted big blind.
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Game [62] started with 8 players.
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Dealing Hole Cards.
[Nov 27 01:53:53] : Seat 7 : Zispin! has Ah Ks
[Nov 27 01:53:54] : Stakes: 100/200 Current level: 4 Level up in: 7 min. Break in: 2 min. Players : 102
[Nov 27 01:53:56] : Zispin! called 200
[Nov 27 01:53:57] : PDee folded.
[Nov 27 01:53:59] : vndghs folded.
[Nov 27 01:54:07] : colinhh folded.
[Nov 27 01:54:08] : BOOGIELHC folded.
[Nov 27 01:54:14] : Stakes: 100/200 Current level: 4 Level up in: 6 min. Break in: 2 min. Players : 102
[Nov 27 01:54:18] : yoyo_jigga called 200 and raised 300
[Nov 27 01:54:18] : Court02 folded.
[Nov 27 01:54:23] : gsf13 called 300 and raised 35 and is All-in
[Nov 27 01:54:23] : Under-Raise rules are now in effect.
[Nov 27 01:54:24] : Zispin! called 335
[Nov 27 01:54:28] : yoyo_jigga called 35
[Nov 27 01:54:28] : Dealing flop.
[Nov 27 01:54:28] : Board cards [Qd Kd 2c]
[Nov 27 01:54:31] : Zispin! checked.
[Nov 27 01:54:33] : yoyo_jigga checked.
[Nov 27 01:54:33] : Dealing turn.
[Nov 27 01:54:33] : Board cards [Qd Kd 2c 8h]
[Nov 27 01:54:34] : Stakes: 100/200 Current level: 4 Level up in: 6 min. Break in: 2 min. Players : 102
[Nov 27 01:54:35] : Zispin! bet 800
[Nov 27 01:54:39] : yoyo_jigga called 800 and raised 22,495 and is All-in
[Nov 27 01:54:40] : Zispin! called 5,475 and is All-in
[Nov 27 01:54:41] : Showdown!
[Nov 27 01:54:41] : Seat 7 : Zispin! has Ah Ks
[Nov 27 01:54:43] : Seat 4 : yoyo_jigga has 2d 8d
[Nov 27 01:54:43] : Seat 6 : gsf13 has Jh 9h
[Nov 27 01:54:43] : Seat 7 : Zispin! has Ah Ks
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : Board cards [Qd Kd 2c 8h Ad]
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : Seat 4 : yoyo_jigga has 2d 8d
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : yoyo_jigga has Flush AKQ82
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : Seat 7 : Zispin! has Ah Ks
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : Zispin! has Two Pair: Aces and Kings
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : yoyo_jigga wins 12,550 with Flush AKQ82
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : Seat 6 : gsf13 has Jh 9h
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : gsf13 has High Card : Ace
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : Seat 7 : Zispin! has Ah Ks
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : Zispin! has Two Pair: Aces and Kings
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : Seat 4 : yoyo_jigga has 2d 8d
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : yoyo_jigga has Flush AKQ82
[Nov 27 01:54:48] : yoyo_jigga wins 1,705 with Flush AKQ82
[Nov 27 01:55:01] : Stakes: 100/200 Current level: 4 Level up in: 6 min. Break in: 1 min. Players : 102
[Nov 27 01:55:10] : Hand is over.

 

unfortunately not. You can't limp raise an underraise,  but you could have raised if you were behind him.

The rule is that any player who has already acted cannot raise after an under raise but any player who has not yet acted can, including the blinds.

The first raise wasn't an under raise, so the limper should be allowed to reraise that. 

This is clearly a bug in the software, probably understandable as it would be a lot simpler to apply a general rule that no more raising can occur after an under raise instead of looking at all the possible scenarios.

You could e-mail the site about it, but they are unlikely to consider it a priority.

that's what I thought to.

There is a difference between limp - limp - under raise and limp - raise - under raise.  In the second case action has already been re-opened for the limper by the first raiser.  He does not therefore fall into the definition of having acted.

Look at the situation of raise - reraise - under raise.  It would be absurd to state that the first raiser cannot do anything but call.

I cant see why he cant re-raise, he isn't raising an under-raise, he is trying to raise a legitimate raise and then the under-raise. The under-raise shouldn't have any affect because the limper hasn't acted to the raise yet. If  the guy had raised, he had called, then the other guy had under-raised alin, then he couldn't do anything. I think. I guess I should have saved time and said "i agree with doubleup"

it reminds me of party back in the day, you could re-raise anytime you wanted.. so if you made it 900.. and the SB went all in for 901 total, and the BB called, you could then re-raise... such fun and games. Amazing how it was ever number one poker room.

I agree that logically it makes sense for the limper to be able to limp-raise in this scenario.

However, the rules I've seen applied usually align with ThaDiamond's interpretetation, ie any underraise now locks the betting actions for anyone who has acted previously, preventing further reraising from those who have already acted. Anyone who has yet to act may call or raise at their discretion though.

Standardised rules would be sweet.

Presumably you are referring to the ignorant people who run British Casino cardrooms.

Quote from the first rulebook I came across in a google search:

6. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise.

Example: Player A bets $100 and Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn't fully raised. (Player A could have raised, because Player B raised.)

The last sentence in paragraphs deals with the point in question.

Well there's no standardisation of rules. I'm not sure where you got that rule from.

This rule was available from a site called "Poker Rules" and agrees with Nicky's interpretation.

UNDER RAISE
This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising - going all-in to raise - has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked. The term locked here means that any player who has already acted in the round (checked, called, or raised) may no longer raise. They may only call or fold. However, players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet) may raise the expected raise for that betting round, after calling. If the under-raise is half or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply.


I find the above rule slightly amibiguous but if it is interpreted as expressed then it would prevent a player from limp raising an underraise (defined as a raise allin, less than half of a minimum riase.)
Admittedly it doesn't specifically refer to a scenario where someone limps, followed by a legitimate riase, followed by an underraise.

Personally, I would allow the limper to reraise in this case, and f*** any rules that say otherwise. It makes sense to allow them to react to the initial raise.

Additionally it avoids situations such as this.

You have player A with 2k, player B with 3k and player C sitting with 403 chips at blinds 50 100.

A limps UTG.

B riases to 400, C pushes for 403 and A can only call.

If B riases to 405 chips instead and C calls for 403 then A could now reraise.  This is plainly stupid.

I would be very surprised if this does not refer to limit poker as there is no such thing as an "expected raise" in nl.

ps when I said first rulebook I found in google, I meant a proper rulebook and not a moron's blog with his opinion on how poker should be played.

What do you mean by proper rulebook? As far as I'm aware there are no standardised set of rules, but merely various body's interpretations on particular situations. This leads to ambiguities such as is illustrated on this issue. There is no "proper rulebook" as such.

I don't get the reference to moron blogger? The rule I quoted was from a well known online poker site, not that i give it much credibility based on this!

I think most poker players would agree that in this case common sense dictates the limper should be allowed to re-act to the initial raiser's raise.

The section you quoted has either been written by an idiot or refers to limit poker.

Sorry if my first response was a bit brusque - I was multi-tabling at the time.

What is the url of the rulebook that it came from?

My definition of a "proper" rulebook is one where the author has made an attempt to cover the basics of betting and play and most of the common situations caused by dealer or player error.

You haven't got a bloody clue what you're talking about.

Any player that has already acted (this include limp preflop and even check postflop) may not re-raise affter there has been an under-raise. How can the hand above NOT be an underraise when the all in player has gone in for another 35 when the first raise was 300.

Are you going to argue that the TDA rules are bull also?

38. In no-limit and pot limit, less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who already has acted.

the issue is that there has been a full (legal)raise after the guy has limped, so the problem apparently comes from the fact that a full raise has been made, no one has acted on that raise, before the under-raise is made... ie,  the betting has already been reopened before the under-raise. This isn't clarified by the line quoted above.


You can defo re-raise on most online sites, no idea about live play

Which online site? I doubt that very much. B2B maybe but I can't think of any other site where you might be able to raise here.

There is no issue with the fact that that there has been a raise in between the limper and the under riase. The rule is simple. If you haven't already acted you can re-raise, if you have then you can only call or fold. I had a similar argument recently with a swede in a cash game, it may be a regional thing but I am certain that TDA rule is the one in most common usage and to say that there is a bug in the software is just ridiulous.

stars/FTP/UB/Party just off the top of my head. I'm not even 100% certain, but im about 99% certain. I'm 100% certain of stars/Party, but not the other two.

Fair enough. The rules on their site don't mentiont he under-raise rule so I'll take it that the confusion in the thread is becauise these stes do it the other way. If tribecca does it the TDA way it doesn't make it wrong though.

Her's a hand I just played on Party Poker at 50/1. UTg mini raises to $2. Shorty calls. and I make it $10. Ut calls, and shoty goes goes all in for a total of $14. No that my initial raise was $8 and his all in is $4 more so its an underraise. Should I be allowed to reraise here?

no, you shouldn't, because no bet reopens the action.. but its party, so you prolly can do what you want, including take your bet back. However, his bet is 50% of the raise, so I donno if that reopens the betting or not. i think it does in limit, not sure about NL though. I am clueless as you can tell.

I was allowed to push all in which IMO can't be right. My initial raise is $8. His all in raise is only $4 more. I shouldn't be allowed to reraise here should i?

Diamond

As I stated previously, the first rulebook I came across on the net, specifically gave the example of the situation quoted by the original poster and clearly stated that the limper was allowed to reraise.

The TDA rule you quoted is also quite clear - and the limper would be alllowed to re-raise under it - because the betting has already been reopened for him by the first raiser. 

I actually don't think that programming the software correctly is that complicated.  It would just be a matter of applying some sort of red/green marker to each player.  Red can only call an under raise, green can raise.

Initially every player is green.  In the original scenario the limper gets a red when he limps, but as soon as the second player raises the limper reverts to green and the raiser now moves to red.  Any player flat calling or reraising after the under raise moves to red.

As far as sites are concerned, you shouldn't be able to reraise in the example you gave from Party - the betting was closed for you and an under raise does not re-open it .  Ladbrokes were also wrong for a long time and allowed re-raising of under raises, they may still be, I haven't  played cash there for a while.

I understand what you're saying and it does make a lot of sense that this is the way it should be but I don't agree with your interpretation of the TDA rule. You are elaborating on it and making an assumption but the rule is crystal clear. If you have already acted and there is an underraise behind you then you cannot reraise. It doesn't matter if the betting was reopened in between. If that was the case then the TDA rule would state this. Tribecca have obviously taken this rule and appplied it literally as it has been written.

Here is a more complete explanation of the rule from Paddy Power which is a ribecca skin.

"Under-raise:   This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so.  If the player under-raising à going all-in to raise à has less than ¢ of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked.  The term locked here means that any player who has already acted in the round (checked, called, or raised) may no longer raise.  They may only call or fold.  However, players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet) may raise the expected raise for that betting round, after calling.  If the under-raise is ¢ or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply."

http://www.paddypowerpoker.com/poker-academy/poker-jargon.php

The TDA rule (from the ept website) states" Less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to a player who has already acted"

The key word is "re-open" - this implies that action is closed.  In the original post scenario action has not been closed for the limper. 

However, you have established where the error originates and this is from Paady/Power Tribeca.  When I see language like "expected raise" in reference to nl betting I am satsfied that the document has been drafted by an idiot.

It's not the first time the TDA rules have come under criticism for being too vague. The under raise rule is not something that can be explained in a one liner. In fairness to tribecca they have made a rule and explained it pretty clearly. unlike other sites who have no explanation of their under raise rule (if they even have one). It was fantastically exploitable on Ladbrokes.

ep raises to 4 and has 12 left
some callers
your in late pos with KK and reraise to 15
ep goes all in for 1 more
more callers
you shove trapping a wealth of dead money, and are loving it if you get called

I sent Party an email about that hand. :)

"Thank you for contacting us.

Under brick and mortar poker rules, you are right, your options should have only been, call or fold.

However, we have escalated this issue to our poker room manager for clarification.   Please allow us some time to look into this issue and provide a response."

It is a bug in the software, it came in during the last major upgrade. So whoever said it was a bug is quite correct.

The under raise rule is very simple really, if you are allowed to raise BEFORE someone under-raises then you still can. If not then you can't, it is treated as a call.

I have played under lots of different rule's in different country's and i have never seen the under-raise rule's handled any other way but this. This includes TDA rules.

This is one of the situations that i feel does NOT need a standard rule set as everyone running a card room seems to have this one under control!

http://www.vcpoker.com/content/Glossary/UnderRaise.html

Glossary - Under-raise

Under-raise: This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so.  If the player under-raising … going all-in to raise … has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked. The term locked here means that any player who has already acted in the round (checked, called, or raised) may no longer raise.  They may only call or fold.  However, players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet) may raise the expected raise for that betting round, after calling.  If the under-raise is half or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply.

From VC's own glossary, according exactly with the wording on paddy power quoted by nicky earlier.

If it is a bug in the system, then it is one that they substantiate in their own explanation!

I think everyone agrees though that the limper should always be able to re-act to a legitimate raise. This is just logical. It also shows that a set of standardised, coherent and well-expressed rules, not just the ambiguous mutterings of the TDA and various poker sites would stop these stupid semantic debates dead and free up time so we can discuss whether min riasing is a valid tournament strategy.

As in they limp and then someone raises, the betting has yet to reach them.......

A legitimate raise re-starts the betting round. It has to go 'around' the table.

JungleCat

"If the under-raise is half or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply."

This is from a glossary written by an idiot and not a rule book written by someone who understands the rules of poker.

I'm not saying I think the rule makes sense. In fact every post I've said quite explicitly that it is logical that the limper should be allowed to react to a legitimate raise, irrespective of any underraise succeeding it!

But it's no use us poker players saying "Oh they should do it like this" "Oh this is how I interpret the rules" "Oh they've always done it like this in my local casino" "Oh look how this website have defined it." Ask 100 different poker players to interpret a particular situation you'll get 50 different responses in a lot of cases.

There should be a set of standardised rules to refer to, put together by poker players with good communicative skills, that explicitly deal with situations like this and this should be an industry standard. Then all the boring semantic discussions like this one wouldn't exist. Someone could just quote rule 4.5 or whatever and we'd all sleep sound in our beds knowing we could limp reraise UTG if jones in seat 7 decides to underraise flushy's min raise.

I think the TDA are going some way to accomplish this but before this happens they need to tighten up their definitions which are a bit woolly in various areas and their rulebook needs to be accepted as an industry standard.